• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

Not religious, not spiritual, not atheist—what’s left?

By Kate Blanchard, Religion Dispatches

I could very much relate to the recent NPR story about a Christian minister losing her faith. Like her, I once counted myself among the über-faithful but then “fell away” in my twenties. Despite marrying a clergyman and spending lots of time in theological school, I never made it back to the one true way.

But there is a major difference in my story and this minister’s story, which is that she has embraced the name “atheist,” while I cannot bring myself to do so.

This reluctance is not because I have anything obvious to lose. Being an atheist would not cause any new familial strife; and unlike the pastorate, my career does not demand any particular religious orthodoxy. The major issue for me is an aversion to militant secularism, akin to some people’s aversion to “organized religion.” The new atheism, of the sort that has celebrities, conventions, media outlets, or protest marches, is not simply about doubting the existence of traditional deities. It is more often about intellectual elitism, and sometimes even outright racism toward people whom Christopher Hitchens referred to as “semi-stupefied peasants in desert regions.” Orthodox secularism, it seems, is about feeling superior to those poor, deluded souls who still cling to religion—that weird little psycho-social appendix left over from some earlier stage in human evolution.

Other common categories don’t seem to fit well either. The ever-popular “spiritual but not religious” implies a particular type of interior life—one grounded in emotion and experience more than cognition. A Jewish friend of mine calls herself “religious but not spiritual,” but this doesn’t seem to work as well in a Protestant framework, where individual faith is emphasized over ethnicity or outward traditions. The “Emerging Church” is a possible refuge, but it still strikes me as vaguely imperialistic; and try as I might, I simply don’t see myself among the so-called “rise of the nones.” 

Thus, for folks who are unorthodox but aren’t atheists, who care about metaphysics but who aren’t mystics, perhaps the good old-fashioned term “heretic” will satisfy. The kind of heresy I’m talking about here is what Thomas Aquinas defined as “restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine [as determined by the Roman Catholic hierarchy] selected and fashioned at pleasure.” (I would question only the implication that heretics are unique in “selecting and fashioning” their beliefs “at pleasure.”)

I find this name appealing for multiple reasons, not least of which is that it allows me to claim some connection to Christianity. The more I’ve learned about the history of Christianity, the more I’ve come to accept its ongoing diversity. The earliest Christians, as evidenced by both the New Testament and ancient theological writings, did not agree on the nature of Jesus or his work. In the fourth and later centuries, Christians made valiant (if misguided) attempts to unify their beliefs and practices by stamping out what they saw as errors; but Jesus people haven’t agreed since then either, despite centuries of the religious elite claiming otherwise.

Embracing heresy is a way of asserting my place—however tenuous—in this ancient tradition, while acknowledging that most of what I think and do will not pass creedal litmus tests. In a religion of more than two billion adherents, this is hardly a surprise.

I also like “heretic” because it is different, at least in my mind, than secularism, atheism, or “none.” Heresy implies not rejection of or indifference toward religion and its objects, but rather curiosity and engagement. Just because I can’t see or make sense of God doesn’t mean I don’t want to, or that I hate believers; on the contrary, I respect—with fear and trembling—the powerful role that religious experience plays in the lives most humans. Heresy demands a particular religious vocabulary, though it also allows for unabashed syncretism (call it a salad bar if you must). I can be what one of my students called a “Chreaster” who looks to the Daodejing for wisdom, who reads my child Bible stories but also Zen parables, a biography of Muhammad, and Greek myths.

Yes, acknowledging our heresy might be just the thing for non-religious non-atheists. It’s certainly better than opting out altogether, ceding the sacred turf to those lucky enough to have found answers to all their questions. Indeed, we may even be doing them a favor. After all, where would orthodoxy be without heresy to remind it of what it’s not?

Religion Dispatches May 10, 2012

*************************

Kate Blanchard is Assistant Professor of Religious Studies and Director of Women’s and Gender Studies at Alma College in central Michigan. She is the author of The Protestant Ethic or The Spirit of Capitalism: Christians, Freedom, and Free Markets (Cascade 2010).

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Kenny Smith, Emory University  

Atheist bloggers turned out in force for a record-setting $180,000 in donations for  Doctors Without Borders, to which some Christians replied “thank God!”  Not bad for a widely distrusted minority (a new study suggests that many people have more faith in the ethics of rapists!)  While fighting Christianity, Atheists wonder whether they should be fighting Wiccans and Neo-Pagans as well. They are, after all, religious.

In Santa Monica, CA., where a lottery determined who would have access to “vandal-proof, cage-like areas surrounded by chain-link fencing” in which to place their public holiday displays, Atheists won 18 of 21 such spaces, with just two going to a coalition of churches, and one to a Jewish group.  

In New Jersey, American Atheists billboards suggest that “free thinkers’ can be found in every family, if we only bother to look.  Conservative Catholics have responded with an “adopt an atheist” campaign aimed at helping those suffering from atheism to “recover their inner [and no doubt Catholic] self.” 

 The Evangelical group, American Family Association, released its long awaited list of merchants said to be friendly to and hostile to Christianity. “The litmus test is whether retailers use ‘Merry Christmas’ or ‘Happy Holidays’ in their ads. The latter is considered offensive because it takes away the focus on Jesus…”  For some potentially real Christmas warfare, visit the South and North Korea’s DMZ, with its three steel Christmas trees, “adorned with lights and topped with crosses,” and surrounded by barbed-wire.   

In Long Island, New York, two high school students were suspended for “Tebowing” in the halls, deemed a safety hazard. 

In Omaha, Nebraska, Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups are coming together to form a 35-acre “tri-faith” campus.  

Lowe’s has removed its commercial spots from TLC’s “All American Muslim” after complaints by Christian anti-Muslim groups such as the Florida Family Association,  and a petition drive to smack down the retailing giant has already begun.  

For those weary of waiting for an image of Jesus to miraculously appear in their morning toast, $31.95 buys you a Jesus Toaster at Burnt Impressions.com, which turns out miracles on demand. “Press a button and save a couple of souls, Jesus!” Don’t wait, though, they’re selling 50-100 daily while supplies last.   

Some have tried to understand Newt Gingrich’s “war on Sharia,” his experimentation with various Christianities, and his Dickensian view of the poor.  For the first time in American history, voters in Republican presidential primaries may have to choose between two non-Protestant candidates, a Mormon (Romney) and a Catholic (Gingrich, assuming this lasts through the primaries).  

A Canadian judge has ruled that smoking marijuana is not a religious act, even if participants understand their practices in explicitly religious terms, for instance, as partaking of the “tree of life… to share a collective consciousness, which is an aspect of God… a common belief in countless mystical traditions.”

There’s a new Jedi Order in town, and their website offers links to a host of other Jedi communities and resources. More, the Jedi are showing up in larger numbers and in more places.  In the Czech Republic, for instance, where nearly half of the country’s 10.5 million residents are not affiliated with religion, some 15,000 have listed their religion as “Jedi Knight.” 

We all know there are UFO-based religious movements, but is the search for extraterrestrial intelligence itself a religion? Michael Crichton apparently thought so.   

The Church of Scientology recently celebrated “Human Rights Day” (the 63^rd anniversary of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights) “with seminars, rallies, concerts, round tables, forums and festivals… and more than 80 human rights walks in 26 countries…”  

Physicists say they are “hot on the trail” of the elusive (and some say non-existent) “God particle” (otherwise known as the Higgs Boson), which would allow cosmologists to explain why mass occurs in the universe, apparently an important variable.  

In what promises to make Egypt an international party Mecca, newly elected legislators have ruled that tourists must observe a “sin free” lifestyle during their stay: no alcohol, no bikinis, no men and women swimming together. Good times!

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Kile Jones, Claremont School of Theology

On February 28, 2011, I attended a meeting of Atheists United at the Center for Inquiry (CFI) in Hollywood, California.  It was a typical day in southern California—sunny, beautiful, without a cloud in sight—when I pulled into the parking lot of the CFI.  On a nearby mountain you could see the famous Hollywood Sign looming in the distance.  The CFI is located next to a Mexican Pentecostal Church and a Christian Science Reading Room, proof of the religious diversity in Los Angeles.  

From the outside, CFI looks like more like a warehouse than a Church.  Its electric sign, found on the street corner, not only announces headlines and CFI news, but also provides one of the only ways of detecting the building.  While in the parking lot I was approached by the treasurer of Atheists United, Norm, who politely asked me if I was attending their meeting.  Answering yes, I then told him that I was a Ph.D. student at Claremont School of Theology.  To this he comically asked, “What are you, an Episcopalian Priest?”  With a few chucks and giggles I proceeded to tell him that I was one of the only atheists who attend Claremont School of Theology.  Having come to hear Dan Barker talk, Norm told me that Mr. Barker could not make it and that somebody else would be presenting.  Although surprised, Norm’s friendly nature calmed my disappointment.    

Walking into the building, past a tranquil patio with “Einstein the Atheist Dog” (a very sweet animal) tied to the fence, I noticed that the inside was much more adorned than the outside.  There was a bookstore, an information and welcoming counter, tables where food is eaten after the service, a book table with almost all of the books required for my Atheism and Secularity course (i.e. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Zuckerman, etc.), a food counter with various waters and sodas, and a golden thread with the names of “Heroic Freethinkers” painted around the top of the inside wall.  These thinkers included: Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilie, Baruch Spinoza, David Hume, Charles Darwin, Thomas Paine, Robert Ingersoll, and Bertrand Russell.  Upon viewing this tribute, I was struck by a rich sense of the history and tradition of unbelief.  

Inside the “Steve Allen” theatre, a room at the back of the building where the service takes place, the narrative of a beautiful interior falls apart.  This theatre had orange walls, electric wires dangling around, and looked more like a run-down Improv stage than an actual theatre.  It was humble, and may have been breaking fire codes.  The theatre seating was comfortable, and coffee in the theatre was apparently acceptable (I never asked but I never got reprimanded), and compared to sitting through a Catholic Mass on wooden pews, it was rather relaxing.  The microphone kept cutting out, the sound could use improvement, and it was apparent that they needed an electronic make over.  These failures of production stand in stark contrast with many Evangelical Churches that have concert sound, high tech equipment, and professionally trained sound engineers.  It was clear that they do not have anywhere near the amount of funding an average Christian Church has. 

When I entered the building, two members of Atheists United greeted me with bright smiles.  They asked me if I had attended before, if I wanted to sign up for email updates from Atheists United, and handed me a nametag that I quickly filled out and stuck to my chest.  You could hear various groups of two to four people discussing topics from the separation of Church and State, to Richard Dawkins, to the weather.  The people were friendly, non-confrontational, and appeared to have a sincere interest in those who attend their services.  Most people seemed to know each other, but you could tell that this was less so than the usual small, intimate Church.  When I found out that they only meet on the last Sunday of every month, it made sense why this was the case. 

While sitting at one of the tables writing notes before the service, I was approached by the Vice President of Atheists United, Ingemar.  The first thing I noticed about him was his Swedish accent and friendly demeanor.  I talked with him about Atheists United, the CFI, Church and State relations in Sweden, and religion in contemporary America.  I told him that I was taking a class with Dr. Phil Zuckerman at Claremont Graduate University, which appeared to have perked his interest.  He mentioned how Dr. Zuckerman had just spoken at their meeting, and how enjoyable and stimulating his talk was.  After a loud call announcing the beginning of service, reminiscent of a Christian herald publicly announcing Church service to his puritan neighbors, I entered the theatre.    

In my estimation, the 35 or so people who were in attendance were 95% white, 60% men, 10% were couples, with 50% of the crowd over the age of 35.  They were primarily lower middle class.  There was only one child and one teenager present.  This makes sense given the fact that religious persons have more children than atheists.[1]  The clothing they wore was casual and relaxed, probably no different from what they would wear any other day of the week.  From the view I had sitting in the back, I noticed that most of the men were balding.  The women dressed as humble as the men.  According to contemporary standards in the culture of southern California, they were lacking in make-up, nail, and hair work.  This stands in contrast to the attire worn by those attending the Mexican Pentecostal Church next door.  The Pentecostals were in their best Sunday suits, dolled-up for the Sabbath.  I was thoroughly surprised by the “blue collar/working stiff” atmosphere, since I had previously found out that the majority of self-identifying atheists are white, middle class, males.[2]  Having a building in Hollywood may have also unconsciously contributed to this suprisement. 

At the opening of the service, the President of Atheists United, Bobbie, made a few announcements.  She mentioned an upcoming “tabling” training that teaches people how to manage an Atheists United table at local fairs and public events.  She also mentioned how this service would be recorded and made available on Ustream.  One of the most interesting and comical announcements was when Billie asked everyone in the audience to turn on their cell phones and invite someone to Atheists United.  I observed a handful of audience members actually making calls. 

As I mentioned earlier, I was expecting Dan Barker to speak, but instead it was a Thomas Jefferson impersonator who took his place.  He walked out in a purple coat, laced with white linen, and with shoes one would not wish to walk one city block in.  He held a silver chalice in his hand, spoke with a dignified accent, and received a great amount of clapping from the audience.  He had an impressive knowledge of Thomas Jefferson that was seen clearly when he recited the Declaration of Independence from memory. He mentioned some of Jefferson’s accomplishments, which I will list here: 

• Wrote Declaration of Independence in seventeen days
• Founded the University of Virginia
• Created his own amended New Testament
• Founded a Navy
• Fought against smallpox

He also mentioned how Jefferson promoted freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the separation of Church and State, the right of citizens to petition their government, and democracy.  He pointed out how Jefferson thought of Christianity as the best manifestation of religion, but believed that Unitarian Universalism would eventually become the dominant religion of the country.  He spoke of Jefferson’s distaste for slavery (even though he owned slaves and took one as his concubine), how he was opposed to factionalism, didn’t believe in standing armies, and was self-conscious and shy when speaking in public. 

