An atheist pastor

[Dave_LF]

I think it's more like the vegetarian passing on the meat dishes, but then calling his salad a ham. (a) it's not accurate, and (b) it suggests that deep down, the vegetarian still believes meat is better.

[Primula Baggins]

There is no benefit from a church without God that can't be gotten from a lot of other (perfectly good, I'm not denigrating them) human organizations.

If I understand correctly, they are not saying the church is without G_d, but that G_d is something other than what was traditionally recognized.

Which many people would not recognize as God, and so, from such people's perspectives, the church is without God. That's what I meant by saying it was (to me) a difference in kind rather than a difference in degree.

[Cerin]

Thanks, Prim. That is helpful.

[yovargas]

A more serious comment on the "word game":

I've never tried to truly articulate where my views/beliefs are now (and won't here), in part because I wouldn't know how, in part because I'm not sure it'd be useful to try, and in part because I don't entirely know what they are. But one major breakthru that caused my shift from what I'd consider a "tradiotional" atheism to where I am now was re-hearing the classic Christian idea tha "God is Love" from a new angle. After a lifetime of hearing that phrase and having it not mean much to me, one day it struck me in a deep, meaningful way: not as God is Love but as God IS Love - and so Love IS God. That is meant more...mystically...than literally, but that does not make it, imo and in my personal experience, just clever word games (as I would have thought when I was a more traditional, hardline atheist).

[nerdanel]

This notion that meat makes a main course and anyone saying otherwise is redefining "main course" or otherwise being weird is a purely cultural construct.

But I'm not sure the same can be said for a god within the context of Christianity (one could, however, argue that religion itself is a cultural construct but that's a whole other discussion).

I could and would argue that religion is a cultural construct. A majority of people who participate in this cultural construct probably experience a "God-in-being" as being central to their experience (just as a majority of people who participate in eating in our society probably experience meat-as-main-course as being central to their experience). The idea that a God-in-being is central to every experience of religion represents the majority trying to universalize their experience. I reject their attempt as inconsistent with my experience and my life.

I assure you that it is possible to attend synagogue (and apparently, church) week after week without believing in or praying to a divine being or discrete higher power, and yet to experience religion. I do not believe that everything in this world is rationally explicable. I think that there are aspects of the human experience that do reflect something higher than us as biological animals, acting according to our rational self-interest. Religious practice appeals to this aspect of my worldview - which loosely connects to the Jewish concept of shechinah, or divine presence. However, there is nothing in my experience that prescribes that this must be explained due to a sentient higher being. I suspect that one does not exist, and as a strong agnostic, my worldview prescribes that it is impossible for humans to know whether such a being exists. But because I cannot entirely rule out the existence of such a deity, I am agnostic and not atheist.

As for why I remain within a particular religious tradition, I think that the Baha'i's have an idea that is relevant - that of "progressive revelation." To steal from Wikipedia, progressive revelation "is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance. Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last--that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society."

To bastardize their teaching, I think that the human construct of a divinity itself represents an early human understanding of what might exist outside of our own rational/sentient existences. I think that humanity may well move past that understanding over the course of its existence, but may find meaning in preserving the teachings, values, and traditions that arose during this earlier period in our history. Humanity may choose in future to encapsulate the concept of "divine presence" differently than that of a "God-being," but may retain the conclusion that there is something in the universe beyond rational-animal human beings.

This pastor's choosing loaded terms people have killed over.

With respect, that reflects the shortcomings of the murderers, not the pastor.

I sort of wish he would just make up his mind and stop trying to have it both ways - either he's on my side of the line (I don't believe in anything resembling the Christian conception of god so I no longer qualify as Christian) or he's on, say, Prim's.

I suspect he would decline your invitation, as would I. There is much meaning to be found in the shades of gray on this issue, and not everyone wishes to be lumped into the black-and-white boxes of "believer" and "non-believer."

[Lalaith]

That's very interesting, yovi. Thank you for sharing it.

(I think that because God exists so does love, and that, without God we wouldn't have love. He is love, as you say, but he also causes love in the first place. "We love because He first loved us." )

I suppose the issue of the atheist pastor feels wrong to me because I wonder, "Why bother?" Why would you want to be a pastor in an organization based upon something in which you do not believe? You could find a secular organization where you could accomplish many of the same things, and you wouldn't be violating basic tenets upon which Christianity is based. However, if his church allows him to stay in the pulpit, then they have obviously given up on themselves and their beliefs, which makes me think that they may be an organization full of lovely people but can they still call themselves a Christian church?

