@Patrick I want to clarify something I think we agree over that might make some sense if this. You talk a lot about religious people overstepping their bounds. Would you also have similar disagreement with aetheists using government or coercive to promote atheism? For example, wouldn’t you defend a student from being singled out by an atheist professor in class, just as you would defend an atheist student from being singled out by a Christian professor?
If so, I think some resistance arises from not knowing that you want to apply the rules fairly.
Yes, any religious intolerance by any professor is not condoned. As an atheist Adjunct, I couldn’t single out a person for ridicule for wearing a hijab or a cross around her neck. But if I was teaching a geology class and a student says its her closely held religious beliefs that the Earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so, I would tell that student that she has no chance of getting a passing grade in the class if she answered the test questions along those beliefs instead of the facts that I laid out in the class.
Might I suggest another approach, in an instance like that? " As your professor, I am charged with conveying the facts of geology, regardless of any preferred religious approach. We all must pay attention, first and foremost, to the geological facts, and then weigh our interpretations of them. I will need you to show a thorough familiarity with the fact sets and the interpretations I present, on your written test answers, for you to get a good grade. Any different interpretations you hold may bring on a less desirable result, because I need to know that you can, at least, recite back to me what I have taught you. Once you’ve done that well, then feel free to call my attention to any facts of biology which you think lead in a different direction privately, as an ungraded addendum to your exam, or outside of class time, and I’ll listen and respond. In the end, though, you’ve voluntarily taken my class and entrusted me to grade you, so if you’re not doing well, please come to me early on, and we can decide what to do together, whether that’s dropping the class, changing it to audit only, or continuing to take your chances with my assessment of you. Sound fair?"
Promote atheism? The Government is required to be secular. I don’t make a distinction as some do here, that atheism is somehow a religion that whould go against secularism.
My secular humanism would not want anyone singled out for any things but praise for that person’s individual expression. A big part of that is not letting other students show intolerance to another student. A student once asked me if I was staring at his tattoos, ear holes, and nose rings because I didn’t like them. I said no, I just wondering “if they hurt”. Other students said “I was wandering the same thing” and it started a discussion which put the “different” student at ease.
No it doesn’t sound fair at all. I would not want to go near discussing anyone’s beliefs inside or outside of class. It is too easily misconstrued as me (the authority) pushing my beliefs on the student. I would have to remain secular by not discussing. My job is to present the facts as facts and stay away from any discussion that touch religious, social, or political ideologies.
I will admit that I’ve long been fascinated (and sometimes a little annoyed) that so many of my fellow evangelicals have long insisted on a definition of religion that is quite different from the definition understood by the academy. Religious Studies scholars don’t regard a religion as mere “extreme devotion” or “an overriding philosophy of life.” To constitute a religion, some sort of transcendence must be primary. If there is no such transcendence, the “system of devotion” or “philosophy of life” is not a religion.
For most religions, that transcendence involves some sort of deity/deities. But there are many millions of people in East Asia, for example, whose religion doesn’t involve deities or includes them only in a more secondary sense. Buddhism and Hinduism in various forms are often classified as “non-theistic” (even atheistic) where the adherents are devoted to transcendent principles like the pursuit of enlightenment and “oneness with everything.” Indeed, I’ve had faculty colleagues who were Hindu atheists while others were equally devout Hindus who recognized a huge pantheon of gods and goddesses. Yes, they all devoted themselves to Hindu philosophies of life, but to fit the definition of a religion, a philosophy of life is not enough. A recognition of some sort of transcendence—that which is beyond the material world of atoms and energy—is essential to the definition.
This kind of claim reminds me of the popular maxim among many Young Earth Creationists that “evolution is only a theory!” It’s an equivocation style of argument based on the fact that a theory in science is quite different from the “street use” of the word theory, where a non-scientist assumes that a theory is nothing more than a hunch or even a wild guess. Likewise, the academic definition of religion can be quite different from that which is often assumed in casual conversation. (I recently heard a sugar-addict say that her love of gourmet bakery goods had become a matter of religious devotion and that she “absolutely worships” a properly prepared dark chocolate with cinnamon mousse. “It’s just so divine!”)