The questions asked by the audience members revealed something about their interest in Jefferson.  As the microphone was passed around, audience members began asking questions.  

• (me) Why do you think that religion is essential to maintaining a civil society?
• (man) Did you start factionalism by establishing the Democratic-Republican Party?
• (older woman) What about slavery?  Why did you own slaves?
• (man) Did you commit adultery with a slave woman?
• (me) Did God grant us rights, and if so, how can they be thought of as natural?
• (woman) What about Tripoli and North Africa?
• (man) Could you tell us about your fall out with John Adams and your eventual reconciliation?
• (man) What would you say to the Tea Party?
• (fellow student) How would Jefferson have thought about Islam?
• (woman) How did you become President?

To the audience’s pleasure, each of these questions was answered with historical dates and facts.  He never avoided a question and answered each of them fully, even if it made Jefferson look bad (like the question about slaves). 

The dialogue between the speaker and the audience had a certain feel about it.  The questions showed how the audience was generally critical of the Tea Party, Republicans, conservative politics, and religious zealots.  This made sense to me, since 32% of those who mark “none” as their religious affiliation are registered Democrats, and 43% of them are registered Independents.[3]  Finding a politically conservative atheist is a difficult task.  The people in the audience were generally interested and focused, even though I found one older man sleeping during the service.  The speaker had many jokes to say, and the audience seemed to appreciate it.  A couple of the older women had trouble turning the microphone on, and the audience had to direct them by yelling, “Turn the microphone on!”   

After the speaker finished, Bobbie made another couple of announcements.  She mentioned the family who brought the only child, thanking them for coming and mentioning the child’s name, to make sure the audience remembered it.  Bobbie went on the mention a recent article in the men’s magazine GQ, where Billy Ray Cyrus mentions viewing a highway sign with his daughter, Miley Cyrus, sponsored by Atheists United.  Apparently, Mr. Cyrus commented that the sponsored highway sign might as well have read: “You will now be attacked by Satan.”[4]  Bobbie, in comical fashion, responded by saying, “As long as all Christians are as convincing as Billy Ray Cyrus, we atheists have nothing to fear.”  She also mentioned how interesting it is that the CFI “speaks for the devil.”  Chuckles were heard throughout the theatre. 

When the service was over, Bobbie announced that there would be Dominos pizza, free of charge, for everyone to enjoy.  She said it was free because, “we [Atheists United] value community.”  Due to time constraints, I had to leave without any pizza. The service had been interesting, intellectually stimulating, and presented an admirable picture of what atheist meet-ups ought to look like.  In my opinion, many religious believers would enjoy the people at Atheists United, even if they do not agree with their beliefs.       

If asked to suggest any changes to the meeting, I could only answer with superficial, financially related critiques.  They would be twofold: revamp the electronic and sound issues, and repaint the inside of the theatre.  Besides these, I cannot think of anything else I would have changed about the meeting.  The drive home to Claremont was just as enjoyable.  A close friend and I discussed the meeting and compared it to other religious services we have attended.  We both agreed that, in contrast to many Christian services in southern California, the Atheists United group was less funded, less fashion-focused, and had significantly less kids and teenagers.  It was also more personal and intimate than large church meetings and mega-church services. 

In conclusion, the Atheists United meeting I attended bore out most of the limited statistics on atheism.  It showed me a concrete manifestation of atheistic beliefs.  Although the service mirrored many of the statistics on atheists, the people in attendance were more than mere statistics.  They were unique individuals, in a unique location, with a unique ethos.  To put it frankly: they bore out most of the statistics, but in their own unique way.  I thoroughly enjoyed the service and would ask other religious groups to see the positive elements at play in meetings like Atheists United.  These atheists—usually considered to be in opposition to any and all religion—actually form a pivotal role in the religious and philosophical diversity of southern California, and the greater world.

Originally posted on State of Formation

******************              

Kile Jones, 28, holds a Bachelors of Theology (B.Th.) from Faith Seminary, a Masters of Theological Studies (M.T.S.) and a Masters of Sacred Theology (S.T.M.) from Boston University.  He also holds a Certificate in Science and Religion from the Boston Theological Institute.  He is current pursuing a Ph.D. in Religion at Claremont Lincoln University.  

Mr. Jones has been published in Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Philosophy Now, Free Inquiry, World Futures, Human Affairs, and the Secular Web.  He has presented at Conferences around the United States and the United Kingdom, particularly at Trinity College Dublin, University of York, Harvard Divinity School, Plymouth State University, Boston University, and Claremont Graduate University.  He is the Founder/Editor-in-chief of Claremont Journal of Religion.  His interests include religion and science, atheism, secularism, and philosophy of religion.  He also reviews books for Reviews in Religion and Theology (RRT) and is a Contributing Scholar for State of Formation, an academic blog for emerging religious and ethical leaders.  He maintains his personal blog at: www.kilejones.com

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Kenny Smith and Heather Abraham

Wiccans and Neo-Pagans of all sorts celebrate Mabon this September 23 (or there about), a celebration of the fall harvest and the Autumn Equinox, a day in which the hours of day and night are perfectly balanced, and just one day after the birthday of both Bilbo and Frodo Baggins!  Looking for a primer on Wiccan/Pagan holidays?

Rob Bell, the controversial Christian minister whose book, Love Wins, published earlier this year questions some basic conservative ideas, for instance, that heaven is not a Christians-only club, strikes out on his own.  Elsewhere in Christendom, one Southern Baptist leader argues that state executions are “pro-life.”   Presidential candidate, Tea Party leader, and Evangelical, Michele Bachman, who now argues that the US government should have no tax revenues whatsoever, has self-identified as a Teavangelical.   Perhaps not surprisingly, the Southern Baptist Convention is considering a re-branding with a new and perhaps less insular… name.  

A federal judge has ruled that two film makers, who in 2005-2006 claimed that the Raelian International Religion  recruited members by virtue of pedophilia, in fact fabricated the story entirely.   

While Buddhist “flashmobs” gather for meditation in cities around the world, Jewish ones gather for shofar blowing. 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWaT90wjU4Q

The FBI has been criticized for it’s training materials that depicted the Prophet Muhammad as “a cult leader,”  and the Air Force Chief of Staff has warned officers to avoid promoting and expressing preferential treatment for their own personal religious beliefs. 

One fellow attempts an experiential comparison of demonic exorcism.  This is probably not your religious studies professors’ idea of a comparative study.

The Church of Scientology encounters yet more troubles, as mainstream media pick up recent accusations of the “violent and toxic” nature of its leader, David Miscavige. Elsewhere, Scientology Church schools receive far more positive coverage.  

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has announced that beginning in 2015, Saudi born women will be allowed to vote and run as candidates.  The announcement came just days before this year’s elections in which women are excluded.  Women can vote….just not yet.  

Actor Gerard Butler, a consummate warrior of film, takes on the lead role in “Machine Gun Preacher.” 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25sM_72wEBI

The film challenges American Christians get off their comfortable asses and to think globally while giving new meaning to gun carrying Christians.  “Apostle of Violence?”  

Another of God’s warriors, Andrew Marin, is working to bridge the gap between the conservative Christian right and the GLBT community.   

Bay Minette, Alabama judges are giving those convicted of misdemeanors the choice between serving jail time or attending church.  Christianity is the only option available to those who want to opt out of jail.  Christian and non Christian criminals, who choose to participate, will have to report to the local pastor and police for an entire year.  The ACLU is in an uproar calling Bay Minette’s Restore Our Community Program “blatantly unconstitutional.” 

“We’re not there to burn the Bible or desecrate,” said Bruce Gleason, director of Backyard Skeptics atheist group, who recently gathered in Huntington Beach to rip up pages of the bible they feel are immoral.    The self styled “Atheist Athlete” created a video to capture the event at which he had “a lot of fun” and where he “got hugs” from attendees.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS5jmf5bav8

 Brad Hirschfield explores “When Atheism Turns Ugly,” in his Washington Post On Faith article.   While Christians and Atheists battle it out on the boardwalk, Jewish Atheists flock to welcoming Synagogues.   

The Jewish High Holy Days are upon us and some Synagogues are worrying about “The Hard Economics Of High Holy Days.”

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Kenny Smith 

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has appealed to indigenous spirits and deities for aid in healing his cancer.   San Francisco’s Yoda statue draws pilgrims from around the globe.  Are we all Jediists at heart?  (May the Force be with you.)

According to the Prison Literature Project, inmates most frequently request books on Buddhism, Wicca, and Islam.  Practitioners of minority religions continue to face many different forms of discrimination throughout American culture.

One writer recalls the Church of the Subgenius’ Prophet Bob and the balmy days of the 1980s.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt9MP70ODNw

Rather controversially, volunteers from the Church of Scientology have been seen on the streets of London after recent outbreaks of violence.   Religious disagreements and the religious education of their children (at a Scientology school) may be to blame for the breakup of Jennifer Lopez and Marc Antony.  

Fifty Pro-Islamic billboards go up across the U.S.  

Who would Jesus nuke? Apparently anybody.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Vkj0mLI2M

The popularity of religion comes and goes with the times, a new study says.

Self-identified American Buddhist Geeks gather in Los Angeles for a conference.

Former Senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell, infamous for her negative comments regarding Wiccans, (apparently) finds herself the victim of an online prank, hence her many vibrators and witchcraft books listed for sale on Amazon.

Is V for Vendetta functioning religiously for Anonymous members?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1K3XzzEICw

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Dale McGowan

I’m an atheist, though I don’t usually call myself that. It’s not that I’m embarrassed about it or worried about the reactions of others. I don’t usually call myself an atheist for the same reason I don’t call myself a Pisces or a member of the phylum Chordata. They all say too little about me.  

I have hundreds of religious friends, but none of them puts “theist” on a survey, and for the same reason. “I think there’s a god” just says too little.  

Among the things that “I don’t think there’s a god” fails to say about me is what I do think is true. So I call myself a secular humanist, which means, “I don’t think there’s a god, and here are a hundred things I think are true and valuable and good, and isn’t it interesting that most of those are shared by most of the people I know, even if they do think there’s a god.”  

Now we’re talking.  

An early fascination

It’s sometimes assumed that I’m just not interested in religious questions, when in fact the opposite is true. I’m fascinated by those big questions and have been for as long as I can remember. If I had ended up a believer, I think I might have been a theologian. If it’s all true, how could you not be?  

As a kid, I attended Sunday School in the United Church of Christ and swam in Greek, Roman, and Norse myths the rest of the week. My dad died when I was thirteen, and my explorations took on a new intensity. For the next 20 years I was wide awake, listening, thinking, reading, questioning, spending time in the churches of nine denominations (Catholic, UCC, Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist, Unitarian, Mormon, Presbyterian, and Lutheran).  I asked believers why they believed, why they weren’t Hindus or Druids, what they thought was literal and what was figurative in their scriptures. And I read their scriptures – not only the Old and New Testaments, but large parts of the Koran, the Vedas, the Gnostic texts, the Apochrypha, and commentaries on them all. 

O'Hair

As my first serious doubts began to form, I entered a period I call “Madalyn and Me,” since I was certain Madalyn Murray O’Hair and I were the only two nonbelievers on the face of the Earth. How could I think otherwise? The greatest minds of every generation had apparently accepted Christianity. I was sure I’d made a serious error of some sort. I had begun to doubt the Christian story, but I’d yet to discover any system of thought to replace it, nor any ancestral lineage for my doubts. 

In college my investigation was formalized. I studied anthropology, biology, astronomy, geology, philosophy and more. I learned about evolution, in depth and detail. I learned that it withstood three generations of scientific onslaught before being accepted as an awe-inspiring and humbling reality that establishes a deep kinship of all life on earth – far more beautiful than special creation in my eyes. And I realized, very gradually, that a full understanding of all the implications of evolution leaves an essential element of Christianity – human specialness among the creatures of the Earth – dismantled. 

But it was still just Madalyn and me, as far as I knew. Even in college I had not discovered any significant presence of articulate disbelief in our cultural history. How could I disbelieve when all of my greatest intellectual heroes believed? I’d heard it said the Founding Fathers were traditional Christians – when in fact very few were. I had heard that Darwin found no contradiction between evolutionary theory and Christian belief, when in fact he did. He made that clear in his autobiography – though those pages were removed from the first edition by his wife, with the best of misguided motives. I assumed that Einstein’s references to God were literal reflections of a personal faith, only later discovering his several irritated denials of that claim. 

Dale McGowan

I was in my thirties before I learned, through the works of A.N. Wilson, how many of the greatest intellectual and moral minds of every generation have been nonbelievers of one degree or another – Seneca, Diderot, Voltaire, Jefferson, Lincoln, Susan B Anthony, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Freud, Twain, Hume, H.L. Mencken, Simone de Beauvoir, Bertrand Russell. They had all written eloquently of their doubts and their reasons, often giving voice to their honest convictions at a far greater risk than any I will ever encounter. In the span of a single summer, I went from isolation to the company of giants. 