(I do not want to be offensive here; I realize there are people of all different beliefs and non-beliefs here, and I respect that. However, and I've made this argument before, in order to call yourself a Christian or a Christian church, there has to be at least some basic adherence to Christian tenets of faith. I would submit that believing in the existence of God is one of those basic tenets, perhaps the most basic.)

If it is an evolution in the church, then I can't say I'm happy about it. Of course, it's lovely if people treat each other with respect and love each other and are kind to each other. I'm all for that! But it really does seem like a total disconnect to me if you say you're a pastor in a Christian church but don't believe in the existence of a spiritual being called God.

[River]

nel, there is a reason that I very explicitly limited my comments to the context of Christianity. You yourself left the Christian faith because you found something more suited to your worldview. I myself bailed in part because the Christian conception of a self-existing, omnipotent, onimscient God that paid so much attention to us He even fathered a mortal son, was just impossible for me. This notion that there's something you can, like, pray to and get a result...not working for me. And without that, I have no place within Christianity. My soul needs other food, but I can't call what I give it Christianity anymore than, to borrow from Dave_LF, I can call the asparagus I had in my lunch today steak.

My parents have often told me of a conversation they had once with a Reform Jewish rabbi who told them that, in Judaism, it's not about believing in God. It's about being a good person. I am also aware that Bhuddists don't really believe in any sort of God at all. But this pastor is neither Jewish nor Bhuddist. He's Christian, or claiming to be Christian, and that is why I say he has to choose.

[yovargas]

Dave - re: your "ham" analogy:
That would work if there was a clear, universal, and understood definition of what "god" was. There is for "ham"; there isn't for "god". To say "It is my position that you've been saying god is X but I believe god is actually Y" is very different than saying "lettuce is ham".

[vison]

If someone says they are an atheist, I will take it to mean that they don't believe in a divine being.

Well, that describes me exactly. I don't say "there is no god". That's a different statement altogether.

[Primula Baggins]

yov, we're talking about different perspectives here. From the perspective of a believer in God as traditionally understood in my church, what this atheist pastor is calling"God" is not in fact God to me. It's not that it's a different God, or a different vision of God; it just isn't God. Difference in kind.

Whereas someone who has spiritual beliefs but does not believe in God-as-traditionally-understood would say, "This is my God, and that's yours." Difference in degree.

None of this involves judging which sort of person is better.

[Dave_LF]

Dave - re: your "ham" analogy:
That would work if there was a clear, universal, and understood definition of what "god" was. There is for "ham"; there isn't for "god". To say "It is my position that you've been saying god is X but I believe god is actually Y" is very different than saying "lettuce is ham".

I agree that hams are better defined than gods. But I don't think that "god" is so nebulous a term that one can apply it to feelings, actions, or impersonal forces without confusing people. So what he's doing isn't like calling a salad a ham, but maybe it's like calling tofu meat.

[Frelga]

My parents have often told me of a conversation they had once with a Reform Jewish rabbi who told them that, in Judaism, it's not about believing in God. It's about being a good person.

Er....

Well, yes.

But that's not ALL it is about.

What this quote describes is Jewish ethical humanism, which is a way of life I highly respect, but I suspect that there was slightly more to the explanation.

More later.

[River]

Frelga, since I was not there for the conversation (and I'm not even sure I was born at the time either) I can neither confirm nor deny your suspicion.

I think I'm just going to bow out before I get into more trouble.

[Nin]

I did not expect such a reaction and debate! I did not find that so extraordinary to think that even a pastor does not believe in a literal existence of God. I am drawn to spiritual concepts which do not refer to any beings or to anything outside humanity. So of course this is appealing to me. And I find it so unbelievable that someone can actually believe the Bible in its literal sense that traditional churches bewilder me far more

I try to find an analogy which fits. (And I hesitate to actually find the book).

Nerdanel’s analogy does not fit for me, because I don’t think that the atheists opt out on anything. I don’t think that anything in their spiritual concept is lacking. Or as River has put it: a main course does not need any meat to be complete.