I typed “define:religion” into Google and one of the displayed definitions was:
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
“consumerism is the new religion”
Obviously, this broadens (cheapens??) the word “religion” to where it can include almost anything, such as an Olympic athlete’s daily devotion to training where every facet of his/her life is focused on winning a gold medal, from diet to sleep regimens to mental preparations, as well as the physical exercise required by the sport. Yet, one will never find an article on Olympic training in The Encyclopedia of World Religions. Extreme devotion or even “ascribing supreme importance” doesn’t make a particular lifestyle or even philosophy of life an actual religion unless transcendence is central to those pursuits. (I suppose if one thought that achieving a gold medal would cause one to attain immortality and actual divinity, that step beyond the matter-energy physical world into an imagined transcendent existence would merit an entry in the aforementioned Encyclopedia if sufficient numbers of people embraced that religion.)
Frankly, I don’t see how. An atheist is simply someone who has not found compelling evidence for the existence of any deities. How does that “ultimize” the human self?
Atheists come in many varieties (just as theists do.) I’ve known a few atheists who were very adamant secular humanists and held to philosophies which probably fit your definition of such “ultimizing the human self”. Yet, I’ve known other atheists who were clearly the very opposite of secular humanists. Indeed, one such fellow seemed to be downright nihilistic and over time he drifted towards the idea that humans would do well to leave the planet voluntarily so that the biosphere would have a better opportunity to return to ecological health. Accordingly, I’m fascinated whenever I see my fellow evangelicals treat atheism as if it is some sort of single coherent “philosophy of life”, let alone its own religion.
I confess that despite a long career in linguistics and Biblical studies, I’m not sure where you get your “biblical, theological definition” of the word religion. Could you cite a few scripture passages where your definition is made clear?
For that matter, I’d also be interested in any Bible passages you consider to be referring to atheism. Of course, I’m talking about the modern day definition of atheism, not the English word of past centuries when it referred to anything which was opposed to God and/or was deemed heretical. (And if you have a strong background in Hebrew exegesis, I assume that you acknowledge that Psalm 14:1 has nothing to do with atheism under today’s definition of the word: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”)
Glad you changed that @Patrick, in response to @Guy_Coe’s suggestion…
This is much more consistent with neutrality, and the best of what I have experienced in science. Here, we just do not care on bit about what you believe personally about the age of the earth, evolution, or anything else. Rather, we just care if you can play by the rules of mainstream science in your professional work.
I know several YEC’s that have received PhDs, even though their advisors knew they rejected an old earth and evolution. As long as their profession work was sound, there was just never any issue. Science is not really about loyalty tests.
I was raised YEC, and was a student just like this too. It was only because of professors’ tolerance of me and my questions that I was able to understand the evidence, and eventually change my mind. Ultimately, kindness and trust does much more to change people’s minds, because it creates the conditions required for understanding. It is critical to understand that being trusted is just as important as being correct.
Saying “there is no God” is a theological claim, even if it is an atheistic claim. Government cannot favor this position, nor appear to favor it. It must be just as neutral to this claim of atheism as it is to theistic claim “there is a God.”
I think @Patrick, that the squishiness here in your lines is what creates a great deal of anxiety. I understand that the word “secular” is sometimes used synonymous with neutrality, but it sometimes used synonymous with atheism. It is better to say, for this reason, that the Government must remain secular, by which we mean neutral to both religious and non-religious claims. Likewise, we should be very careful to avoid deploying coercive power in favor of religious and non-religious claims.
I think your intentions are good, but you are not always sensitive to how non-religious and anti-religious claims can also violate neutrality. Like most of us, it can be harder to see how our own position can on infringe on other’s rights.