So I wasn’t to be a theologian after all. In fact, if there is such a thing as an atheologian, I am it.  

Coming out

It’s not always easy to be an atheist in a predominantly religious culture, but most of the challenges are manageable and getting easier with time. Some of my fellow non-believers would kill me for saying that, but it’s silly to suggest that it’s as difficult to be openly nonreligious now as it was in 1954. Not to mention 1454. 

It’s true that we occasionally see a single religious viewpoint injected into public school classrooms. But where this was once the norm, it is now the exception. Most school districts and school administrators are so eager to avoid the unhelpful distraction of a church-state smackdown that they sometimes err on the side of overcaution, banning any and all reference to religion. This is neither necessary nor good. Far better to do it right than to excise such a large and important part of human culture from our children’s education. 

It’s also the case that six states have laws on the books banning atheists from holding public office (Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas). Imagine the justified outrage if state statutes banned Jews or blacks from holding office. But the fact that these antiquated statutes are unenforced, unenforceable, and a general embarrassment to cooler heads in said states certainly helps to disqualify this as quite the outrage it would otherwise be. 

Most of the difficulty and genuine pain of being nonreligious takes place on a smaller scale—the level of family, friends, and community.  A recent Pew study confirmed that most atheists were raised in religious families, which means there was an act of departure at some point. In some families this is met with a shrug, but in many others it is seen as a rejection not just of belief but of family identity and even of the basic values associated with the faith. 

In reality, the atheist is most often walking away from theistic belief while retaining 90 percent of his or her values—values that can and do thrive with or without the frame of religion. Growing up, my family attended the United Church of Christ, and I did my best to behave decently and to treat others as I would like to be treated. More often than not, I succeeded. Now I don’t attend church or believe in God, and I do my best to behave decently and to treat others as I would like to be treated. More often than not, I succeed. The picture is the same; only the frame has changed. 

I’m often asked for advice about “coming out” as an atheist in a religious family. The best approach is to aim not to change minds on the subject of belief itself, but to work toward a reduction in tension around differences in belief. The best way to do that is to simply be “out and normal”—to confound the stereotype by being the lovely person you always were. 

Though there will be bumps, I tell my friends that most of the time the process of “coming out” goes much better than they think it will. And the opportunity to contribute your part to the net reduction of fear and misunderstanding in the world is a nice reward for showing a little courage. 

This courage is self-perpetuating. The American Religious Identification Survey of 1990 put nonbelievers at 8 percent of the U.S. population. By 2008, that number had risen to 15 percent. I think that had much less to do with changes of belief than with an increased willingness to answer the question honestly. And nothing contributes more to that honesty than the knowledge that a nonbeliever isn’t remotely alone.  

Indoctrination vs. influence

Most important to me now is protecting the rights of my children to come to their own conclusions about the big questions. And I’ve spent more time wondering how to avoid indoctrinating them myself than worrying about indoctrination from the outside. I’m the parent, after all, and my influence is bound to be huge.  

Influence becomes indoctrination only when you forbid them to question what they receive from you. For extra insurance, we should explicitly invite them to. Teach kids to think independently and well, then trust them to do so. And part of that education is encouraging them to resist indoctrination of all kinds — even if it’s coming from Mom and Dad.  

I go to great lengths to counter my undue influence so my children won’t be ossified before they can make up their adult minds. “Dad?” my daughter asked when she was eight. “Did Jesus really come alive after he was dead?”  

“I don’t think so,” I said. “I think that’s a story people created so we feel better about death. But talk to Grandma Barbara. I know she thinks it really happened. And then you can make up your own mind and even change your mind back and forth a thousand times if you want.”  

That’s influence without indoctrination. The one thing I value most in my own worldview is that I came to it myself. Why should I deprive my kids of that authenticity?  

And that’s all I would ever ask of a religious parent as well—not that they forego sharing the experience of their faith, but that they say, “Here’s what I believe with all my heart, it’s very important to me and I think it’s true, but these are things each person has to decide for herself, and I want you to talk to people who have different beliefs so you can make up your own mind. You can change your mind a thousand times. There’s no penalty for getting it wrong, and I will love you no less if you end up believing differently from me”—just imagine if that was the norm.  

“Question with boldness even the existence of a god,” said Thomas Jefferson in a letter to his nephew, “because if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blindfolded fear.” Even if God exists, I picture him smacking his forehead in exasperation at the lines we draw, the questions we think he can’t withstand. And I’ve encouraged my kids to picture that same possibility—that one of the many things they might end up believing is that there’s a God about whom we’ve gotten every last detail completely wrong.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

If you ever wonder what’s the future of freethinking and who’s leading the charge; if you are curious to know what Freethinkers of today are doing to ensure that tomorrow’s secular world is on the right path; if you want to know what’s good to (free) think about these days; or, if you simply want to read a mind-bending interview, tune in to Religion Nerd for my series, Freethinking Tomorrow: In the Words of Today’s Freethinkers.

By Michel-Camille Bordeau

Parenting works in mysterious ways. It’s a complex affair for experienced, willing parents and an intimidating undertaking for those who, like myself, never prepared themselves for it, never imagined they would be fit for the task, or be given the opportunity.

Two years ago, I became a born again parent, a step-dad to an 8 year old with an incredible (free)thinking mind and a mean high kick.  Overnight, I grew a second heart—the first one being for his mother—and with twice the volume of blood stimulating my (free)thinking brain, I discovered a whole new family of anxieties that can be summed up with: ‘Seriously, don’t fark up (this kid’s life).’

Any life is precious, but that of a kid, who is half your responsibility, is a gem with so many sharp facets, that you’re always concerned you might get cut—and that regardless of the positive encouragements you receive from loved ones, your step-kid included. Still, as a (free)thinker, I had to find additional inspiration in written words.  That’s when a freethinking friend of mine with much parenting expertise recommended Dale McGowan’s Raising Freethinkers: A Practical Guide for Parenting Beyond Belief, what she called the ‘bible on parenting the (free)thinking way.’

Combining the words ‘bible’ and ‘parenting’ in one sale’s pitch to yours truly is a risky approach but it paid off. After all, I had to hope that there would be a book that deserved to be considered the bible of parenting, since the Bible itself, had little to offer in matters of non-authoritarian, non- patriarchal, post-Bronze Age parenting.  Indeed, I was looking for a book that would agree with my embryonic style of parenting, one that may include the occasional reprimand, but would not (re)enact the authoritarian-abusive parenting I grew up with.

And my hopes were rewarded. Raising Freethinkers: A Practical Guide for Parenting Beyond Belief gave me confidence that I was approaching parenting the right way, it gave me hope that I could succeed, and, my friend was absolutely right, it is the ‘Bible’ on parenting the (free)thinking way.  I had to interview Dale McGowan on behalf of my ReligionNerd friends.  I had to share his gospel.  And here it is:  

MCB: You are advocating for a child-centered, collaborative, and responsive approach to parenting–what psychologists call authoritative parenting.  Why do you think this is the best parenting model for a family of freethinkers?  Is it as rewarding for parents as it is for their children?

 DM: Authoritative (as opposed to authoritarian) parenting is centered on explanation. There are rules, and they are enforced, but they are also explained. A child is given the explicit right to question the fairness or reasonableness of a parental decision (but not to disregard it without consequence). There is also an open invitation to question authority, including the authority of the parent.

This approach helps the child develop active moral judgment rather than merely the ability to follow orders, which results in a much more powerful and effective moral sense. Best of all, it results in an independent thinker, not someone who simply parrots what authority figures (including the parent) have said.

It’s one of the most challenging parental styles, but also incredibly rewarding for the parent to watch the development of a deep, rich, complex and nuanced moral sense.

MCB: Raising Freethinkers is so user friendly that I’m tempted to claim that parenting finally comes with a manual! You conclude each chapter with an abundance of practical suggestions—reading recommendations, family activities, exercises, etc.—and it’s a gold mine for non-theist families trying to feel confident about their parenting approach.  Is it also a gold mine for theist families or do you think it is impossible to reconcile humanistic ethics and religious moral? 

DM:  Oh absolutely.  We too often put a bright line between religious and nonreligious, failing to realize that progressive religious people/parents share 90 percent of their values with us— far more than they share with the fundamentalists.  I’ve received many emails from progressive religious parents who have read Raising Freethinkers and found it entirely applicable to their parenting.

 MCB: You make it clear that ‘beyond beliefs’ does not mean ‘without a basic knowledge of belief systems.’  You even recommend that parents educate their freethinkers about religion.  What will future freethinkers gain from learning about religious practice?  And what might parents be most concerned about?

DM:  Ninety percent of those around us see the world to some degree in religious terms. If our children are to be anything but baffled by the human world around them, they must have some grasp of religion and religious ideas, period, end of sentence. They also need this exposure if they are genuinely to make their own worldview decisions.  Nothing about my own worldview means more to me than the fact that I came to it myself, fully informed but free to think and choose.  I wouldn’t deny my kids that same freedom.

Most parental concerns in this area are alleviated by a breadth of exposure to ideas and influences. There’s no greater threat to the development of a supple and capable intelligence than exclusive exposure to a single point of view—including our own.  It seems from my conversations with hundreds of parents over the years that children raised in secular homes, who are shielded from exposure to religious ideas and practices, are the most likely to end up glomming on to toxic religious expressions as the answer to a personal crisis in their teens or beyond.  The forbidden or unknown thing behind that church door suddenly becomes attractive and powerful.  Kids with knowledge of religion are far less susceptible to that emotional hijacking.  So the danger is in ignorance, not knowledge.

MCB: Parenting has gone through many positive changes in the past fifty years.  The biggest step forward has been to admit—at least in academic circles—that nothing positive comes out of authoritarian parenting.  Yet, it still prevails and, consequently, too many children continue to suffer mental and physical abuses.  What do you think will have to happen in the next fifty years, if we hope to see a cultural shift toward a more authoritative parenting model?

DM:  Authoritarianism at all levels—individual, familial, national, societal—is a response to fear.  When we are afraid, we retreat into that limbic brain.  We respond with violence, intolerance, and a whole range of other pathologies.  It’s never our finest moment.  The best thing we can do to move parents toward a more positive parenting model is to diminish fear about outcomes. It helps if parents recognize that (for example) corporal punishment produces ten different negative outcomes and that reason-based parenting tends to produce reasonable, ethical kids. The same applies above the parenting level.  We need to show that nonviolence, diplomacy, negotiation, reason, and other alternatives to aggressive problem-solving have a long history of effectiveness.

MCB: Based on the response from fans and/or critics, what changes, if any, would you consider making to Raising Freethinkers?  Also, tell us about your current projects, initiatives, etc?

DM:  Honestly, there’s not much that I would change.  We applied several lessons learned from Parenting Beyond Belief that helped Raising Freethinkers land right in the sweet spot for so many parents.  I’ve been thrilled with the reception.

My current projects include running Foundation Beyond Belief, a humanist charitable foundation with 800 members.  We feature ten charities per quarter and have raised over $145,000 since January 2010, including $20,700 for Japan tsunami relief.

I’m also working on several books, including a college-level anthology of freethought historical documents, a children’s book about natural selection, a personal exploration of religious practice from an atheist’s perspective, and a collection of Judeo-Christian myths told at last as the exciting stories they can be once you drop the sacred kid-gloves. Who knows what will see the light of day!

DALE MCGOWAN left a 15-year career as a college professor in 2006 to pursue writing full-time. He edited and co-authored Parenting Beyond Belief and Raising Freethinkers, the first comprehensive resources for nonreligious parents. Dale writes the very inspired and very helpful secular parenting blog The Meming of Life. He teaches nonreligious parenting seminars across the United States, and serves as executive director of Foundation Beyond Belief, a humanist charitable and educational foundation based in Atlanta—we are neighbors. In September 2008 he was named Harvard Humanist of the Year by the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University. Last, but not least, he is such an approachable person, that we are on a first name basis. Dale, continue the hard work!

 *****************************

Michel-Camille Bordeau is the founder and author of The School of Seshata  (www.scriptotheism.net), a blog about Liberal Spirituality, a concept of spirituality based on compassion and reason, core principles of Humanistic Ethics. Michel is also a regular contributor to www.ReligionNerd.com.  He’s recently started “Freethinking Tomorrow: In the Words of Today’s Freethinkers,” an interview series about the past, present, and future [OF] secular scholarship.

Michel earned an M.A. in French Studies from The Ohio State University (1998) and is A.B.D., also in French Studies, from the University of Michigan (2001). Mid-life crisis oblige, he is returning to college in August 2011, to pursue an M.S.W. with a specialization in Mental Health & Drugs of Abuse. Before relocating to Atlanta, Michel was an Academic Advisor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor campus, for nearly ten years. He has advised many students (and parents) on academic and life matters. He taught English, Public Speaking, Humanities, and French at various colleges and universities. In 2002, Michel published Poire Sucrée, Salée, Epicée, a short novel about a dance teacher forced to face the demons of her past. He is currently seeking representation for Seeing Purple, a dystopian novel set in Anaïs Abelard’s hometown, the New Orleans of tomorrow, also home to the power-hungry mega church known as the Calvinistry. Michel considers himself an amateur ‘atheologist,’ and writes and speaks primarily about religious determinism, atheist spirituality, and freethinking therapy.  