From that article also came the information that his preaches are great successes and people come from far to hear him – and that he is an excellent scholar with great knowledge of the Bible – so I think in terms of spiritual nourishment the community he is preaching for gets what it needs. And this does not astonish me.

I would also like to point out that this pastor does not claim to be Christian. On the contrary, he published a book about his atheism. He works for the Church. That is not the same. So I don’t get the notion why he would have to choose.

What is so difficult to accept about God being a concept? Hasn’t it always been? From the early days of polytheism on? The nature of the concept changes, going from humanlike Gods like in Greek or Roman mythology to cruel Gods like in Aztec religion to monotheism – all these are different ideas of Gods of supernatural powers influencing our lives – why should the concept stop evolving?

I think that idea can only be refused if you think that one particular religion has found a message of absolute truth and I can very well understand how even someone who is a believer can reject that idea. Or does belief exclude evolution of faith? Why does it mean that the church has given up its beliefs? Many Christian or otherwise religious values are moral values, laws to obey to, ways to act like a decent human being – put in the mouth of the message from a higher power so that they get a justification outside themselves. You can still believe in the message, in the values without believing in the messenger. You can think that what is said in parts of the Bible (or Talmud, or Koran….) is right - regardless of who said it and most of all regardless of a fact if not only behind this particular message stands a supernatural power or if this supernatural power does at all exist.

I also wanted to add that if from tomorrow on, I bend out of the discussion it is not for a lack of interest, but for a lack of Internet: I’ll be on holiday.

[Frelga]

Frelga, since I was not there for the conversation (and I'm not even sure I was born at the time either) I can neither confirm nor deny your suspicion.

I think I'm just going to bow out before I get into more trouble.

Bah, like you could ever get in trouble with me. I was just typing in a hurry, still am, so could not expand my comment.

I'm trying to find a concise way to bring Mordecai Kaplan in, but I just have no time. The curious may start at the Wiki.

Nin, have a good holiday!

[Túrin Turambar]

I’m more or less with Dave on this one. The word ‘god’ has a meaning in the English language (and presumably also the Dutch) which this guy and others like him seem to be stretching well beyond its natural limits. It basically renders the term meaningless – if god is simply an experience, what term do we use to describe a powerful spiritual being worshipped as part of a religion?

I’ve seen this sort of thing before, and I suspect that it comes from people trying to have things both ways. There’s a trend for designer spirituality in our culture today, which coincides with the spread of postmodern thinking and relativism and the belief that there’s no right or wrong, everything depends on personal perspective, morality is a social construct, etc. Belief in literal (a) god/s is in decline, yet at heart many people seem to feel that they ‘should’ have a religion, or that they feel the need for religion to connect them with their society and community, or that they don’t want to seem narrow-minded by defining themselves as an atheist. It’s an understandable position – I’ve often thought that it would be nice to belong to a church and have that sense of community. Still, I think that many people seem unable to distinguish between what they think should be true, and what they believe is true.

Certainly were I member of this church I would seriously question why we were employing a self-professed and unrepentant heretic as a minister. But I’m not – they can pay a stipend to a clergyman who calls himself a Jedi Knight for all it affects me.

As to the side-issue of what atheism actually is, I identify as an atheist in a literal sense – I am ‘without belief’ in any god or gods. It’s not a matter of being able to prove anything or knowing anything for certain, only that I find every religious or metaphysical explanation or justification for everything I can observe or reason to be inferior to every non-religious or naturalistic one. As such, I don’t have grounds for belief. It’s like the celestial teapot that Dawkins refers to – my position on god/s is like my position on a teapot allegedly orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars. Possible, but hardly reasonable given what we know about how the universe works.

[yovargas]

I disagree. As someone who could have once written that post, I see a lot of basic misunderstandings going on. However, I don't think I can meaningfully clarify. I'll make one cheap, almost certainly enormously flawed attempt and then bow out - if some once thought the sun was a conscious being but then most people realized it wasn't, aren't we still talking about the sun?

Flawed, flawed, flawed. Probably shouldn't have tried. Ah well.

[nerdanel]

The word ‘god’ has a meaning in the English language (and presumably also the Dutch) which this guy and others like him seem to be stretching well beyond its natural limits.