This does not seem accurate @AllenWitmerMiller. Religion does not require belief in the divine. There is, for example, a movement of Religious Atheism that embraces the “religious” nature of their beliefs. My colleauge Ursula Goodenough is one of the recent reinvigorators of this view:
Also, Dawkin’s and the New Atheists also promote “religious” activity too, such as meeting together regularly (modeling a church). This has encouraged “Ethical Societies” to pop up everywhere, to build traditions, stories, and communities around atheistic belief. This is all religious behavior, and I do not mean that in a pejorative sense.
From many points of view, the divine and transcendence is not required in determining if something is religious. Most sociologists would easily classify these activities as religious, as would most philosophers, etc.
All this just reminds us that the Government is supposed to be neutral in such things. It must be neutral with respect to atheism and Christianity. Atheism does not get a privileged position because it sets itself up in opposition to religion.
I even gave examples of religions which do not require a belief in the divine: various forms of Hinduism and Buddhism. (I could also have included Confucianism.) I even stated that there are millions of devoutly religious adherents of various East Asian religious traditions who are atheists. (Some prefer the term non-theistic religions.) Please re-read what I wrote. If I was unclear in my explanation, please help me to remedy the ambiguity.
I specifically stated that recognition of deity/divinity is not a requirement of the academic definition of religion in religious studies. Instead, it is the recognition of some sort of transcendence that matters. I kept the definition of transcendence very casual and non-academic. Perhaps I should have been more technical. In religious studies transcendence is also defined as “going beyond a limit or surpassing a boundary”. That usually means going beyond the boundaries of the physical world but it can be also be described in terms of concepts like Platonic ideals and ethical principles. (I will resist the temptation to get bogged down on this tangent with more arcane examples.)
I reread my post and I don’t see how I was ambiguous about the existence of both theistic and atheistic religions. So I would appreciate any assistance in recognizing any lack of clarity on my part. And in discussing the academic definition of religion I’m simply explaining what can be found in most any first year R101 “Intro to World Religions” textbook.
Seeing how I stated that there are many many millions of “religious atheists” in the world (especially among many Hindu and Buddhist communities), I’m baffled by your disagreement with my post.
It is also very interesting how famous atheists like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens take very opposite positions on the recognition of transcendence in their particular atheistic stance. Dawkins entirely dismisses all talk of transcendence as “so much woo” but Hitchens wrote, "there is something beyond the material, or not entirely consistent with it, what you could call the Numinous, the Transcendent, or at its best the Ecstatic . . . without this we really would merely be primates.” (I don’t know if Hitchens ever commented on the idea of his recognition of the Transcendent potentially taking him into the territory of a religious belief.)
Of course, I never denied that words like “religion” and “religious” have a wide range of meanings in popular parlance. (Indeed, Mr. Coe’s insistence on his own definition of religion as the one used by the Bible prompted my post in the first place.) I simply drew attention to the fact that within the academy the term religion has a more technical definition that can be far more narrow than that of just another philosophy of life or a particular worldview.
Meanwhile, I look forward to Mr. Coe’s explanation of his definition:
I’m very curious to see what scripture passages he cites. (Of course, as a born-again Christ-follower, I’m not at all dismissing whatever prooftexts he may provide. I simply want to better understand his position.)
The lesson of the entire 3rd chapter of Genesis conveys it. To defy God, much more deny God, brings about eternal consequences and earthly ones.
–Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.“Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”
[This is not petty jealousy at work here, but a grave concern for Adam’s future. Human life becomes an enterprise in temporal futility; created/made for eternal significance, Adam can suddenly barely see beyond his own nose, and life has now become more a chore than a gift.]
–Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life. --Genesis 3:17-19; 22-24.
Job himself, in just coming near to charging God with injustice, laments that he was ever born. It’s what we think about God’s character, nature, and intentions, that sets an eternal vector for our lives.
Patrick has mentioned just a bit about his bad estimation of the character of God in the bible, having settled for a caricature of its genuine teachings. I am genuinely concerned for him, in a similar way that I might be for an alcoholic who says, “I don’t need rehab; I don’t believe in it.”
He has ultimized his personal perspective, and is, horribly, as bad as a president who has said, “No, I’ve never prayed to ask God for forgiveness --there’s really nothing I need to be forgiven for.”