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Michel-Camille Bordeau

I’m an Atheist who sees god.  Do laugh, but don’t click away, yet.  Seeing or perceiving god is really easy, even for a non-believer.  Even in my godfree world, God is a collage of artistic-aesthetic re-presentations, a sensory response to the magnificent beauty of a stunningly decorated church, a life-like statue, a painting, a ritual song or dance, a poem, etc.  To me, God exists as an awe inspiring anthropological artifact which can never be fully dead as long as I retain the ability to see, hear, smell, think, or touch.  Rare breed of Atheist, I believe that god is as alive as a tapestry, a reliquary, or a stele exhibited in the Louvre.  But as much as I love museums, and that particularly French museum, I don’t live in one.  My real dwelling is Humanity, you, us, my next of kin.

Because I’m an Atheist who is also a religion nerd, sometimes I wonder how gods survive the fierce competition of today’s abundance of sensory stimulations.  Let’s face it, gods are no longer the lone subjects or objects of our sensory attention. They used to be the tallest (building), the loudest (choir music), the innermost (thought-prayer), the most palatable (can you say flesh-wafer and blood thirst?), the finest (philosophy of life), the greatest (proto-science), and the wildest (crusader warriors).  They no longer are!  Nowadays, there’s too much competition, and that’s why, in order to be heard in the general cacophony, some religious leaders don’t hesitate to make exaggerated claims on behalf of their god.

Harold Camping’s Rapture prediction was one of these exaggerated claims.  It was a rather simple eschatological claim, dangerously simple some might say.  Indeed, it was no different than another advert trying to catch your attention at the end of online article:

May 21^st, 2011 @ 6pm (your time) Game over! See you in Heaven, by God’s side! Click here for more information and begin the journey!

How is this not a scam?

Before I sat down to write this article I wondered if it would be too cynical to write about another Failed Rapture.  It’s a painful subject for most Christian friends who are willing to put faith into the certainty of their eschatological future, but rarely when it comes so soon or when it’s so clearly predetermined; and never when it’s as finite as death itself.  In truth, a countdown always defeats the metaphorical intent-purpose of an eschatological scheme.  And my Christian friends know that.

My Christian friends are a non-representative bunch and that’s why I try to be reasonable when I go for their hearts—I’m just warming up!  They’re all highly educated, most of them are trained in literature, religion, psychology, cultural studies, and a lot more.  They would never mistake a metaphor for death (the ‘rapture’ and other items on the list of eschatological trials) for its reality-realization.  They know that putting so much stock in a prediction is putting oneself at the mercy of a scam(mer).  And they know that religious scammers are no better than their cousins in the penny-stock industry.

But financial and religious scams don’t seem to hit the same buttons. They don’t trigger the same emotional awareness. We don’t view them with the same set of eyes.

A financial prediction promising great returns (dollars) on small investments (pennies) is easily ignored. We’ve all been warned, we’ve all been scammed really, and we know that in financial matters, a penny doesn’t grow into a dollar no more than a rotten fruit grows into a healthy tree overnight.

America may be a squandering culture; Americans may be overburden with debts, but they can tell when they’ve been duped economically.  They know a penny scam when they see one, and they can smell it and feel it, long before they will touch or be touched by it.  No one is immune and immutable to financial schemes, and that’s why we are always prepared to bring the fight to penny scammers or we’ll come after Banksters and other tax-free cheaters.

So the cynic wonders: How could Harold Camping rip so many hearts and wallets with his Rapture scheme?  He’s just another scammer, albeit a spiritual one.  Why are we so apathetic when dealing with spiritual scams?

Humanity’s heritage (call it History if you want) is a reminder that marketing creed has been religion’s number one priority since the dawn of proto-history.  And religious organizations have been successful at it—they’ve literally written the book on idea-product marketing.  If you ever asked yourself how our book-religions managed to survive centuries of well-recorded illiteracy, you know exactly what I mean. What marketing geniuses our Bronze-Axial Age forefathers were!

If you think about it, a book is a curious thing when you can’t read.  How does one believe in a book one can’t read?  How do you comprehend words you can’t decipher?  Theist friends might say by the Grace of God.  I might add by the Mouth of the Guru.  The translator of symbols, the scriptor of meaning, or what Erik Erikson called the ‘provider’ of divine knowledge always gladly assists.

Imagine what it would do to your curiosity, imagine how excited you would be, and trusting you’d likely become, if someone told you that he could turn the meaninglessness of the book into meaning that matters most to you: the meaning of (your) Life.

Can you imagine the excitement of a four-year-old when his dad comes to his bedroom for a bit of reading? You got it, then.

Now, if the father kept his promise to his son, the child would have good reasons (the primordial one being the love for his father) to be overwhelmed with joy.  He would be one happy bedtime kid!  But, what if the father didn’t keep his promise? What of the child’s emotional reaction?

In essence, Guru-Patriarch Harold Camping turned his followers into no more than innocent children when he proposed to deciphered the hidden meaning of the Bible and promised that the Rapture would occur on May 21, 2011. He put them at his mercy and wasn’t merciful when,in the end, he broke his promise of the promise land.

As Erik Erikson puts it in Childhood and Society (page 404):

All religions have in common the periodical childlike surrender to a Provider or providers who dispense earthly fortune [not in monetary sense, that’s for sure!] as well as spiritual health; some demonstration of man’s [childlike] smallness by way of reduced posture and humble gesture; the admission in prayer and song of misdeeds, of misthoughts, and of evil intentions; fervent appeal for inner unification by divine guidance; and finally, the insight that individual trust must become a common faith, individual mistrust a commonly formulated evil, while the individual’s restoration must become part of the ritual practice of many, and must become a sign of trustworthiness in the community.

We can’t expect restoration of trustworthiness with the likes of Harold Camping.  He’s already made that very clear.  After the fiasco of May 21^st, he took time to regroup, and when he was ready to face the public, he came out to announce that he wasn’t wrong, he couldn’t be wrong, and he would never be wrong.

The Patriarch, provider of eschatological hope, had spoken.

But these were not the expected words. He did not seek forgiveness or offer an apology to his wounded children and/or the rest of the world. Being wrong was the right thing for him—and he was certain that God would forgive him. In fact, he was convinced that it was in God’s plan…for him…through him… and for the rest of the world… whether we liked it or not.  Even if some of us, his dearest fans, suffered great emotional injury.

But being wrong is one thing and doing wrong is another. If Harold Camping had been wrong and hadn’t pocketed tax-free dollars, we might feel sorry for that senile delinquent. Unfortunately, the patriarch-provider deceived the children-followers, he did wrong to them.

And that’s wrong!

At 6:01pm on May 21^st, 2001, after a lifetime of waiting, the gates of eternity (he’d promise to open) were shut in the face of his most trusted followers. In that moment, to them, life became death. The anxiety of life and the great fear of death were indivisible again. It was punishment by Death! The greatest spiritually injury of all! 

As Matthew Alper remind us in The “God” Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God, we can’t forget that “Living with certain knowledge of imminent death leaves us in a perpetual anxiety.” (117)  It is cruel to tease with what Alper calls our species’ ‘anxiety function.’  It is humanly criminal to promise healing from the anxiety of death-survival and deliver the absolute opposite.  Stuck between delusion of life and the illusion of life after death, caught between fear and anxiety, helpless, homeless, hopeless, Harold Camping’s followers are no longer provided for.  They surrendered their spiritual lives to him, all $80 million of their material worth, and, though the Rapture failed miserably, he has no intention to return the favor.

The Patriarch has abandoned his Children: he’s closed the book on them—the Bible, not the checkbook. He’s left them in ghost town, trapped between life and death. He failed them spiritually, scammed them economically, and he will not fix them emotionally.

Harold Camping is the great Guru of Spiritual Scam.  An example never to follow!

Now, what?  Humanity must and will come to the emotional rescue.  And as friends, family, and even (Atheist) foes, like myself, help these dead-again be live again, whether we are godfree-gurufree or not (nobody is perfect), we must always remember that the emotional price of these eschatological scams is very steep. And, since as Americans, we seem to have a keener eye for anything that resembles financial schemes, we should never forget the heavy economical price of Harold Camping’s Rapture campaign.

He’s pocketed 80 million tax-free dollars in various revenue schemes since 2005. It’s his money to keep. Followers will never see it back and we, tax-p(r)ayers, will never see it back either. Yep, we should never forget that we, the tax-paying people, are all contributors to the lifestyle of these penny-prophets.  And we, the tax-paying people, should never be victimized by spiritual scammers like Harold Camping any more than by banksters or tax-free cheaters.

****************************

Michel-Camille Bordeau is the founder and author of The School of Seshata  (www.scriptotheism.net), a blog about Liberal Spirituality, a concept of spirituality based on compassion and reason, core principles of Humanistic Ethics. Michel is also a regular contributor to www.ReligionNerd.com.  He’s recently started “Freethinking Tomorrow: In the Words of Today’s Freethinkers,” an interview series about the past, present, and future [OF] secular scholarship.

Michel earned an M.A. in French Studies from The Ohio State University (1998) and is A.B.D., also in French Studies, from the University of Michigan (2001). Mid-life crisis oblige, he is returning to college in August 2011, to pursue an M.S.W. with a specialization in Mental Health & Drugs of Abuse. Before relocating to Atlanta, Michel was an Academic Advisor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor campus, for nearly ten years. He has advised many students (and parents) on academic and life matters. He taught English, Public Speaking, Humanities, and French at various colleges and universities. In 2002, Michel published Poire Sucrée, Salée, Epicée, a short novel about a dance teacher forced to face the demons of her past. He is currently seeking representation for Seeing Purple, a dystopian novel set in Anaïs Abelard’s hometown, the New Orleans of tomorrow, also home to the power-hungry mega church known as the Calvinistry. Michel considers himself an amateur ‘atheologist,’ and writes and speaks primarily about religious determinism, atheist spirituality, and freethinking therapy.  

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Michel-Camille Bordeau

If you ever wonder what’s the future of freethinking and who’s leading the charge; if you are curious to know what Freethinkers of today are doing to ensure that tomorrow’s secular world is on the right path; if you want to know what’s good to (free) think about these days; or, if you simply want to read a mind-bending interview, tune in to Religion Nerd for my series, Freethinking Tomorrow: In the Words of Today’s Freethinkers.

If, like yours truly, you’ve been closely following the new wave of freethinkers, if you’ve helped Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Bart Ehrman, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and many others become bestselling authors, you might remember Matthew Alper, author of The ‘God’ Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God. You might even recall the original cover of the 1996 self-published edition of his seminal work. 

Indeed, there were 50,000 of us who became fans long before The “God” Part of the Brain was bought by Sourcebooks and repackaged in 2008.  And, to think of it, long before the aforementioned became household names.

Although The “God” Part of the Brain continues to pad Sourcebooks’ pocketbook; although it has been adopted by about 50 college professors; and, although, fifteen years after the initial release, Matthew Alper still receives hundreds of e-mails from students and professors worldwide, I still think it should get more attention. It should get Religion Nerd’s reader’s attention. Here’s why.

First, Matthew Alper is one of the first thinkers, if not the first thinker, to successfully demonstrate that human spirituality and our longing for a transcendental being might have a bio-psychological root.  Second, he is responsible for the now fast growing field of bio-theology (aka, neuro-theology).  And, last but not least, The ‘God’ Part of the Brain is a remarkably easy read, considering the complexity of the concepts Alper introduces.  In short, below is my interview with Matthew Alper, a true pioneer.

MCB: Why is ‘God’ in quotation marks in your title? Is God always in quotation marks for Matthew Alper?

MA: I put God in quotation marks in my book’s title for the simple reason that I don’t believe in one [God]and wanted that to come through lest people think I was writing a book which suggested that the actual spirit of God somehow resides in our heads as many probably do believe.  According to Wikipedia, the use of quotation marks to denote sarcasm is referred to as irony punctuation so this was my intention.

MCB: Why did you relegate the mind-bending concepts of religious and spiritual impulses to a footnote?

MA: My book is so packed with mind-bending concepts that sometimes I ran out of room and had to cram some concepts, as they occurred to me, into footnotes to avoid shifting all of the page/chapter settings, which, frankly, would have been a pain in the ass.

MCB: And what do you say to people who argue that the spiritual/religious dichotomy is a contemporary and fallacious invention?

MA: Every culture from the dawn of our species–no matter how isolated–has believed in some form of a spiritual reality.  I therefore hypothesize that this would suggest that humans, as a species, are genetically predisposed–that is “hard-wired”–to believe in some form of a transcendental reality.  This is further supported by an accumulation of genetic, anthropological, biological, and ethno-botanical evidence.  Thus, one of the main premises of my book is that humans are genetically engineered with a dualistic perception of reality which compels the majority of our species to believe in some form of a spiritual reality.  It is neither a social or historical construct but rather a biological one.  The function of this cognitive adaptation is to enable our species to survive our unique and otherwise debilitating awareness of death.  Of course, each individual belief system, that is religion, is constructed by individual cultures, but the initial predisposition to have faith in a spiritual realm comes from the mechanics of our neurophysiology–what I informally refer to as our “God” part of the brain.

MCB: Which concepts in The “God” Part of the Brain show your greatest strength as a thinker?

MA: Without reiterating the entirety of those concepts I think are most original to my work and which highlight my strengths as a thinker, I will simply list seven of them as something of a teaser.

