jcmmanuel

I'm a rational Christian, or an agnostic Christian (faith isn't about certainties, it's not that simplistic). Sometimes I think of myself as an 'atheistic Christian' because I don't believe in small gods or a god who can be contained within a book. (I also don't beliefe in the weird things some of my atheist friends seem to care a lot about, such as unicorns, sun-orbiting teapots, a bearded god, etc). Let me also add, that if someone wants the creation of mankind from clay (as the the Babylonian Ninhursag did), or from 'red earth' (Genesis 1) to be taken literally - as if the Hebrews would have been trying to make a 'scientific report' 2500+ years ago - then to me it's clear that we really aren't talking about god anymore; what comes to mind is more something like Barbie, a figure we can mould according to our wishes and moods.

My atheist friends (or contacts) I consider special cases - in the best possible definition, mind you. They must be the kind of atheists who have the courage to connect to their opposites - or maybe I should say: who have the wisdom to look beyond the labels. My relationship with atheism is quite complex - but being respectful towards people who do not share my world view isn't part of this complexity. As long as people are being reasonable, who cares? Opposites bring about the best in us. Maybe my atheists friends could simply look at me as a non-Atheist. They may already feel comfortable with putting an 'a' in front of someone's idea, even wearing a prominent "A"-sign on their chest (which is sort of saying: "You are theist and I am A-your-theism"). Don't get me wrong: I don't take that too literally (and I don't identify people with their labels anyway), but if they would in turn feel comfortable with me being a "non-Atheist" (or an A-Atheist for that matter), I'm okay with that.

Many people have been asking me why I seem so tough on atheism. Myy first answer is always that I am not tough on atheism but on fundamentalistic atheism (as in the 'new atheism'). The second part of the answer is, that while religion may often show its violent sides today, that doesn't mean we can afford to come up with any crazy reaction to it as long as we defeat 'religion'. Panic mongerers are always at the wrong side, we should know that by now. It is our epistemology (=way of knowing) which is at risk.

Mixing atheism with science for instance, as we see it happen now, for the sake of 'defeating fundamentalism' on the Christian and Islamic end of the spectrum, does not just affect a mere 3.7 billion monotheists but also pantheists, Hindus, New Age proponents, Buddhists - who would all generally agree that science cannot quantify the spiritual, intellectual and emotional aspects of our human existence. At least in religious fundamentalism it is usually crystal clear for most people that their positions are ridiculous (especially if they are shunning scientific theories 'in the name of faith'). However, what we observe in a phenomenon such as the 'new atheism' is the self-accreditation of the (or this particular) atheistic or materialist mindset as the only 'real scientific mindset'. It is being wrapped up in scientific terminology, which is *betrayal* of the sciences, as science does not take sides with anyone's personal state of mind.

Reason, rationality, skepticism, logics, science, evidence - those may now be fashion words that are sometimes being sold as the exclusive attributes of the atheist, while the theist is apparently predestined to unbearable aching conflict deep inside. But what if this '(new) atheist' variant of Calvinistic predestination doesn't really work? And do people seriously believe claiming to be atheist makes someone more rational? I wonder. This applies to science as well: If Michio Kaku (nad yes he's smart) is selling mankind his "type 3 civilization" as the future for mankind, would someone really think we should feel impressed by that? We did not yet put one physical baby-step beyond moon distance did we? of course, we may get beyond the moon in a couple of decades. Great. But even today, having walked on the moon, scientists will be judged just like everyone else who is supposed to know that on THIS planet children are still starving to death. We don't want a "science for the rich". And ingenious predictions about a better future because of our 'new discoveries' are not helpful either: we need to understand priorities. When someone would tell you he is a good man, You want to see some evidence of it, isn't it? Some of the brightest scientists still have to demonstrate their commitment to all human beings on this planet - not just a Westernized elite who can pay for some 'scientific science fiction'. Humanism is more than the glorification of the human brain.

I am missing the humbleness of the ancients. Sure, a number of 'religious people' (fundamentalists in particular) hold on to pseudo-knowledge and this is no good - it's even dangerous. But some other people believe that knowledge makes better people. As if being a neuroscientist or astrophysicist would make us compassionate, for instance. Those are science-myths. Some people are only skeptical on the hearing of the word religion. As if science can't become a religion for many of us. I am 'A-scientistic' to science myths.

