I am notoriously agnostic. Actually I am able to identify better with the atheist movement than anything else, but I do not call myself an atheist. As fellow Deacon and co-music director of the Church of What's Happening Now, Ian has noted: we share a natural disposition to be frustrated by wishy-washy people, but when it comes to the question of God we (at least I) find it almost noble. Now I suppose that raises the point of that making us wishy-washy, but that's another question better left for another post.
But one thing I notice by the fundamentalists of the atheist and the theist camps is that there is a tendency to use reason (or science) as a term that is the opposite of belief (or religion, or God). It's natural to think this way when we are confronted by it at all turns. Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life is my favorite example. Do you think that those that identify themselves as "Pro-Life" are constantly living their lives as though life is paramount to all things? Of course they don't all believe that. I point to the tired example of pro-life proponents that are advocates for the death penalty. This is one example of people using polarizing language and thought patterns but don't think about the consequences of the language they use.
Richard Dawkins, Bill O'Reilly, Ben Stein (stay-the fuck-tuned), Sam Hitchens, all of these men use this same communication habit, and when people attempt to engage in honest dialog about religion, they fall into the same trap. This isn't to say that faith or reason aren't real things with real qualities on both sides, just that they don't seem to be antonyms in my mind.
Do reason and faith intersect? I think it's clear that there are important people in each field that are being ignored to make way for the fundamentalists. There is no reason that these two fields cannot be related, or that one can have utter faith in one over the other. But the habit of saying faith vs. reason, or science vs. God, as though these two things are mutually exclusive is pathetic and unreasonable.
Look, I'm not trying to say that I have a better answer than anyone else, but living as though science doesn't exist is ignorant and wrong. And as Trey Parker (creator of South Park) put it (through Stan Marsh) "Couldn't evolution be the answer to how and not the answer to why?" I'm not convinced, and I've read some of Dawkins' stuff
and haven't found anything that suggests the existence of God is completely out of the question. But again this is probably left for a different post.
Here's my point: these terms are not used to benefit either movement, they are just meant to tear the other one down. That is no way to construct positive communication, but that should surprise no one. Neither side seems to want to convince anyone that they are right, just that another side is wrong.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
the whole "life" question or position has always struck me as an odd posture. "i am in favor of life."-is that what people are truly saying by opposing abortion. on the other hand, by holding an opposing position, note opposing does not necessarily denote opposite-means offensive to life, simply by having a view that is at odds with those who state that they support life. fuck. abstract i know.
the question of god(s). yeah, a can-o-worms eh?
i will not solve it here. only this: the notion that there is an omniscient and omnipresent force in the universe that while perhaps inactive, takes an active interest in the affairs and perhaps most bizarre of all-an interest in the internal beliefs of mammals on planet earth. well, it seems silly that god(s) could possibly be offended at our lack of belief in some particular metanarrative or worse, our belief in the wrong metanarrative.
the gall for placing your future and eternal housing plans in the wrong story.
faith cannot be stories, it must be more.
Anti-choice and anti-life is one thing that I really wanted to bring up when i was composing this post, but just simply forgot. The Mrs. brought this up and I could kick myself for forgetting because it truly is one of the most important points about it from a communication standpoint. The fact that each side would accept the terms that the other side lays down just baffles me.
That's one of the reasons that I refuse to call myself an atheist. Doing so really applies attributes to you, for better or for worse. Not that I'm afraid of being labeled in the way that they would (after all, the people that would be offended by my being an atheist are the same people that would be offended by many points I would bring up in honest dialog about God), it's just not a movement that I can identify with. It has become hateful and intolerant, in the same way that the fundamentalist Christian movement has.
Wait. Let me clarify.
The reason I cannot call myself an atheist is because I am not an atheist. The movement is providing for many of the important processes that are happening in intellectual dialog, and the natural skepticism is admirable. These are the portions of the movement that I really Identify with as noted in the original post.
So here's a point I'd like to make: faith and science are NOT mutually exclusive. Just as life and choice are not mutually exclusive. It's easy semantics that clarifies where one stands.
But I can just as easily describe myself as a person of faith as any Christian could. My faith, however, is rooted in the physiological rather than the metaphysical. Just because I've never seen DNA replicating or a golgi apparatus at work doesn't mean I don't believe they do all the things they have to do to keep us all going. I have had to take a LOT of things on faith in the past four years. I also have faith in the scientific method of research, and will adapt my care as a nurse to the evidence produced by carefully planned and well executed studies. Seriously, if someone can prove that giving birth laying flat on your back is good for you (and the baby), I'll give it some serious consideration.
Anyway - my point, I guess, is (is) that the Freakin' Deacon is right. The major disagreements we face every day in this country boil down to language. We need to, as the next generation of leaders, reframe the discussion in such a way that issues aren't painted in such black and white terms.
Then we might actually get somewhere.
Being the eldest member in TCOWHN I should at least say something on the subject of belief and reason. Within the realm of reason one can't ask that belief and faith be explained. The two are a gut feelings and differ from person to person. I find it hard to nail down faith as bieng reasonable. But the two do offer a sense of comfort for those who subscribe to the ideas. I find that sense of comfort has merit. Especially for people who have just endured something awful, ie., death, loss etc... So for an individual that just had multiple deaths in thier family to turn to an unexplained "comfort zone" Just to get through the night without killing themselves. This is ok to me. It is those who push what they believe in and where thier faith lies upon me. This is where I disagree. As I stated before it is all up to the individual to adopt a belief and faith system of ones own. What ever gets you through the night, whatever melts your butter and whatever floats your boat so to speak.
Live life to the fullest!
Post a Comment