1. That humans are genetically predisposed to a dualistic interpretation of reality. 
2. My theory that it was the advent of self-conscious awareness, which, though it made us the most powerful species on earth, also made us the first animal to be aware of our own mortality. It was this debilitating anxiety of inevitable death that I suggest prompted the evolution of a cognitive adaptation that helped allay our fear of death by compelling us to believe in an alternate, transcendental realm through which our “souls” or “spirits” would persevere for all eternity.
3. My theory regarding the nature of our view of infinity as nothing more than a cognitive construct.
4. How in our original state–as Paleolithic nomads–the religious function was essential but then became maladaptive as we became a global animal.
5. The biologizing of our concepts of good and evil via my theories regarding the evolution of moral reasoning.
6. A biological explanation of atheism and the introduction of the new field of “Bio-Theology” and “Bio-History.”
7. A neurophysiological interpretation of near-death experiences, speaking in tongues, transcendent states and religious conversion.

MCB: The God Part is as relevant today as it was when it was first published. What do you have to say to your new readers that you didn’t have a chance to say in 1996? 

MA: I’d say to them, “Why didn’t you listen to me in 1996 when I first discussed these ideas? What the hell were you doing then that was so important? And now you want me to repeat myself?”

MCB: In the 2008 edition of The “God” Part of the Brain you first introduce the concept of bio-history and illustrate your point by discussing what has motivated people to immigrate to the US.  How can bio-history help readers better conceptualize (their) cultural heritage?  Can it help them understand why religion plays such an important role in American life?

MA: Regarding the premise of bio-history, without reiterating the entire chapter, suffice to say that, what I wanted to introduce as a concept was that just as particular physical traits can be passed along with the migration of a particular gene pool via the phenomenon known as genetic drift (as was true, for instance, of those physical traits associated with the Native Americans whose Asian ancestors crossed the Bering Strait), the same holds true for cognitive traits which can also be transferred by the migrations of certain gene pools. 

MCB: You have a fascinating chapter entitled ‘Why are there Atheists?’ I’m sure Religion Nerd readers would like to know why you think there are people like us? 

MA: In that chapter, I offer the first proactive take on an atheistic philosophy i.e., as most atheistic ideologies are based in the mere denial of God’s existence, I would like to stress that no philosophy can be justifiably upheld without possessing some underlying logic through which to substantiate its basic principles. Without such a logic, what is referred to as a philosophy is really nothing more than just another groundless belief system, founded in emotion rather than reason. As I see it, this is the essential problem faced by today’s atheist movement. Rather than possessing an inherent wisdom of its own, the atheist movement relies on the logical shortcomings of those faiths it seeks to contest. And though it’s true that no religion has ever been able to defend its precepts with reason, no legitimate philosophy can stand on gainsay alone. The contradicting of one belief system does not validate the tenets of another. Establishing that something is not white, for instance, does not necessitate its being black.  Analogously, finding fault in the convictions of every world religion does not constitute proof that there is no God.  Consequently, if we are ever to advance a viable atheism, it must possess its own rationale, its own logical foundation, something I believe this new science of Bio-theology finally provides.

When I re-read The ‘God’ Part of the Brain to prepare this interview, I was most impressed by the maturity and freshness of Matthew’s incredible effort—I like to think we are on a first name basis.  Reading The ‘God’ Part of the Brain today, reading it along the works of Harris, Dawkins, and Bennett, reminded me that I/we have a lot more to learn from it.

For more information on Matthew Alper and his book, The ‘God’ Part of the Brain, visit his website at http://www.godpart.com/

**************************

About Michel-Camille Bordeau

Michel-Camille Bordeau is the founder and author of The School of Seshata (www.scriptotheism.net), a blog about secular spirituality and the home of the Scriptopedia Project. Michel earned an M.A. in French Studies from The Ohio State University (1998).  Mid-life crisis oblige, he is returning to college in August 2011, to pursue an M.S.W. with a specialization in Mental Health & Drugs of Abuse.

Before relocating to Atlanta, Michel was an Academic Advisor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor campus, for nearly ten years. He has advised many students (and parents) on academic and life matters. He taught English, Public Speaking, Humanities, and French at various colleges and universities. In 2002, Michel published Poire Sucrée, Salée, Epicée, a short novel about a dance teacher forced to face the demons of her past. He is currently seeking representation for Seeing Purple, a dystopian novel set in Anaïs Abelard’s hometown, the New Orleans of tomorrow, also home to the power-hungry mega church known as the Calvinistry. Michel considers himself an amateur ‘atheologist’ and he often writes under the nom de plume Anais Abelard.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Michel-Camille Bordeau

In his most recent article, famed spiritual author Deepak Chopra expresses his concern that “By making belief in God their enemy… atheists deprive themselves of what spirituality is really about: a process of inner growth.”

Chopra’s short article is a blog-jab in Christopher Hitchens’ direction, a response to a recent letter he wrote for the annual convention of atheists, and, by ‘atheists’, Mr. Chopra implies those who think-believe in the manner of the outspoken Christopher Hitchens.

Though, like any self-respecting minority, Atheists have plenty of reasons and sufficient rights to question majority opinions like those expressed by Mr. Chopra, assuming that every Atheist sees Humanity with Hitchens’ eyes is somewhat reductive, although very flattering, considering the man’s achievements.

As an Atheist, I wish I were as eloquently acerbic as Hitchens and I wish I had his worldwide exposure. I wish I had something mind-bending enough to say to deserve quality real estate in the greatest newspapers, magazines, and journals around the globe.

Yet, wishing to be a recognized participant in today’s (Media) vanity fair—pun intended—doesn’t mean I would argue, with Hitchens, that god-believers are all under the spell of “mind-forged manacles of servility and superstition.” It’s his ideological battle, not mine: this Atheist’s position, not that one.

My minority-battle is elsewhere, and I don’t want my tree (of knowledge) to be taken for the proverbial forest (of contradictions and confusions).

I’m not Hitchens, Hitchens is not me.I’m much better looking. He’s a lot smarter.

As non-believers, we are two of a kind, and that’s why, with due deference, I’ve decided to give Mr. Chopra a one of a kind, freethinking opinion about his article from last week.

It’s my Atheist take. It’s my thought-response to Mr. Chopra’s “Christopher Hitchens and the Atheists’ Mistake.”

It’s my twig of knowledge and no one should seek the forest behind.  Buddha aint’ there!

Let’s get right into the subject, let’s see if Mr. Chopra’s kind worries are justified,and let’s find out if Atheists do deprive themselves of spiritual growth.

Mr. Chopra writes:

By making belief in God their enemy, atheists deprive themselves of what spirituality is really about: a process of inner growth. There are wisdom traditions around the world that do not use the word God (e.g., Buddhism, Vedanta) or advocate religious worship in the conventional sense. Countless people have seen through the faults of organized religion and turned instead to their own spiritual journey.

Why does Mr. Chopra affirm (and therefore treat as absolute) that non-belief means non-potentiality for spiritual growth?

God-less is not spiritual-less, is it? Spirituality or ‘inner growth’, as Mr. Chopra defines it, is not the exclusive dominion of those who call themselves religious, those who pray to a sky-god or relate to an inner god or a plain ol’ transcendental deity. I am an atheist, have been all my life, and have no reason to change precisely because my humble successes in life have been the result of inner growth. And I’ve been quite intentional about it.  I had no choice but to seek inner growth. It was a matter of survival.  Here’s why.

Twenty-years ago I was a jobless, high school drop-out, living with his soon to be divorcing parents in the small chaos of a sleeping community outside of Paris. I’m writing this article in a language I barely knew back then. I didn’t know who Hitchens or Chopra were. I don’t think I’d cared to know who they were or what their contribution to the greater good of Humanity might have been. I was more concerned about static ‘moi’ and I was searching for ways to expand personal horizons, to grow within and without.

Back then, I would not have been able to read the article I am writing and you are reading. English was a foreign language. The thinking-studying of religions was a foreign concern. I would not have cared a second about the discourse this article is trying to penetrate-perpetuate. I didn’t know what ‘discourse’ meant. I didn’t give a hoot about this sort of thinking.

Twenty years later, I’ve come a long way, thanks to a deliberate effort to improve my chances in life. I’m as God-less as I ever was, though. I’m a good example, but not an isolated one, of what I call Liberal Spirituality, a desire to maximize potential in the service of humanistic growth—here, you must think of ‘Liberal’ as in Liberal Arts, not the semantico-political mumbo-jumbo.

Back to Mr. Chopra’s statement: why does he exclude Atheists from that group of ‘countless people’ who, while acknowledging organized religion’s many shortcomings, have found their own spiritual journey? Feel free to read again, I’ll wait for you.

God-less is not purposeless, is it? I don’t believe in the existence of a god, but I have a number of purposes in life. My wife thinks I have too many purposes, in fact, but it’s okay because I love her first.

One of these purposes is to educate people about religious misconceptions. For that purpose, I’m even returning to school to earn a fourth college degree: more inner growth is under way. I will train in Social Work to become a psychotherapist and hope that eventually I will be in a position to help people who have been victims of religious abuse and are ready to find a way out of that toxic relationship.

Also, I want to live a long life, in which I shall continue to love my wife, child, our families, our friends, and, if given a chance, a good chunk of Humanity! Humble purpose, but purpose nonetheless!

I will dare to generalize and state that most Atheists are not purposeless. Majority opinion should not hastily judge minority thought-behaviors, even when Atheists seek spiritual purpose beyond-before God-the norm! Let’s remember that for many Atheists, Life is the default spiritual journey. I’d go even further and say that…

Life (with or without god) is the default inner growth journey. It’s how Humanity, our next of kin, engenders the next generation, how we guarantee that there will be a world to come. It’s a matter of existential survival.

As Mr. Chopra puts it himself: “Spirituality is existential, too. It asks who we are, why we are here, and what are the highest values by which a person should live.” Though, if you read his article, and I recommend you do, you will find out that Mr. Chopra’s quest for inner growth (spirituality) is existential (worthy, pragmatic goal) only if ontological questions are within the context of some metalogical journey.

To put it simply, Mr. Chopra offers his advice to Atheists and suggest that a spiritual journey of ‘Find God and/to Find Self’ is a worthy goal that should not be denigrated. It’s not a bad advice, though not a novel one. And most importantly, it’s not the only noble and spiritual-worthy one either.

As an Atheist, inner growth comes first. By Mr. Chopra’s definition spirituality is the first stage of my life journey, the first step I take every morning, long before I look up to the sky and pounder about some metalogical question.

I ask questions about what are the highest values by which I should live in society, who I am, why I am, first. I’m ontological first because it’s a matter of existential survival.

My purpose in life is to best contribute to Humanity’s welfare. I am truly dedicated to the survival of my species: Humanity, my next of kin. I am devoted to friends, family, and fellow human beings in matters Health, Education, Love & Lucidity.

The order of my personal priorities might be different than those advocated by Mr. Chopra, but, by his own definition, they are no less spiritually effective. ‘Find Self and/to Find Humanity’ is a worthy existential/inner growth goal. (Personal) Reason(ing) inthe service of compassion (for Humanity) is spiritually liberating. Humanity does keep me alive. It’s my default spiritual bond with you. It’s our spiritual bond.

Caring and appreciating my next of kin is what I’ve been doing for forty years and will continue to do for the next forty plus. That’s the reason why:

In matters of Health, I will trust a licensed Nurse, Therapist, Social Worker, and Doctor, first. Also, I will trust a warm broth and a comfortable bed. A Loved One sitting next to me.

In matters of Education, I will trust a University educated Teacher, a Counselor, and a Professor, first. I will trust my curiosity and that of my kin.

In matters of Love, I will trust a caring Family Member, a loving Friend and Neighbor. I will trust those who understand that Love is for us all, first.  I will trust heart-felt Love.

In matters of Lucidity, I will trust those who contribute daily to my good Health, Education, and are deserving of reciprocated Love, first. I am the agent of my life. Me with You. We are my Life, now! My Humanity!

In matters of Health, Education, Love, and Lucidity, I simply trust Humanity, my next of kin, our mother. I trust Humanity, that’s why I’m an inspired freethinker-atheist. And I’m not alone.

Contrary to majority belief, the large minority of Atheists out there (over a billion strong) have a worthy belief-spiritual system, the default existential-survival mode, I might add, and one Mr. Chopra and his followers might agree to:

Life (with or without god) is the default inner growth journey. It’s how Humanity, our next of kin, engenders the next generation, how we guarantee that there will be a world to come. It’s a matter of existential survival.

Read more at : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/05/16/deepak_chopra_atheists_mistake.DTL#ixzz1McEuykhm

 *****************************

About Michel-Camille Bordeau

Michel-Camille Bordeau is the founder and author of The School of Seshata (www.scriptotheism.net), a blog about secular spirituality and the home of the Scriptopedia Project. Michel earned an M.A. in French Studies from The Ohio State University (1998).  Mid-life crisis oblige, he is returning to college in August 2011, to pursue an M.S.W. with a specialization in Mental Health & Drugs of Abuse.

