Atheists are Copy-Cats!

November 5th, 2011   by   Andrew

Chapter 18 of the series Myths and Dragons

What’s up with atheists mimicking the religious groups they usually love to criticize?

A. C. Grayling has published “The Good Book: A Humanist Bible“. It’s an impressive tome of over 600 two-columned pages. Separate books with names like Genesis, Parables, Acts and The Epistles each have chapters and numbered verses.  Grayling has borrowed from many sources from around the world, some older and some younger than those found in Hebrew and Christian Bibles.

The author makes no claim that his work is authoritative in any way. In one interview, Grayling suggests the book is a “gentle teasing” rather than a defiant strike against religion. And some of that gentle teasing seems to be pointed at himself as much as anyone else that might take their beliefs too seriously:

“How can you be a militant atheist? It’s like sleeping furiously.”


.

James Dunbar has put together Bang! The Universe Book, and It’s Alive! These  graphic novels convey the origins of the universe and life through accessible stories and illustrations.

It’s quite the challenge to combine scientific explanations with rhyming couplets, but Dunbar has made something really fun and remarkable. And his characters look oddly familiar. Who would you say they look like?

.

In an earlier post, I looked at P.Z. Meyers’ creed for atheists. I don’t seriously think many non-believers would religiously adopt and recite Meyers’ creed. However, if someone were to live by it, I think I’d have a pretty good idea about what they were like and how they would behave.

Mimicry seems to play a big part in in the make-up of human nature. What’s really intriguing though is why we copy so much around us. Psychologists have put together some interesting studies in order to understand things like social rejection and acceptance. Some studies suggest the more someone feels rejected, the more they might actually copy (unconsciously) other people.  (Follow this link for a summary, or this link for the original research article from Lakin, Chartrand and Arkin, or this link about the Chameleon Effect as Social Glue.)

There is also some evidence to suggest that (unconsciously) copying someone else with behaviour, posture and language style tends to make that someone else feel closer and more empathetic towards others. When we are accepted (or at least copied) and when we feel we belong, we might even be more willing to help and listen to others.

Mimicry might not be the only motivation for Grayling’s good book or Dunbar’s creation stories or even Meyers’ creed, but it makes me a little more hopeful for the future, actually. By rejecting or excluding certain groups, religious people have by their very nature brought this upon themselves.

Maybe these stories and artistic efforts and bold declarations aren’t made with intentions to separate non-believers from believers, but instead to bring people closer together. In a sense, these writers are using the body language of story. By copying the frame of sacred books or creation stories or holy creeds,  Grayling, Dunbar and Meyers are building bridges to help us face what we don’t know and who we don’t understand. And those bridges might lead us to where we should be, together.

It’s remarkable what a good story can bring together.

What do you think?

Are atheists just copy-cats?

Would you read Grayling’s Bible, or Dunbar’s creation stories?

Would you live by Meyers’ creed?

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in art, Beyond Belief, book review, education, god, humour, irony, myth, poetry, psychology, purpose, Religion, Science, story | Comments Off


Gretta Vosper — Taking a Church Through the Eye of a Needle

April 6th, 2011   by   Andrew

Monday night I listened to Gretta Vosper talk about the perils of pathfinding. In a sense, it was a story about ministry.

She had a big problem. She loved her congregation. She loved her calling. She loved sharing her education and her thoughts on religious ideas. But she didn’t have the same God as her church.

She put a lot of passion and work into her sermons in order to explain the history, the context, the subtleties of the old and important writings. She tried to explain out the differences in time, and how important it was to live in today’s world, with today’s understandings of things.

She would finish her services, and the congregation would smile, and she would realize their understandings of God had not been changed or challenged in any real way at all. And when she looked a little deeper, she noticed everything within the old and comfortable rituals of the church reconfirmed what could only be an elementary understanding of God.