The god-idea can be criticized. Absolutely. But don't tell me that it stands in the way of becoming a true humanists. Faith is in itself not even spectacularly religious: it's a human faculty. We all have it and practice it every day. No theories without premises. No trusting people without faith. This is why I would oppose Richard Dawkins and his 'new atheists' even if I were an ardent type 6 atheist. How many atheists have the guts to admit that a book like "The God Delusion" is essentially an attempt to sell science as being atheist business? Actually we should understand that stigmatizing all 'believers' as potential lunatics has essentially NOTHING to do with straightforward atheism. It is just the creation of an irrational platform from where one can safely build up a 'logic' that stands on its own, detached from the reality of all those real people who are being put in a corner with no way out. This is not how it works, folks.

I detest Christian fundamentalism. But I also ask the question if an atheist can truly want Christians to challenge Christian fundamentalism in their ranks if he or she turns a blind eye to the fundamentalism in their own atheistic community? Even Karen Armstrong rejects the idea that "religion is violence" (and she is an atheist, right?) - Or would atheist and top-scientist Stuart A. Kauffman be more convincing for you? Or shall we quote some atheistic neuroscientists on new atheism? I mean, come on. A lot of atheist or agnostic scientists have done a quite better job. Science and atheism MUST NOT be mixed up - otherwise the claim to separate science and theism will also be void. Keep it rational.

I am not pretending that Dawkins has everything wrong. I like his cultural memes idea (not really his own idea but okay). I do not inconsiderately reject Sam Harris' idea that morality is not per se linked to the existence of God (I think it's related to the existence of human conscience to say the least). But memes, and our Moral Landscape, are not opposed to the god-idea. The new atheists want it all their way. Above all, they get militant just like other fundamentalists. And, I would dare to ask, even to my atheist friends who happen to be 'Proud Atheist', why it is so hard to get back to normal and be a true humanist? Should I start to wear a cross around my neck in order to distinguish me from the "A"-group? We are playing Odd Man Out.

About faith. Whatever it is, it doesn't disable the skeptic mind unless someone makes that choice for some particular reason (but usually rooted in fear). When people say, as I read somewhere, that "humans are atomic and therefore must be identified in the nanotechnology field", most people will instantly realize - fortunately so - that such reductionism has nothing to do with 'logic' or reason, let alone with humanism. To understand our own self - and others - as being more than carbon robots, is a matter of respect and human dignity. The belief that life has intrinsic meaning in spite of, say, the materialistic or naturalistic interpretation of the world that some people want evolution theory to "teach us", is wired this way, in our brains. Science of course is reductionistic by design - but this methodology was for developed for research purposes, not meant to depreciate the human being. You don't have to call that religion of course - but that doesn't mean you can eliminate the spirituality - and if you accept spirituality, you will have to be more careful with what you say about religion, because religion is, normally speaking, a specific form of spiriguality. It really is not as simple as 'hating religion'. I wished more atheists (more correctly: ontological materialists) would put their act together at this point.

Atheism happened to be a state of mind for most people - not the O'Hare kind of thing. But since new atheism, we are facing this trouble over and again. In stead of having a fight against theistic fundamentalism, we also have this fight against the atheistic fundamentalism of people who think they are Brighter than others just because they made the statement "religion = violence". And when we dig a little deeper, what we find is not a new concept, an amazingly fresh concept, but rather the old adagio - the tendency to affirm nature to be all there is, and "to be right". It's like saying "shit happens, and therefore shit is right". To me it seems far more intuitively correct - and 'humanwise logical' - NOT to let 'nature' bestow meaninglessness upon us. This also applies to the natural part we call 'evolution'. It also applies to the methodology used to study nature: some people may take the 'exact sciences' for the 'whole truth' about us - but human beings are not 'exact'. We are the ones who invented 'exact'. To reduce yourself to a theory or methodology of our own making is like committing philosophical suicide. Don't do it.

I see it as follows: Don't call yourself a humanist unless you are a people lover. Evolution theory is all great. I'm a big fan of it, especially Lynn Margulis' symbiotic evolution model. But that doesn't mean you have to shut down the question/answer part of your brain when you read an ancient book. In Genesis 1 for instance, it should be clear that the authors were not trying to write science - they were rather depicting in quite lyrical ways the unique position of the human being - very unlike 'nature' (and no, that is not 'speciecism'). They were NOT doing science - yet they were talking about human responsibility. If someone cannot understand anymore the people who have been living before us, on whose shoulders we all stand, we may realistically suspect that person to indulge in binary thinking. nd if you decide you can apply the binary yes/no level to human beings, you are treating people like 'things'. And if you are quantifying the unquantifiable, you are really acting like a jerk.