Before relocating to Atlanta, Michel was an Academic Advisor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor campus, for nearly ten years. He has advised many students (and parents) on academic and life matters. He taught English, Public Speaking, Humanities, and French at various colleges and universities. In 2002, Michel published Poire Sucrée, Salée, Epicée, a short novel about a dance teacher forced to face the demons of her past. He is currently seeking representation for Seeing Purple, a dystopian novel set in Anaïs Abelard’s hometown, the New Orleans of tomorrow, also home to the power-hungry mega church known as the Calvinistry. Michel considers himself an amateur ‘atheologist’ and he often writes under the nom de plume Anais Abelard.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Michel-Camille Bordeau

CJ Werleman

If you ever wonder what’s the future of freethinking and who’s leading the charge; if you are curious to know what Freethinkers of today are doing to ensure that tomorrow’s secular world is on the right path; if you want to know what’s good to (free) think about these days; or, if you simply want to read a mind-bending interview, tune in to Religion Nerd for my series, Freethinking Tomorrow: In the Words of Today’s Freethinkers.

The format is simple: I read a book, contact the author with a lengthy email, invite him/her to answer half a dozen questions, and then I wait eagerly to see if blind confidence gets rewarded.  And it does.

The first Freethinker I decided to interview for this series was the Australian born author of God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of The Bible and  Jesus Lied-He was Only Human: Debunking The New Testament, C.J. Werleman. When I initiated contact, after a brief introduction, I made sure to explain to some length how much I understood, enjoyed, and had a willingness to share with fellow Religion Nerd readers his rationalist take on the Bible.

My hopes were very soon answered. CJ sent responses to my questions in less than twenty-four hours—I like to think we are on a first name basis. I am a fan, if you haven’t notice.  And after this, I hope you will be one too.

MC:  Do you think rationalists, freethinkers, and secular scholars have to resort to in-your-throat titles in order to be heard?  How did this marketing strategy work for you? What other titles did you consider? Anything Twitter worthy? [CJ Werleman--@rationalists-- is very active on Twitter]

CJ: Interesting question.  I guess a captivating title is essential for any book these days, no matter the genre. Especially when you consider the vast number of new titles released every year, which is a result of improved self-publishing ease and accessibility.  Now days, anyone can write a novel, for example, and then self-publish on Kindle within two minutes of completing their manuscript.  Thus, with a litany of available titles on the market, an attention grabber is a must.  Unless you’re a Dan Brown, of course. Coming up with the title for God Hates You. Hate Him Back was as difficult as writing the book itself.  I wanted something that conveyed the objective of the book, that being to demonstrate the God of the Bible is arguably the most wicked character of all fiction, using the sixty-six chapters of the Holy Book to validate that claim.  For a long time, every title that either I came up with or my publisher suggested, didn’t meet the litmus test I had set.  Then, with less than four weeks to release I was watching Lethal Weapon 2, of all movies.  And there is a scene where Danny Glover’s character says, “I think God hates me!” In reply Mel Gibson says, “Do what I do, hate him back.” That was the light bulb moment, while eating nachos and enjoying a beer watching a crappy movie.

MC:  God Hates You. Hate Him Backis refreshingly humorous considering the seriousness of your project—plowing through the Bible for a non-apologetic, textual analysis. Was there a particular point in your research where you wanted to toss humor out the window and empty your lungs? Can you recall particularly frustrating passages?

CJ:  Ha. Well, yes, the Bible can be a tediously boring endeavor.  For example, reading Leviticus is like watching golf on valium.  It reads as an ancient cookbook, providing every minuscule detail for preparing bread offerings.  I’m sleepy just thinking about it. But overall I love the Bible. It remains the most significant book in all of Western civilization, but no one reads it. Christians don’t even read it. In my book I cite one study that shows 93% of American households own at least one copy of the Bible but 75% of Americans can’t name the four gospels. So I wanted to write a summary of the Bible in a manner that makes it enjoyable and entertaining, and not just for theologians, but for the man in the street. Like me.

MC:  By the end of the Old Testament, your precise count reveals that Satan is not in God’s league when it comes to genocidal mania—40 innocent victims versus 31 million is a shocking discrepancy. What social, cultural, if not economical mechanisms must be set forth for people to realize that (1) the Bible is a toxic, if not dangerous read, and that (2) their interests are better served outside the influence of Religion?

CJ:  Absolutely the Bible is a dangerous book if you do what God commands you to do.  For example, if my daughter says, “God damn it!” I’m to take her to the edge of the town and bash her brains out with large rocks.  If I wish to sell my daughter into sexual slavery, not only does the Bible not say there’s anything wrong with that, it gives commercial terms and conditions for doing such a thing.  When we look at places like tribal Pakistan, for example, there they routinely execute people for blasphemy, a victimless crime.  Now, are they barbaric, evil people?  No they’re not.  In fact, according to biblical law, of which the Koran is based, they’re more pious and pleasing to God than those who ignore that command. When people become cognizant of these kinds of issues, people realize this ancient book has no relevancy in today’s times.

MC:  You make a point of demonstrating that authors of the Bible were ‘family-challenged.’ What’s your reaction to contemporary theists who are still convinced that the Bible is a moral barometer in matters of marriage, family, parenting?  What would you like (to tell us) to tell them?

CJ:  Well, similar to my answer in the previous question, the Bible only provides moral guidance if you wish to live in a world of tribal barbarism.  If you don’t think slavery, misogyny, racism, xenophobia, and homophobia are good values, then the Bible is not a great reference for morality.

MC: Which argument in God Hates You. Hate Him Back shows your greatest strength as a thinker?  Is this the strength most recognized by your readers or critics?

CJ:  I’d hate to second guess or presume my reader’s thoughts, but based on the feedback I do receive, and at the risk of being a presumptuous turd, it would seem people admire the way I do go question the taboo and sacred in a no-holds barred manner.

MC:  Tell us about your new book, Jesus Lied-He was Only Human: Debunking The New Testament. You don’t beat around the (burning) bush with that one either; do you consider it a continuation of God Hates You, or an entirely new project? What should your readers be excited about?

CJ:  Jesus Lied He Was Only Human is somewhat of a sequel to my first book.  With God Hates You. Hate Him Back I examine all sixty-six chapters of the Bible, but as the Old Testament comprises more of the Bible than the New, it’s the former that gets most of the attention, and therefore a closer examination of the Jesus myth had to be its own, stand-alone book, as there was just too much to cover. Using the New Testament, and some Gnostic gospels, I break down Jesus’ life into the respective milestones of birth, baptism, childhood, ministry, arrest, trial, execution, and resurrection.  I then show readers how wildly the gospels contradict one another with their respective accounts. Bearing in mind we have no biographies of Jesus outside of the Bible. When one sees the gospels examined side-by-side, or horizontally, one sees how absurd the Jesus biography is hacked together.

MC: What’s next for CJ Werleman? 

CJ:  My next book tackles Islam, which is due for release in the Fall 2011.  I provide a biography of Muhammad, from childhood to his prophethood, while explaining the entire Koran alongside the things Muhammad did and experienced.  The ultimate objective is to provide readers with a contextual understanding of the Koran. For example, when Muhammad said, “Jews behave like apes”, people will accuse the Koran of being anti-Semitic, and it seems that way when you take that passage in isolation. But this verse is contained within an entire chapter that refers to one specific Jewish clan in the city of Medina, a clan that went behind his back to offer assistance to the people who were trying to kill him, the Quraysh.  Hence, this verse is Muhammad expressing his disappointment with that particular tribe he thought was friendly to his mission and is not directed to the entire Jewish people.

In this first installment of ‘Freethinking Tomorrow: In the Words of Today’s Freethinkers,’ I thought it fitting to start with CJ Werleman, a man who dared to plow thru the 770000 words of the Bible never lost his sense of humor, au contraire! Good (free) thinking always begins with a thorough analysis of primary texts, which is rarely something to smile about. So, it only makes sense to conclude that with God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of The Bible and Jesus Lied-He was Only Human: Debunking The New Testament, C.J. Werleman has been responsible for an incredible tour de force.  And we (free) thank for that!

Please, follow CJ Werleman on Twitter (@rationalists) and keep an eye on this busy man on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/CJ-Werleman/207324500344

***************************************************

About Michel-Camille Bordeau

Michel-Camille Bordeau is the founder and author of The School of Seshata (www.scriptotheism.net), a blog about secular spirituality and the home of the Scriptopedia Project. Michel earned an M.A. in French Studies from The Ohio State University (1998).  Mid-life crisis oblige, he is returning to college in August 2011, to pursue an M.S.W. with a specialization in Mental Health & Drugs of Abuse.

Before relocating to Atlanta, Michel was an Academic Advisor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor campus, for nearly ten years. He has advised many students (and parents) on academic and life matters. He taught English, Public Speaking, Humanities, and French at various colleges and universities. In 2002, Michel published Poire Sucrée, Salée, Epicée, a short novel about a dance teacher forced to face the demons of her past. He is currently seeking representation for Seeing Purple, a dystopian novel set in Anaïs Abelard’s hometown, the New Orleans of tomorrow, also home to the power-hungry mega church known as the Calvinistry. Michel considers himself an amateur ‘atheologist’ and he often writes under the nom de plume Anais Abelard.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Michel-Camille Bordeau

I’ve never been entirely satisfied with radical views that reject the possibility that a higher entity ‘exists’ (stick with me, this is still a freethinking argument, I haven’t lost it… yet). Complete denial of such an important cultural creation as God is no less problematic than blind devotion to it. ‘How about God as a fig Newton of our imagination?’  My kid would ask.  I couldn’t blame him: how about God as a re-presented, fictionalized entity?  

It would be dishonest, shameful, and delusional to deny centuries of anthropological ‘evidence’ of the divine. If we respect Humanity and we work toward its steady survival, can we really ignore Goddesses and Gods, this incredibly rich, anthropo-cultural collage of paintings, writings, sculptures, songs, stories, impulses, etc.? Hardly.

This über-representation of the Divine is undeniably evident, tangible, visible, appreciable, even when it cannot provide existential proof of a breathing and living entity. The idea of god is as thick as a bible, as sturdy as a cathedral, as mind-soothing as a choir, as convoluted as a theological argument, as tragically gruesome as a Jesus nailed to a cross, again and again and again. Goodness that’s not purty and that’s got to hurt!

What’s the point of denying the rhetorical, symbolic, poetic, philosophical, architectural, proto-scientific, linguistic, in short, exoteric re-presentations of the Divine? We are surrounded by this über-depiction, we can’t pretend to be freethinkers and be blind to it.

To put it another way, I refuse to deny the artistic evidence of Tom Sawyer, Madame Bovary, Liz Bennet, Seshata, and Socrates; that would constitute too great a loss for our/my cultural understanding of Humanity. As a scriptotheist, I don’t see why I should ignore evidence of this über-represented Divine: ‘Theo’s ‘scripted’ representation.*

The more I know about how and why we have ‘fictionalize’ deities, the better I understand why God is a fiction that will never work for me.

Created gods and goddesses have stimulated and still stimulate our minds because they are music, words, images, shapes, and ideas clever humans have created to do just that: to tease our minds, or more precisely, to stimulate both spiritual impulse and religious impulse.  These ’purty’ (aesthetically stimulating) creations can make us feel ‘purty’ inside (physiologically stimulated).

And that’s how the Buddhist will be in awe in front of Notre Dame, the Christian will admire the craftsmanship of a Mandala, and I, a scriptotheist, will admire the collective genius of the men and women who have work tirelessly to erect thousands of temples and other churches throughout the world.

But, I can be in a state of anthropological beatitude in front of a perfectly preserved, three thousand years old clay tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh, without ever having to know or care to know about the cultural motivations, the inspired theology, behind its creation. And what goes for ancient Mesopotamian culture goes also for the cultures of the Axial Age, Confucianism, Greek philosophy, Egyptian, Judaic, Christian and Muslim theologies.

His purtiness (the re-presented Divine) can stimulate our hearts by purtiness alone. Can I be so obvious as to say that Beauty (in our eyes) can only be Beauty (in our hearts).

Again, it would be shameful to ignore the creative effects, the fulfillment of basic impulses resulting from fictional creations like Nietzsche’s  Zarathustra, Ann Rice’s vampires and her Jesus, and my kid’s Ninjatag (his clever creation). Why should I ignore the creative effects of the Great Seshata, Egyptian Goddess of Scribes, Siddharta, the Christian trinity, or even the more recent Joseph Smith?

As a scriptotheist, I will never ignore the creative effects of these fictionalized deities, but I’m not foolish or delusional enough as to set my existential clock solely on aesthetic ‘purtiness.’ When it comes to the welfare of Humanity (and my own welfare since, as a species, we are all intricately connected) I like to draw a clear line between fictionalize world and life’s reality. That is why I do not waste my time with what I call make-believers, clergymen (and women strangely enough) quoting scriptures from times so ancient that (1) they are culturally irrelevant to our daily survival (2) no matter how hard organized religions try to make them work. How irrelevant?

Many of you know how much I value Health, Education, Love, and Lucidity for all, how I like to tease by saying that Humanity should be on a HELL4ALL regimen—bad pun intended. But you also know how dedicated and passionate I am about these four basic human needs. How dedicated? As humanly as possible.

In matters of Health, I will trust a licensed Nurse, Therapist, and Doctor over a clergyman… no matter how well he can talk about healing miracles.

In matters of Education, I will trust a University educated Teacher, Counselor, and professor over a clergyman… no matter how big and ancient-looking his book is, no matter how well he speaks behind his lectern.