So she broke down, and finally told them she didn’t believe in the same interceding God they did. She didn’t believe in the God of agency they did. She didn’t  see God as Love, at least in the way they said they did. She certainly didn’t believe the Bible was the authoritative word of God for all time. And she didn’t know what to do.

Some people in the church were ready and willing to take up the new path with her. Others were not. It became a time of losing allies, dissolving relationships, and things falling apart. But it was also a time of examining values, embracing new friends, and hope taking shape. In her mind,  it had to happen because, well… how else would something as old as a church change?

There is a story about Jesus who was approached by a rich man wanting to know how to receive eternal life. In short, Jesus told him to sell everything he had and turn his life towards helping others. The rich man was unimpressed with the cost, and walked away. When Jesus was pressed to explain what he had said to the rich man, he came up with a really creative image:

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. [See Mark or Matthew]

A little while ago a friend online posted a collection of interpretations for this passage. There are lots, each one with a history and a use all its own. But the most intriguing one for me was this:

It can be a simple process, but not an easy one. The camel must first be completely destroyed. Once that is done, it can pass through the needle’s eye. [if you know where this came from, please tell me so I can link it or give credit]

That’s a tall order. Churches don’t like being destroyed. Even if it is the only way forward.

I have to give my respect to the United Church of Canada. They have not excommunicated her or fired her. They have not swept her under any rug. They haven’t even simply walked away, like that rich man unimpressed with the cost.  But they are watching and they are waiting.

Gretta talked a little bit about burn-out. As minister, she is the spiritual leader but not necessarily the executive leader, and she did express some hesitation about where this was all going. It sounds like her progressive church is starting to move on it’s own momentum now. Many of the new members of her church have little history with things like Sunday School curriculum, or group assemblies or religious studies. At this point, they cannot return to the old rituals and easy resources. They are making it all fresh and all new. As a result, they work with the passion of zealots and new converts. A moment of care and consideration can be important, especially in unexplored territory. If you are willing to set yourself on fire, some people will be more than willing to help you find the matches.

In breaking new ground, I fear Gretta and her congregation may be digging holes for themselves and losing sight of the many paths already cut through the trees, so to speak. Many people have walked these paths already.  (I wanted to ask her, “Why not ask the Unitarians for help?” but the question period ended before I plucked up my nerve.)

When it all gets done, I’m not sure if anything will be left to pass through that narrow eye of the needle. But, they are facing the daunting task of change, and they are doing it head-on. I’m just not sure whether to lend a hand, or be ready with a bucket of water.

What do you think?


Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Belief, Beyond Belief, education, god, Jesus, purpose, Religion, story | 7 Comments »


What do you mean by God? Mid-Review

January 2nd, 2011   by   Andrew

In December I started a series of posts with the theme What do you mean by God? The series is going to be an ongoing thing for me, but I want to review the three inspirations for the series and the lessons learned from each of them so far.

1. The first post began with a personal memory of a conversation I had with a friend. He explained God as a sci-fi symbiotic life-giving Spirit, a continuation of evolution. He then quickly tied it back to Jesus and the Bible without any specific connection. I couldn’t find the sense in his modern-day explanation of God and his reliance on the ancient texts and stories. But I recognized his unwavering devotion to his biblical religion and sensed a lot of personal meaning was involved for him.

2. The Observer magazine had a feature on the enigma of God. Six community leaders, either working ministers or academics, shared their thoughts on how they looked at God. It surprised me how the six gave some deference to the Bible, but did not treat the book as a sole authority.  Instead, many sources were used and the metaphors invoked were somewhat scientific or relational. Only one of the writers really tried to ‘embody’ or ‘personify’ God and that had close to no biblical context. Of the six writers, only two directly quote the Bible and only half in total make specific mention of parts of the book.

What this suggests to me is that the Bible is not a central source church leaders cling to anymore when they think upon their faith. (Note – The writers are from one particular denomination and that does skew the perspective.) What they are doing instead is something quite remarkable to me. They are examining their relationships, their lives, their world, finding emotional bonds, things of personal importance to them, awe-inspiring wonder, and then putting God there. The subjectivity of the whole project floored me. And this leads to the third inspiration for the series.

