Does God exist? We've just had another tired old debate on the issue on Q&A between Richard Dawkins and Cardinal Pell. A debate that pits the one who does not believe against the one who does as if these are the only two possible positions a person can ascribe to. And with that ascribing comes scorn for the other and a full belief in the starkness of one worldview over the other. Why does it have to be so black and white?
In the breadth of human understanding is there not a place of grey, of doubt, of humility? Most people have their belief and a debate like this just pits one against the other in a futile struggle (how do you prove that God does or does not exist?) that brings out the trolls and the worst in people. It is destructive, not constructive, it is divisive and is typical of societies (media and politics especially) want to form a circle around the proponents and yell 'fight, fight, fight.' With a fight comes entertainment and with a fight comes a fallout where in the case of politics for example parties can pick up the pieces of those that are divided to go with their worldview.
I am not immune to these practices, I have taken sides but I still long to rise above those base tendencies and see people come together respectfully to share in knowledge and wisdom and values. I would like the debate to take on a different tone, one where those that believe are not ridiculed as being deluded fools that believe in an invisible friend. It is insulting to suggest that people of faith have not reasoned and researched and wrestled with concepts and interpretations and against indoctrination and prejudices to be where they are in their faith. Faith is not an unreasonable position or a sign of intellectual inferiority. It could be said that those who rely only on the evidence of their senses and that ignore exploring the evidence that their heart may present to them are not weighing up all the evidence available.
But this could meander once again into the territory of division and hate. We hate what we don't understand. I respect those that truly seek to understand those that are different to them and it's those people that I would like to see leading this public discussion.
People like Alain de Botton who has written a book called 'Religion for Atheists' who in his search for wisdom though being an atheist did not discount the world of faith as having value.
A renowned scientist and self confessed atheist Mr Alan Lightman said “it is possible to be atheist and still value faith, and that it is possible to be religious and still value thought.”
I find myself more prepared to listen to someone who can come with a humble approach as opposed to the shouty, disrespectful and closed minded views that can come from the extreme poles on this discussion.
Peter Rollins is a crazy Irishman that on the Christian side of the fence has demonstrated that he embraces doubt, that he seeks to break down the barriers and reads the great texts of atheism to listen and learn and be transformed by them. 5:10 onwards is the highlight for me.
There are are many more clips, and much longer ones from the likes of Alain and Peter, two of the great thinkers of our time. I chose these cos they're relatively short. Here is another clip of Peter Rollins talking about faith and atheism in a way that makes you think. And whether you agree with him or not, I like being made to think rather than watching two people debate something with tired old arguments.
To sum up I believe that to believe in a God is no more or less absurd in my reckoning than to not to. No one's beliefs deserve ridicule...except those who believe that they have a right to ridicule others. Being sceptical, doubting, these are noble pursuits. And if I was to leave with you anything I'd say 'Get Faith!'. Even if you choose not to believe it, understand why someone else does. If you don't wrestle with it and just dismiss it I think you're in danger of leaving yourself spiritually poor.
But instead of me having the final word here how about some more from one of these great thinkers, a parable from Peter Rollins...
Faith is every persons personal right to decide on, I agree totally with that. The debate in most cases is tired, that too I will support.
ReplyDeleteYet I can't help wondering what the implications of this approach is for Christianity. It's fine to say it's a personal and spiritual matter, but then how appropriate is it to allow your actions to be guided by your God when they begin to have an impact on other human beings and therefore break the boundary of respect.
Where would I stand on Gay marriage? On abortion? On the philosophical implications of original sin, or evolution?
Your outlook is intensely positive, but doesn't an "each to their own" kind of approach lead our faith into a kind of irrelevance? If the Bible really does represent the only chance for humanity, shouldn't we be shouting it from the roof tops and arguing with all our strength to save as many as we can?
Thanks for your considered comment anonymous.
ReplyDeleteI would say that my personal beliefs do impact others and I think we can't help rubbing up against the boundary of respect in all we do considering different people believe different things but we should do it as respectfully as we can manage, aware that that boundary exists.
In my experience I just don't think shouting something from the rooftops is effective in moving people from one worldview to another. Having a relationship with that person, that other, where you can listen to them, where you can open yourself to seeing things as they do, where you can walk a mile in their shoes and be transformed by their experience without diminishing your own - only then will the other feel respected enough to open themselves to be transformed by what you might have to say.
I would argue that that approach requires strength too, it can be the harder road to travel with someone.
Does an each to their own approach lead our faith into a kind of irrelevance? I don't know, there can be strength in diversity and it could be said that it's already becoming fairly irrelevant. I don't think it's irrelevant and ever will be no matter how society may see it but I think it could be seen as more relevant if we had more constructive conversations around its place and role in the world and in people's lives. I'd like to see Christian's argue much more strongly against greed and to actually take seriously the concept of loving their neighbour.
Interesting blog.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the debate between Dawkins and Pell, but it's a bit like getting a dog lover to argue with a cat lover over which animal is more loveable.
However, I don't think your position quite holds. It would be ridiculous for anyone to say there is no god. We just cannot know, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist who says there is indisputably no god. But then could you find me an atheist who says there is indisputable no flying purple psychic unicorn who oversees the affairs of the world? Of course not.
What we can assess are the claims of the religions and the texts they are based on. We can look at the Bible and analyse its claims, and I don't think it'd be far fetched to say its assertions are false and it should be dismissed. For example, we know as fact that there was no first man or woman. Adam and Eve must then be dismissed as myth. This means original sin is non-existent; there was no fall; there was no sin for Jesus to die for. We know there was no mass exodus of the Jews. We know there was no great flood. If Jesus existed, what evidence is there of his divinity?
It's one thing to say you believe there may be a god (a baseless but valid position), yet something entirely different to subscribe to the specific claims and tenets of any of the world's religions. The atheist position is not equal to the Christian position (or the Muslim, Mormon, Jewish, etc), and I don't think it's far fetched to say that we should be able to objectively dismiss claims that are indisputably false.