In matters of Love, I will trust those who understand why I long to reciprocate Love with them over a clergyman… no matter how well he pretends to know me like he knows the rest of Humanity, his prophet and his gang of saints included.  

In matters of Lucidity, I will trust those who contribute daily to my good Health, Education, and are deserving of reciprocated Love over a clergyman… no matter how ‘purty’ his book, his speech, or his undivided attention might be.

In matters of Health, Education, Love, and Lucidity, I simply trust Humanity, my next of kin. And that’s what makes me a proud scriptotheist, it’s as simple as that.

Do you trust Humanity in matters of Health, Education, Love, and Lucidity? HELL you should!

*Here you have it: the ‘script’ in ‘scriptotheist’ is for the undeniable ’evidence’ of the über-fictionalized/represented of the divine.

*********************************************

Michel-Camille Bordeau is the founder and author of The School of Seshata (www.scriptotheism.net), a blog about secular spirituality and the home of the Scriptopedia Project. Michel earned an M.A. in French Studies from The Ohio State University (1998).  Mid-life crisis oblige, he is returning to college in August 2011, to pursue an M.S.W. with a specialization in Mental Health & Drugs of Abuse. Before relocating to Atlanta, Michel was an Academic Advisor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor campus, for nearly ten years. He has advised many students (and parents) on academic and life matters. He taught English, Public Speaking, Humanities, and French at various colleges and universities. In 2002, Michel published Poire Sucrée, Salée, Epicée, a short novel about a dance teacher forced to face the demons of her past. He is currently seeking representation for Seeing Purple, a dystopian novel set in Anaïs Abelard’s hometown, the New Orleans of tomorrow, also home to the power-hungry mega church known as the Calvinistry. Michel considers himself an amateur ‘atheologist’ and he often writes under the nom de plume Anais Abelard.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Beatrice Marovich, Religion Dispatches

The small school of so-called “new atheists,” whose pop commentaries on religion, science, and political life have proven incendiary in recent years, have lately come up against the charge that they’re conspicuously homogenous: white, male, and squarely professional class [there areexceptions, however —ed.]. Personalities like the natty Richard Dawkins cut a profile that’s not much of a departure from the iconic white Protestant pulpit master. If you’ve been following the rise of this movement, noted Monica Shores on the Ms. Magazine blog last November, “you may have noticed that it sure looks a lot like old religion.” Surely atheism, to the extent that it is indeed a “movement,” isn’t comprised merely of stiff, aging white guys? The moment seems ripe for diversification on all kinds of fronts.

Enter Mark Salzman, the Yale-educated novelist whose multimedia piece, “An Atheist in Freefall,” was recently featured at the esteemed New York Public Library. The event, it seems, was meant to contribute something to the developing discussion about the use, value, shape, or function of atheism in our often fanatically religious society. Perhaps part of that contribution was to diversify the movement, if only faintly. Granted, Salzman is white. And male. Indeed, aesthetically Salzman doesn’tseem to be telling a very different story.

He glided onto the small stage in an oxford shirt layered under a navy blue sweater. His tidy khaki pants were crisply ironed and his blonde hair was swept neatly back and to the side. The effect was a Joel Osteen-ish confidence and charisma. But, as became clear over the course of his tortured, animated performance, Salzman is different; he’s a more vulnerable, more contemplative (and, let’s be frank, far kookier) sort of atheist.

In fact, although the event (as billed) promised to address the unique spiritual conundrums of an atheist in crisis, Salzman himself was reluctant to embrace the crisp certainties implied by the label. He comes from atheism, he announced toward the opening of the carefully calibrated monologue. His family is full of atheists. He was born into it. He has what he calls atheist “credentials.”

But he described himself as a formerly closeted spiritual “seeker”; in other words, he’s always been on a kind of vision quest for some form of “enlightenment.” For many years this meant trying to unlock the keys to ancient Chinese wisdom through kung fu; later, it meant playing the role of the inspired novelist who lives into his own neurosis and instability so that he might reveal poetic gems about the nature of life in the universe. Coincidentally, this novelistic career included the penning of a tome about a Carmelite nun (his 2001 Lying Awake)—a platform which, perhaps, allowed him to explore his seeker’s curiosity about the efficacy of prayer, or the constraints of divine will, from behind the mask of a middle-aged female monastic.

But the spiritual balm that Salzman has worked up, to deal with the loss of faith in everyday life, is essentially non-theistic in its metaphysical register. Explication requires a brief tour through his nearly hour-long monologue.

Salzman tells the story of an optimistic, but highly anxious, seeker whose sense of enthusiasm and adventure dried up when the chaotic monotony of domestic life intervened with a vengeance. The quixotic search for meanings and enlightenments began to seem a bit hollow, in other words, when Salzman became your typical American househusband—a stay-at-home dad. While his wife (a figure he describes in such beaming terms that she comes off as a flawless, superhuman, Venus in bronze) went to work full time in the L.A. film industry, Salzman stayed home with their two young children.

Every day, while the babies napped, he worked on his novel. After three years he sent it to his editor who told him it wasn’t polished enough. Over the course of six years the same thing happened to him three times. The crockpot, slow-cooked writing process of a domestic apparently wasn’t working for him. And then he had to face the tragic and unexpected death of his sisters. And then (in what seemed, for him, to be the most dramatic turn in the story) the family adopted a dog who barked at humans with skin tones darker than the family’s and seemed to respond extremely well to commands in German. It was all too much for Salzman. He began to wake in the night, short of breath, swimming through panic attacks.

Practical spiritual techniques, designed to still the brain and calm the soul—those many popular Americanized adaptations of Eastern practices—didn’t help at all. In fact, they made him worse. Sitting still in meditation gave him just enough time and space to sense that the world might be closing in on him. So he took Lorezepam instead. Salzman then went through his own version of the dark night of the soul which he calls “night of the farting dog.”

In the midst of his panic and struggle, Salzman’s wife suggested he might want to take a solitary retreat to a friend’s rural cabin. Feeling guilty about saddling his fully employed wife with all domestic responsibility, he grudgingly volunteered to take the dog with him. But shortly after they arrived to relax in the peace of the wild countryside, the dog tensed up, keeled over, and konked out (an excruciatingly strange process that Salzman performed with an earnest verve).

So he dragged the dog’s stiffening body to the local vet, who determined that she’d simply had a seizure. The only thing to do was bring her home and monitor her condition—slowly nurse her back to health. Which is what Salzman did. But, sitting alone with her in a strange house, listening to her raspy breath as it skirted the line between life and death, he felt a panic attack approaching. And then the dog let out a disgusting fart that “sounded like a 350 pound man sat down on a gigantic, furry whoopee cushion filled with methane.”

At first this made Salzman angry. He felt victimized (how could she do this to me while I was on the verge of a panic attack?!) But then he remembered a Zen koan that he’d long favored: A man’s boat is hit by an empty boat as he paddles through a pond on a windy day. He stays calm. When his boat is struck by a vessel with a human at the helm, he becomes enraged. Salzman decided that he wanted to think of the dog as an empty boat—a vessel without intention, trying merely to move forward with the current. Not only did he want to think of the dog this way, he decided, but everyone—including himself.

It was only during the closing of the performance that Salzman really elaborated on his a-theistic vision for healing and wholeness. It isn’t complex and can, perhaps, be boiled down to his paraphrase of the Alcoholics Anonymous “Serenity Prayer”: “…we do what we must as we fall through time.”

Salzman takes issue with atheist visions that attribute the ghost of the “human mind” with the almost magical potential to execute the demands of our personal, humanoid will in the chaos of the actual world. Too many atheists, he seemed to be suggesting, see too much intention and responsibility embedded in their human selves—in the selves of their human counterparts. “Is your own belief about your own power and autonomy sustainable,” he asks, “or is it tearing you apart?”

He wants, instead, a more blissed-out spirituality for the atheistically inclined… one that can put cosmic responsibility in the un-godlike hands of, well, something big. Something mysterious and entirely indeterminate. The reason isn’t, so much, that he wants to attribute any moral agency to this cosmic greatness (in fact, he calls his vision “morally indefensible”). Mostly, he’s looking for a spiritual technique to reduce personal anxiety and he’s convinced that “if your sense of responsibility is reduced, your anxiety should go down.” Think of it as a kind of spiritual back-cracking for non-theists, or 12 steps for the anxiety-prone.

For those atheistic Anxiety Addicts who are familiar with the AA tenets, Salzman’s counsel on this larger-than-self cosmic function isn’t likely to provoke a revelation. I happen to be something of an anxiety addict myself but it doesn’t do much for me, mostly because my deep anxieties about, say, personal finances are linked in very complicated ways to terrifying instabilities and uncertainties that are global. The little frights and injustices that we face daily, that hit many of our bodies like a brick of stress, aren’t always relieved by a personal responsibility release valve.

Sometimes, I think, the fact that we’re all in it together, in this thick soup of blessings and injustice, trying to find ways to flavor and serve it responsibly, kindly, is the only thing that helps. Salzman may be several shades more contemplative and spiritually accommodating than your average high-profile atheist. But he almost makes me long for a Christopher Hitchens, whose own atheistic rants arise from his sense that religion does something to the world that we share, and is problematic for that very reason. That it creates bad tensions and anxiety in the collective social body—our stressed out, hyper-tense, body politic.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Chris Stedman, Huffington Post

It may be mid-January, but I’m still thinking of Christmas.

The week between Christmas and New Year’s Eve just might be my favorite of the year. It is the one time that my entire family gets together. We spend several days eating our favorite foods, catching up and playing board games.

I’m the only member of my family who doesn’t live in Minnesota — I moved away several years ago — so that week is particularly special for me. While the snow piled up outside, I stole my 7-month-old nephew from his doting grandmother and smooshed his face into mine, worked on an unsolvable puzzle with my siblings and ate way too many cookies.

As I was getting ready to leave for the airport, my dad’s girlfriend stopped me at the door. “I’ve been wanting to ask you something,” she said, leaning in. “I know you’re an atheist, but is it OK for me to say ‘Merry Christmas’ to you?”

It seemed like a silly question, but she had a reason for asking. She explained that she was nervous about atheism and the holidays thanks to a man she had dated in the past. He had identified as an atheist, and refused to come along to her family Christmas. “As he put it, he’d never celebrate a ‘hol-lie-day’ for a made-up god,” she relayed with a sigh. “And it wasn’t just Christmas; he hated all religious holidays. Frankly, it was one of the things that ended our relationship.”

In hearing her concern, I recalled the recent controversy over atheist billboards targeting the holiday. Dave Silverman, President of the American Atheists, made the press rounds to explainthat their “You KNOW It’s A Myth… This Season, Celebrate Reason!” billboard — the most attention-getting of the bunch — was intended to persuade atheists who “go through the motions” of celebrating Christmas to stop doing so. Many religious people decried it as blasphemy; like Susan Jacoby, I just thought it was a self-defeating case of misplaced priorities. We cannot promote Humanist values when we expend our energy lobbing simplistic critiques at the religious, or demand that people stop participating in practices they enjoy simply because they’re associated with religion.

As the Interfaith and Community Service Fellow for the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard, I am working on the ground to build up positive Humanist community. Just a few weeks before I visited my family in Minnesota, the Chaplaincy threw a Humanist holiday party, replete with a lighted tree, seasonal music, a donation drive and gift-giving. The sense of community was palpable. Three days later, we gathered to make 120 scarves for the New England Center for Homeless Veterans. We weren’t “going through the motions” — these activities fulfilled our natural human desires to congregate, to seek solace in one another’s company, and to help those in need. As my boss, Harvard’s Humanist Chaplain Greg Epstein, has said: “Lectures and debates are important, but we must also sing and we must build. I mean that metaphorically and literally.”

I may not be much of a singer, but I can build. To build, literally and metaphorically, a Humanist community that is healthy and sustainable, we must get over this sense that provocation should be our number one goal, and that positive engagement with others is unimportant.

The week following Christmas has passed and we find ourselves in a new year. With a new year comes new work. One of the projects I am most excited about is “Challenge the Gap,” a new initiative of the Foundation Beyond Belief, an atheist and Humanist charitable foundation, which aims to find common ground between the religious and the secular. It is, to my knowledge, the first time that an explicitly atheist and Humanist foundation is funding interfaith cooperation.

It is a new Humanism for a new year: one that looks forward in hope, not back in anger. I believe that ethics and engagement are central to what it means to live in the world as a Humanist, and that Humanist community and identity require an affirmative foundation, not one structured in contrast to ideologies we disagree with.

Secular Humanism should not be defined as a rejection of religion; otherwise, we risk living our lives looking for ideas — and people — to rebuff. Rather, Humanism ought to be seen first and foremost as a desire to be the best people we can be, to commune with other humans and live ethically and humbly together. It should not be vindictive or oppositional. Instead, it should seek to build bridges whenever possible, with whomever possible. Let’s not let our differences destroy the essential social bonds that will facilitate cooperation and understanding.

Walking out the door, I reassured my dad’s girlfriend that I will always celebrate Christmas with my family, but I am reminded by her concern that we have a lot of work ahead of us to reconcile the religious and nonreligious in America. The American Atheists may be continuing their wasteful, tone-deaf strategy with a new billboard stating “You KNOW they’re all SCAMS,” but the future of Humanism isn’t blasphemous billboards, bombastic rhetoric or even blogs; it’s reaching out, reciprocity and relationships.