3. Martin Luther’s quote

When I first came upon this quote from Luther, I was devastated by the personal implication of it. A full admission, from a church revolutionary no less, to the personal and emotional creation of gods (and idols). Luther’s confession does not make gods any less real for the believer. However,  it shifts the focus dramatically.

This quote above, when I first read it, stuck me as a definition that could be quite helpful but very threatening to the ‘dangerously devoted’ – those that are so consumed by belief that they suffer from something close to an obsessive-compulsive disorder. But just as important, it challenges the adamant non-believer to grasp the personal conviction of belief or personal investment involved in belief.



I plan on getting back to this series in the future, but I want to explore the feelings of God at this point. Of the six articles from the Observer, the only one that really intrigued me was a narrative, a story that tried to relate an experience of feeling something mystical. I have very few personal reference points for this and so want to understand how people feel or experience God.

Certain emotional states seem to come up again and again when talking about God. In the next few posts I want to ask What are the implications of each of these feelings? How do people react to these feelings? I will continue to use Luther’s confession as my central, working definition for God and try to honestly follow the feelings, wherever they may lead…

What do you think? Care to join me?


Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Belief, Beyond Belief, god, Philosophy, psychology, Religion, story | 5 Comments »


“An old and immense turtle lives at the bottom of the lake”

December 21st, 2010   by   Andrew

Part five of the series: What do you mean by God?

Susan Beaver is a student minister at Grand River United on Ontario’s Six Nations Reserve.

I have tried to summarize the other articles, but that approach wouldn’t feel appropriate for Susan Beaver’s contribution. It is narrative and a meditation. It would be better served if kept in that spirit and tradition.



My two questions that frame this series might not fit so well here, but I do wish to ask anyway:

1. What do you think of this description of God? Is this a useful description for God today? Is this meaningful for you?

2. What does this mean for the Bible? Would the Bible be an authority-text under such an understanding of God? Would the Bible have to be edited? (and by Bible I’m willing to mean more generally ‘sacred texts’.)

What do you think?

- – -

Source article (scroll down to Susan Beaver).


Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Belief, Beyond Belief, god, Religion, story | 2 Comments »


“God sets down the melody; we offer it back to God”

December 18th, 2010   by   Andrew

Part Four in this series: What do you mean by God?

George Hermanson is the director of the Madawaska Institute for Culture and Religion in Ontario.

Most believers have had a mystical or religious experience, according to Hermanson. But he sees many believers in a quest for religious authenticity — searching for an understanding of God and transcendent experiences that make sense today. He sees the answer in panentheism and a relational view of God.

“Panentheists experience God as both subject and mystery — the personal and the eternal.” God, in this sense, is the world, everything in the world, a source for the world, and also everything beyond this world. For Hermanson, this is the source for the act of creation and the source for order out of chaos. “God depends on the world because the nature of God’s actual experience depends on the interaction with all living reality.”

Reality is a kind of unfinished creation for Hermanson and God offers possibilities with which we can play – sometimes we mess them up and sometimes we progress forward. This relational nature is built upon call and response, a theme in Christian theology.

Hermanson uses the image of a jazz group. “God sets down the melody. It is passed on to the others in the group, and they get the feel for it. Each, in turn, adds originality, colour and difference. God now has to work with what was created by the subjective experiences of the players.” It is a combination of form and improvisation, play and discovery.

Hermanson believes that by experiencing the world we experience the presence of God.

My two questions:

1. What do you think of this description of God? Is this a useful description for God today? Is this meaningful for you?

2. What does this mean for the Bible? Would the Bible be an authority-text under such an understanding of God? Would the Bible have to be edited? (and by Bible I’m willing to mean more generally ‘sacred texts’.)

What do you think?