Most of what I said here is not really about the people called atheists - in spite of having used the word atheism. Most if not all atheists are much more than their atheism. A human being doesn't fit in such a narrow box. This could also be said about theism. A theist is more than just his theism.

I must admit, there are of course many Christians who don't really get it. Sometimes Christians ask me about moral issues, e.g. what to do with gays/lesbians (LGBT). First of all we shouldn't 'do' anything with them - these people can decide for themselves. We are not talking about things but about people. Christians who do not get that are not thinking. Christians must realize that people will judge their words and attitudes, NOT the accuracy of their bible quotes. Too, many Christians don't even know how to read an essentially Jewish book (64 of the 66 bible books were written by Jews). Yet, they are 'bible literalists', right? How can this be? And then you have a typical 'evangelical' language of non-engagement... Too often I've heard the phrase "I love gays/lesbians but I hate their sin". Yet, if someone truly loves people, he won't judge this way about people's private lives. Jesus didn't do that either: whenever he got really angry, it was when he was facing religious know-it-alls. But for other people, he was mild, and he left the decisions up to them. He had that kind of fundamental respect for people.

See, I am definitely a Pro-Lifer but we should understand the need for love in human beings before we indulge in impetuous phraseology; we have a duty to address people with dignity. You see, women do not stop loving children when they had an abortion; gays/lesbians do not 'fake' their need for love. And lesbians, by the way, may feel aversion for men already because of men's behavior, their idea that buying a woman for some time is okay. Women don't buy the serial bullshit of men anyore. More in general, what I'm saying is this: most people are just longing for a normal world - and if you can't see that, that's not a sign of faith, rather the opposite. There is no alternative for being in touch with the reality on the ground. That's where faith has to start as well. And this is also exactly what characterized Jesus, so it seems.

Improving the world demands engagement, not 'being judgmental'. "Do not judge, lest you may be judged" (Matt.7). This is essentially about those 2000+ ignored bible verses about helping the poor, the hungry, anyone who is in need. In this regard I do indeed resist nature, opportunism, materialism, physicalism, or even science (if it's being misused against everyone who doesn't accept meaninglessness as a principle of life).

To me, being a rational Christian means: I want the ceiling of my reality-room to be an open rooftop. I am a critical realist (in the Roy Bhaskar definition, more or less). I believe the external world is real - while I'm not ignoring the human factor in the outcome of our observations (including the hubris that we may pull in, whether under the cover of 'science' or religion or whatever). We must come to terms with ourselves, we should understand that atheistic fundamentalism = science + hubris, and Christian fundamentalism = god + hubris. But if we resist this, and try to find each other, our minds may open up to a wider perspective, we may begin to ask some real questions, rather than fake questions meant as a gateway towards the predefined, fixed answers that we take for granted. I do not pretend to own answers, but I do own my questions. An open mind is an invaluable gift.

We are always more critical of others, and this gets particular nasty when we judge people of the past. We 21st century modern primates judge about slavery 2000 years ago, but we fail to understand that at that time people had absolutely no concept of 'human rights'. We do not understand that "having no concept of human rights" and "being unwilling to respect people's rights" are two completely different things. However, when someone is already anti-theistic to begin with, it's clear why the "lack of concept" will easily be played off against religion.

When you are fishing in the biggest lake around, in history (and religion was really big), you may find more dead fish than anywhere else. But your conclusions from this will reveal your agenda - and this may make your opinion neither honest nor rational. If we would compare the Greeks with the Jews within a comparable historical time frame, we might feel less proud of the Greeks - but we don't like that information these days, because we are so in need of beating down religion, isn't it? In any case, being honest turns out to be not as easy as it sounds.

Which is exactly why do I love religion: that's where I see all those contradictions, and these are of course the hallmark of the real world as I know it. Yes it may get pretty ugly in the old testament - but at least these people were quite honest about their own troubles and wars and feelings, and their frustration with the things they believe in. In all ancient literature I tend to appreciate the honesty. That's what invokes real questions - and no serious philosopher ever said we should simplify every tough question.

Links:

http://www.facebook.com/jcmmanuel

https://plus.google.com/114646120013041495972/about