The meaning of the word "god" has not been static throughout history, however. For instance, the Bible documents the creation of idols, or physical human creations which were elevated to divine status by their human makers. Then, we have the Jewish concept of an otherworldly spiritual being who represents a sole divinity. The Christians postulate that a divinity (actually, the sole divinity) may have taken human form and lived for thirty-something years in utterly physical, human form. From a golden calf (which some referred to as "god"), to a burning bush inhabited by the otherworldly divinity, to a human carpenter claimed simultaneously to be divine, the Bible itself demonstrates to us that human beings have held widely varying conceptions of the word "god". It does not seem to me to be (more) far-fetched that there could be a "divine" essence out there that does not assume the defined form of a "powerful spiritual being worshipped..."

Incidentally: I don't feel that I "should" have a religion or that it would be a "lesser" existence if I did not. I also am a huge fan of atheists, who I don't think are narrow-minded in the least. It's just that I am an agnostic, and I choose to participate in a spiritual community based on a traditional religion, and that's pretty much just what I want to do. That said, I plead guilty to being very comfortable with "designer spirituality" to the extent that it requires each person to engage with the dictates of their conscience rather than wholesale adopting an external moral code and justifying things "because [my religion/faith/moral code] says so."

[Túrin Turambar]

I disagree. As someone who could have once written that post, I see a lot of basic misunderstandings going on. However, I don't think I can meaningfully clarify. I'll make one cheap, almost certainly enormously flawed attempt and then bow out - if some once thought the sun was a conscious being but then most people realized it wasn't, aren't we still talking about the sun?

Yes, because the sun is a physical object that you can actually identify, regardless of its characteristics (eg. sentience). If I start saying that the feeling I get from eating chocolate is the sun, then we have issues. Regardless, it seems odd to me that this should come down to a debate about language.

The word ‘god’ has a meaning in the English language (and presumably also the Dutch) which this guy and others like him seem to be stretching well beyond its natural limits.

The meaning of the word "god" has not been static throughout history, however. For instance, the Bible documents the creation of idols, or physical human creations which were elevated to divine status by their human makers. Then, we have the Jewish concept of an otherworldly spiritual being who represents a sole divinity. The Christians postulate that a divinity (actually, the sole divinity) may have taken human form and lived for thirty-something years in utterly physical, human form. From a golden calf (which some referred to as "god"), to a burning bush inhabited by the otherworldly divinity, to a human carpenter claimed simultaneously to be divine, the Bible itself demonstrates to us that human beings have held widely varying conceptions of the word "god". It does not seem to me to be (more) far-fetched that there could be a "divine" essence out there that does not assume the defined form of a "powerful spiritual being worshipped..."

An idol is presumably a representation or physical manifestation of a divine being, though. One doesn’t worship a golden calf thinking that it is nothing more than a golden calf. Obviously different cultures and religions and different schools of thought within one religion, but there’s still something similar enough between Odin, Shiva, Allah and other beings referred to as gods to give them that name and exclude other things. You can fit the idea of a ‘divine essence’ in that, but I question whether you can fit and experience into it.

Most importantly, though, it’s up to the Free Reformed Church to decide what their conception of God is. And they’ve done so, and while I think it’s an odd choice given the fundamental tenets of Christianity, it’s not my religion and my church.

That said, I plead guilty to being very comfortable with "designer spirituality" to the extent that it requires each person to engage with the dictates of their conscience rather than wholesale adopting an external moral code and justifying things "because [my religion/faith/moral code] says so."

Oh, I certainly don’t agree with people abdicating their own ability to think. But I am critical of people apparently saying things like ‘I like the idea of reincarnation, so I’ll believe in reincarnation’, which seems to me to be like saying ‘I don’t like the idea of cancer, so I won’t believe in cancer’.

[yovargas]

I disagree. As someone who could have once written that post, I see a lot of basic misunderstandings going on. However, I don't think I can meaningfully clarify. I'll make one cheap, almost certainly enormously flawed attempt and then bow out - if some once thought the sun was a conscious being but then most people realized it wasn't, aren't we still talking about the sun?

Yes, because the sun is a physical object that you can actually identify, regardless of its characteristics (eg. sentience).

And asides from the "physical" part, I suspect something similar could be said about god.