I stayed up late last night to watch Richard Dawkins on The Hour. George Stroumboulopoulos was okay, but I always find it frustrating when such an important figure and a vast topic is speedily addressed between commercials.One thing Dawkins said that I totally agree with:
Just because it is consoling it doesn’t mean it’s true!
He’s right. And one of the things I’ve learned as a pastor and just as a human being is how quickly we’ll cling to a consoling thought and insist on it’s truth simply because it consoles us. I think we are vastly addicted to such consoling thoughts. I remember once a young woman came to church with another man and her husband was sitting on the other side of the church. When I asked her about it later that week, she said that she fell in love with this man and kicked her husband out. I challenged her on that, and she said that because it made her feel so good, it must be from God. It ended her marriage and destroyed her family. Which is why Paul in Romans said, “Should we sin so that grace can abound?”, meaning that we cannot, just because something feels right, go back and say God willed it. I’m sorry for the vivid illustration, but we all do it to some degree. We all find what brings us comfort and pleasure. Then, no matter how twisted our method of getting that, we thank God for it in the end. This is what Dawkins was talking about: even if it isn’t true, if it consoles us, then we’ll believe it to be true. Just some thoughts.
You can catch the video HERE.
The fine art photograph is the creation of my friend Mark Hemmings.
If you like this post, or if you'd like to use it, consider buying me a beer.
I must thank the people over at Russell’s Teapot for the heads up on this YouTube video. Frankly, I’m astounded at O’Reilly’s strategy. This is, in my opinion, is how NOT to debate this whole atheist/theist issue. O’Reilly fails miserably I think. Why? For these reasons:
Personal testimony proves nothing;
- The argument that Christianity is a moral fiber doesn’t prove it is true. Military rule can provide law and order too;
- Deflecting the argument with silly humor helps nothing;
- Poking fun at other gods or religions doesn’t prove they don’t exist or are wrong;
- To assert that atheists have committed atrocities too is only an attempt to share blame. It proves nothing except that all humanity is susceptible to evil practices;
- Opting for Christianity just in case it is the right religion is simply spiritual gambling;
I could go on, but why don’t you just watch the video. I might add that I was impressed with Dawkins’ demeanor. Take a look:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w8OhiLU7cU]
If you like this post, or if you'd like to use it, consider buying me a beer.
To put it bluntly, some of the language coming from the pens and mouths of atheists is the language of hate. Religion has largely succumbed to this same criticism, I admit. Humanity is the common denominator. So, I suppose I’m not surprised that atheists such as Dawkins , Harris and Onfray will not hesitate to ridicule believers, no matter what their stripe. He calls believers “faith-heads”, as if teasing and bullying is going to help. I’m in agreement with lots of what Dawkins says, but scorning and ridiculing believers simply mirrors the very problem that he has with religion and its followers. Religion, atheists such as Dawkins claim, is the poison of the earth, the reason for all the troubles in the world, and so it and its adherents need to be stopped.
I think it is wrong to assert that it is faulty thinking that brings people to the battle field. It isn’t opposing ideas that cause one tribe to exterminate another, or differing opinions that lead one religion to persecute another, or juxtaposed truths that lead one group to harm another. I’m one who does happen to believe that out of the fullness of a man’s heart, he will speak, and out of the fullness of his heart, he will act. But I’m also convinced that it is not simply by believing a certain truth that leads one to harm another, but the disdain that it potentially leads to. Frankly, I think it is hatred of another person or group that leads to its persecution. Although ideology may be the root, the blossom is hatred, and persecution the fruit. Most people I know will check their ideology the moment any prejudicial conclusions can be drawn from it. If any “truth” leads to hatred, most people I know will question it.
So when I hear people like Dawkins, Harris, Onfray and company using language that rings of arrogance, scorn, disdain and even hatred, I seriously have to ask myself: “Can’t they see that they are perpetuating the problem?” They sound just like religious zealots. I ask that we all retreat from the language of ridicule. It doesn’t solve anything at all, but pours more fuel on the same old fire that we should be trying to quench. I agree that religion has been shamefully the blame for many woes. But can’t we see that ideas will never benignly reign over us? Truths will not win our day. Rationalism will not bring peace on earth. It will be love, which means respect, service, humility and compassion.
I want to hear what the atheists are saying. It is important to hear. I find it helpful. I truly believe I benefit from what they are saying. But when it is soaked in scorn, I’m afraid of where it is coming from and where it will lead us to.
I want to thank the atheist site A Load of Bright for the very honorable mention in introducing his blogroll. It’s dialogue like this that is hopeful.
The fine art photograph is the creation of my friend, Mark Hemmings. Nothing to do with this article, but think it is strikingly gorgeous.
If you like this post, or if you'd like to use it, consider buying me a beer.
on jake’s cue from a comment yesterday, i’ve responded to an article he referred to me. Bishop Spong, in an online forum article, writes:
I welcome the attention that serious atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are offering the world at this moment through their books. They are bringing what I regard as a deserved criticism and a necessary correction to what Christianity has become in our generation.
i whole-heartedly agree with this opening paragraph. i think it needs to be heard, especially in our churches. he continues:
I believe, therefore, that atheism as a challenge to organized religion has a worthy vocation to fulfill.
and:
I believe that both God and Jesus are so much more than these distorting images suggest, I am confident that a dialogue with those who call themselves “atheists†would not only be good for the church but it would also allow deep and profound truth to emerge. Final paragraph: The choice between the theism of the church and the atheism of those who reject the God of the church is to me a sterile and lifeless choice. Such a meeting between believers and atheists might lead us to examine what Paul Tillich called “the God beyond the gods of men and women.†If believers cannot have that conversation because it compromises their God definition, then that is a tip-off that the God they serve is in fact an idol and atheism is always a proper response to idolatry.
i agree with Spong. in fact, it goes hand in hand with a post i did months ago called 10 reasons why i listen to atheists. Bishop Spong’s article is brief and to the point. well done!
If you like this post, or if you'd like to use it, consider buying me a beer.
David Hayward is an artist trapped in a pastor's body, stripping to the essential.