This year, my resolution isn’t to eat healthier (though I should) or to finish my book (which I will). It’s to foster understanding between people of different religions and creeds, and to do what I can to build up a compassionate Humanist community — in other words, to embody Humanism and challenge the gap.

Follow Chris Stedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NonProphetStat and visit State of Formation to read more articles by Chris.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

Why Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist, and why most atheists reject far too little.

By Paul Wallace, Religion Dispatches

Last year I delivered a presentation at a nearby college about science and faith. I spoke of my attraction to so-called negative, or apophatic, theology. This theology is more prominent in the Eastern churches, but is definitely present in the West as well, and builds on more conventional theology by breaking it down in a systematic series of negations. It may sound strange—that it builds by negation—but that’s an important paradox.

After the presentation a fellow near the front raised his hand and asked how this theology is different from atheism. I was taken aback, but not because his question offended me. Instead, it struck me just how well the questioner had understood what I had said. I fumbled around a bit, hardly knowing what to tell him. I escaped with some cryptic-sounding remark like, This theology is beyond atheism. I meant it when I said it, although I didn’t understand it at the time. But I do now.

Too-Simple Atheisms

It was a gentleman named Denys Turner who helped me figure it out. Turner is a professor of theology at Yale. Last week I read a remarkable essay of his called “Apophaticism, Idolatry, and the Claims of Reason.” In it he tells this story.

Some years ago, and in younger, more foolhardy days, finding myself in a tight spot in a public debate with a philosopher atheist at Bristol University, I made a wager with my audience: I would give anyone present five minutes to explain his or her reasons for atheism and if, after that, I could not guess correctly the Christian denomination in which that person had been brought up, I would buy her a pint of beer. As luck would have it I was not broke at the subsequent revels.

It turns out that he was not broke because no one took the bet. But the story points out a very interesting idea that Turner pursues in the course of his essay: The atheisms of most committed, principled atheists are often not more than mirror images—inversions—of the theisms they negate. In On Interpretation, Aristotle wrote, “Affirmations and their corresponding negations are one in the same knowledge”; therefore, one can discern from many atheisms their corresponding affirmative theologies.

Turner also writes that, very often, the theisms attacked by atheists are not very interesting; therefore, the atheisms of most committed, principled atheists are not very interesting. Why this is so is not clear; perhaps it is because in many cases theism was abandoned before it was allowed time to develop into something of substance.

“Atheists reject too little,” Turner writes, “This is why their atheisms lack theological interest. The routine principled atheist has but tinkered with religion.” This statement, with which I agree, will be unpacked in the remainder of this essay. In order to speak more specifically about this, I decided to investigate a single atheist’s stated beliefs. Since I have a few Richard Dawkins books on my living room shelf, and because his point of view is known to many, I decided on him.

Dawkins’ Inverted Theism

In The God Delusion, Dawkins presents his central argument against the existence of God in the fourth chapter. His thinking goes something like this: The universe is a complex thing. Therefore the God of the Christians, who, Christians say, made the universe, must be at least as complex as the universe God made. Therefore we are left with an even bigger problem than before: Who made this ultra-complex God? A hyper-complex megaGod? It makes plain sense, according to Occam’s razor, to stop before we get to the first God. The complex universe is enough. Ergo, in all likelihood, God does not exist.

This argument, which boils down to Well, who made God, then?, assumes that God is a thing like any other thing. It assumes that God must exist in the same way the moon exists, in the same way Dawkins himself exists. As Terry Eagleton wrote in his now-infamous review of The God Delusion, Dawkins seems to think that God is “a celestial super-object or divine UFO,” a creature like other creatures, only bigger and smarter: a kind of uberthing, but a thing nonetheless.

If God is a thing like any other thing, then his argument is really good: Any thing-making machine, which is itself a thing like any other thing, must be at least as complex as the thing it makes. In the case of God, the problem is worse, because of the standard Christian claim that God not only created the universe, but sustains it as well. So, if God is a thing like other things then Dawkins’ point is well made.

But nowhere does Dawkins get outside of himself and ask, Is my assumption that God is a thing like any other thing really necessary? On what is this assumption grounded? Where did it come from?

The truth is, despite all his claims to the contrary, Dawkins is a fundamentalist. In the preface to the paperback edition of The God Delusion, he attempts to distinguish himself from religious fundamentalists by insisting that “nothing will change their minds.” This is true; the average religious fundamentalist is dogmatically rigid and fixed in place. In his own eyes, however, Dawkins is a paragon of broad-minded humility; he writes, “If all the evidence in the universe turned in favor of creationism, I would be the first to admit it, and I would immediately change my mind.” But Dawkins completely overlooks the real issue, which has nothing at all to do with creationism or evolution.

What is at issue here is, Dawkins refuses to examine the ground on which he stands: science itself. That is, Dawkins may change his mind about evolution, but nothing will change his mind about science. He will never question—in a serious way—the sufficiency of science as a guide to truth. Perhaps he thinks the success of science makes it a self-evident choice when it comes to grounding his worldview; what he does not and will not consider is the very real possibility that science is so successful precisely because it is so limited. To reject this possibility out-of-hand is nothing but intellectual laziness. Dawkins is dogmatically rigid and fixed in place. He is a fundamentalist.

He must be, because the only theology he has ever successfully attacked is fundamentalism, an embarrassingly easy target. But it’s the only theology he knows, the only theology he can imagine. Therefore, per Turner, it’s the only theology his own atheism is equipped to deny, which he himself demonstrates beautifully in Chapter 3 of The God Delusion. This is the part of the book in which he addresses and summarily dismisses, in less than ten pages and with all the subtlety of a tire iron, the work of Thomas Aquinas and Anselm of Canterbury. Unlike these theologians, Dawkins refuses to step outside of himself and take a critical look at his own assumptions.

“Well,” it may be countered, “religious people also refuse to step outside their religion and critique their views.” This would be quite a good argument, if it were true.

The Negative Way

There is within Christian theology a great tradition of negating “God.” By this I mean the negation of everything we think we know about God, every concept we carry about God, every image we imagine of God, everything that God “is” to us. In order to demonstrate how this works, we will consider three levels of statements about God. In addition, four different images of God from the Bible will be used: (a) God is a fire, (b) God is a king, (c) God is love, and (d) God is being itself (I AM). These four are presented in order of increasing abstraction.

The first level of God-talk is simple affirmation. It is typical for Christians to use statements like those above when speaking of God. This is conventional cataphatic, or positive, theology. This is the way nearly all popular theology in the West is done, whether in worship, in personal devotions, or in Bible study. These are positive statements signifying what theologians call the “God of the Attributes”; that is, the God that can be named.

The second level is simple negation, in the manner of Aristotle. It is less typical for Christians to deny things of God, but it is done. I think every Christian would agree that God is not a fire, really, nor is God the ruling male member of a royal family. These are obvious cases of negation that should cause no one any difficulty. It is a bit harder for Christians to say things like “God is not love,” but theologians have said things like this for centuries, and have meant it too. What this comes down to is, God is not that warm feeling or even that sincerely other-centered state of the will that often goes by the name of love. Whatever our highest conception of love might be, God is very much not that.

The third level is the most difficult but the most important. This is second-order negation, or the inversion of the inversion. Here we would say, “God is not a fire, but God is not a not-fire either,” and “God is not love, but neither is God not-love.” God transcends the (human-based) distinction between love and not-love. Obviously what is happening here is a deliberate straining of verbal logic. It may sound like mere mental gymnastics or game-playing, but it has a very serious purpose: To question and test language, to step outside of ourselves and ask ourselves what we are doing when we talk about God, to critique the very ground upon which theology stands, to search for that place—if there is a place—where concepts fail.

Also on this third level is found the insistence, made for centuries by theologians throughout Christendom, that God transcends the distinction of being and not-being. Therefore, if we use the conventional definition of existence, God does not exist. Our category of existence does not apply to God. Put another way, the word “exist” cannot be used univocally of things and God. These are artificial categories imagined and used by human beings; they are manifestly not divine attributes. In the end, to speak correctly, there are no divine attributes. Which means that God is not distinct from creation, nor is God not-distinct from creation. That is, in God there is no distinction at all, nor is there non-distinction. No affirmation or denial properly applies to God.

Notice that this second sense of negation, the “negation of the negation,” does not simply return us to our positive statements, e.g., from “God is not love” back to the original affirmation, “God is love.” Instead, it challenges the very basis of our discursive thought and dialogue: language and image. It pulls out from under us our tacit assumption that language and image are sufficient to describe reality.

The End of the Matter: “Every Kind of Atheist”

Now I can explain what I meant when I told the fellow at the college that negative theology is beyond atheism. It is this: Most principled atheists do not go beyond the second level of thought, that of simple denial. They refuse to go further, to seriously question the ground beneath their feet. And, by holding on, consciously or not, to their unjustified assumptions, they end up rejecting far too little.

There are predictable counter-arguments. First, one may say that this kind of theology represents the beliefs of only a tiny fraction of Christians; atheists rightly focus on the more conventional theology of the average churchgoer. But atheists say that Christianity is false, that God does not exist. Asking them to defend their position in light of mature theology is doing nothing but taking them for their word and respecting their intelligence.

Also, one may say that negative theology is content-free and useless because it nullifies the use of rational thought. In a sense this is a valid argument. But one can go beyond negative theology while bearing in mind its lessons. In fact, negative theology constitutes the central nervous system, if you will, of the entire Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas that Dawkins so happily and ignorantly mocks. In this work, Thomas employs analogical language in order to speak freely of God’s attributes without the possibility of confusing them with the attributes of, say, fire or kingship or love or being.

Finally one may say that negative theology is just a mind game that has nothing to do with reality; certainly people who do such theology never really stop believing in God. If only this were true. The language of the apophatic theologian is the kind of speech that does what it says, so when one says or writes, “God does not exist,” and spends time with that assumption, working out all its consequences, it has the effect of removing “God” from one’s life. This may happen slowly or quickly, but it happens. This is one of the most powerful aspects of negative theology: It cleanses the mind not only of assumptions about God, but of idols (like science, say) that can so easily replace God.

Most atheists reject far too little. They only have to be one kind of atheist: The atheist who stands against some kind of ridiculous super-object in the sky, who stands against a child’s theology. Christians, who, like Jews, are commanded to have no gods before God, do not have the luxury of disbelieving in so few things. In Turner’s words, “In order to deny every kind of idolatry possible, a Christian must be every kind of atheist possible.” We are required to have faith in no thing at all; only then will our faith have any chance of finding its true home in God.

For more articles by Paul Wallace, visit Religion Dispatches

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Dave Niose, Open Salon

Nine bullets fired from close range ended the life of Salman Taseer on Tuesday, making the Pakistani governor the latest high-profile victim of religious violence. Taseer had the audacity to publicly question Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, and for this transgression he paid with his life.

Taseer joins a list of numerous other high-profile victims of militant religion, such as  Dr. George Tiller, the Kansas abortion doctor killed by a devout Christian assassin in 2009, and Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch filmaker whose provocative movie about Islam resulted in his being brutally murdered in Amsterdam in 2004.  And of course, several thousand innocent people became victims of religious violence on September 11, 2001.

With this background, it is especially puzzling that the American media and public still perpetuate the cliché of so-called “militant atheism.”  We hear the disparaging term “militant atheist” used frequently, the assumption being that of course militant atheists are indeed roaming the streets of America.

In fact, however, while millions of atheists are indeed walking American streets, it would be difficult to find even one who could accurately be described as militant.In all of American history, it is doubtful that even one person has ever been killed in the name of atheism. In fact I would challenge religionists to present evidence that any American has ever even been harmed in the name of atheism.  It just does not happen, because the notion of “militant atheism” is entirely fantasy.

When the media and others refer to “militant atheist,” the object of that slander is usually an atheist who had the nerve to openly question religious authority or vocally express his or her views about the existence of God. Conventional wisdom quickly tells us that such conduct is shameful or, at the very least, distasteful, and therefore the brazen atheist is labeled “militant.”

Religious groups, meanwhile, are not subjected to such standards. They can publicly declare that you are a sinner and that you will suffer in hell for eternity if you do not adopt their supernatural beliefs, but they will almost never be called “militant” by the media or the public. Instead, such religionists are called “devout” and such churches are called “evangelical.”

The lesson here is clear. If you’re an atheist, shut up about it.  If you are open or vocal about your atheist worldview, you are a “militant atheist.”  Be silent, even though that same standard does not apply to those who passionately disagree with you.

This, to be sure, explains why so few Americans openly identify as atheist.  The American Religious Identification Survey conducted by Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, indicates that only about 81 percent of Americans affirmatively believe in a god (about 69 percent believe in a personal God, while about 12 percent believe in some kind of “higher power”), meaning about 19 percent do not. Yet despite the fact that almost one in five Americans don’t affirmatively believe, only a tiny fraction of those dare to identify openly as atheist.

Analyze those numbers all you want, but the inescapable conclusion is that millions of Americans are in the closet about their religious skepticism. This, in turn, only serves to validate and legitimize the religious right, because it suggests that there is something wrong with a secular worldview. By keeping atheists closeted, the religious right can claim the moral high ground and influence public policy more than it should.

Therefore, maybe it’s time to end the myth of militant atheism?

David Niose is president of the American Humanist Association, a Washington-based nonprofit.  Visit AHA at  www.americanhumanist.org for more information. For more articles by this author and others, please visit Open Salon