- – -

Original article (scroll down for Hermanson)


Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Belief, Beyond Belief, god, music, Religion | 5 Comments »


The Tethers That Hold God In Place

December 9th, 2010   by   Andrew

In the spring I took an online FLASH Introduction course. For my final project I put together something for the Church of Cottony Softness with Pastor Guido. It can be found on bottom of the Some Good Fun page.

When I showed it to one friend, he said that unless I was Catholic I really shouldn’t make fun of or be critical towards that church.

Never fully understood that attitude.  Humour or criticism rarely reach the intended audience with real power or potency. And I didn’t think it was  specifically Catholic anyway.

What really caught me by surprise, however, was his follow-up description of God.

This God we speak of is a life-giving Spirit. Think of it as a continuation of evolution. The One that started it all is starting something new. It’s like a sci-fi symbiotic thing. The starting point is Christ and for some reason God required the sacrifice of this one to allow this symbiotic relationship of His Spirit in us.

This same friend tried to convince me it is dangerous to be a non-believer because of the coming Antichrist, and used 2nd Thessalonians to support his worries about me.

At this point I deflected so as to end the conversation. It could have easily spiraled down into a debate but I didn’t want to insult either one of us and let it come to that. I have a cordial dislike for debate. It can be incredibly difficult to serve the greater good while ignoring or even shouting down another person’s point. I’d rather be a friend and see if we can share a joke.

His description of God demonstrated two things for me quite clearly:

1. The meaning or definition of God is so flexible that any idea can be attached to it at the whim and discretion of the speaker. (I wrote about this earlier with help from Dan Dennett — here and here for example.) People use the word for their own meaning in very personal ways. Desired or negotiated or constructed ways. Even non-believers do this, although they seem willing to go in another direction than believers.

2. Regardless of whatever flexible description of God is used, often enough that description is very quickly tied back to the God of the Bible. If I lived in another culture, maybe a different authority-text would be used.

The act of dubbing it an authority-text is a problem for me.  It is an old, odd library collection rubber-stamped by committees. It is a wonder of inspiration and intrigue with immense literary value and cultural investment. It has been translated and interpreted again and again. “Even Newer” Testaments have been written with varying success rates. When it comes to God, the Bible has been what many people cling to or rely upon.

However, the Bible alone does not invoke trust and faith today.

Some face such a problem as a call to battle. Defend, debate, prove through victory the might and authority of the way of God through the text.

Some face such a problem as a call to change. Discuss, collect, offer through deliberation the lessons and directions for our relationships today.

I want to focus my next posts on this second approach, in a sense. The Observer published an article in October entitled, “What do we mean by God?” — six short passages that re-envision the what and the how of God.

I applaud their efforts, but question what consequences may come from it. In separate posts I will summarize each writer’s ideas from the article and then ask:

1. Is this a useful description for God today? Is this a meaningful negotiation or construction of someone’s ideas on God?

2. What does this mean for the Bible? Would the Bible be an authority-text under such an understanding of God? Would the Bible have to be edited?

A month ago I put up a poll asking what should be my next blog theme. Choice #2 won out and so I’m running with it. Will you please join me in this? I am asking you for a lot of help. Otherwise, I might draw my own conclusions…

The writers:

Rev. Nancy Steeves – “God is a Mystical Presence and Evolving Energy”

Ross Lockhart – “God is Trinity – Revealer, Revealed and Revealing”

Bruce Sanguin – “God’s Creativity is Expressed Through the evolving Cosmos”

George Hermanson – “God Sets down the Melody; We Offer it Back to God”

Susan Beaver – “An Old and Immense Turtle Lives at the Bottom of the Lake”

Greer Anne Wenh-In Ng - “God Embodies Wholism and Shares Power”

- – -

Note: I’m tempted to include pop-incarnations of God in this series, and so might add:

Elizabeth Gilbert – “My God is a magnificent God”

Wm. Paul Young - “God is an old black woman named Papa, but still called He”


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Belief, Beyond Belief, god, psychology, purpose, Religion | 2 Comments »


« Older Entries