The first recorded lie in human language whispered that God’s intentions towards humanity were not really for their benefit, but to hold them back in infancy.
–Genesis 3:4-5 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
That’s what Patrick alleges that our faith does to us, holding us back from real life, because he thinks he knows better. It’s sad, really.
I’m not one for being upbraided by category protests; I look for the substance behind them. Patrick is held back by a false religion, in this analysis.
To take your language, religion consists of how we approach “transcendence,” not necessarily “a deity” or “deities.” Patrick’s approach is to DENY any transcendence, which is, nevertheless, an approach. Such choices have consequences.
“Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die” is, for such an approach, a counsel in the fleeting futility of life --while God warns us that death, apart from His grace, is not the cessation of existence or even of ongoing experience. Out of love He never ceases to warn us away from such a future. We were made for eternity, and our own hearts respond to the significance which that conveys; to quash it is to become heartsick.
BTW, Hitchens, at least, isn’t TOTALLY denying transcendence, and so I’m happy to be wrong about this regarding Patrick, if so, as well.
Sorry to keep speaking of you as if you weren’t listening in, Patrick, and forgive me, please, if my analysis has overstepped. Cheers!
I am not totally against even the slightest possibility of some kind of “transcendence” emerging from a world wide “conscientiousness” or “spirituality between different people” in like an Eckert Tolle kind of way. As I said, I am a 6.999 atheist on the Dawkins scale that I round up to 7 because I am an engineer. So some kind of homo Sapiens transcendence into perhaps Homo Deus may be possible but it will be more AI like than metaphysical in any sense. But I am a 7 when it comes to the tyrant God that I read about in the OT and the most ungodlike figure in the NT - Jesus of Nazareth. I saw Jesus the other day as a young Palatinian getting shot by Israeli troops while Evangelistic Christian Preachers like Hague and Jefferies proclaimed the completion of Bible proficiency in the opening of the required to be secular US embassy in Jerusalem.
It is entirely correct that Jesus does not fit our expectations of who God is and what He would do. When we define “God” by our expectation, you are entirely correct. Jesus is totally ungodlike. It makes no sense that we should follow him, yet we do. Why?
It is also entirely correct that Jesus had a totally different relationship with power than American Evangelical Christians. He is not the one who comes with power, even though He is powerful. This is not what we would do if had God-like power. It is not what we do with the power we already have.
@Patrick, I get why you dislike American Christians. You might like Jesus a great deal. I wonder if he would share much of the same complaints as you.
There’s a great book, and humorous too, on the difference between the way we humans vie for attention, and try to make an impression, that seems to be completely lost on the Architect of the gospel stories. Gayle Irwin’s “The Jesus Style” points out that, instead of “shock and awe” miracles, Jesus’ story is, in many ways, rather scandalously ordinary. Born on the run, to an unwed mother, placed in an animal feed trough, and wrapped in rags, is hardly the royal birth narrative we’ll most likely soon see being put out by the British royal house. Inviting shepherds to go look? You’ve got to be kidding; they were on the lowest rungs of the first century Jewish social ladder.
Even the heavenly choir of angels had to wonder who was in charge of advertising their concert, then locating it on a remote hilltop. There was virtually no audience… The gospels continue in this vein, with flawed actors, senseless brutality, stingy charity, a startling story arc, and unlikely majesty. God’s style is not like our own; He “uses the weak things to shame the proud.” Can’t do the book justice in these few short sentences, but I highly recommend it. Jesus, when you actually read the stories within their context, comes shining through as delightful.
BTW, it’s simply a mistake that a U.S. embassy is required to be “secular.” As an arm of the U.S. government, it is required to neither “establish” nor “hinder the free exercise of.” Big difference between neutrality and secularity.
He might on some social issues. But on other Jesus is portrayed as being too meek or pro-slavery, anti-equality for woman, subservience to Governmental power to be a secular humanist in the 21st century. He preached to "respect/follow your Master, King, father. He certainly was no capitalist, advocating to give all money to poor. Having to die for the sins of other. because you have to, sounds nuts to me. And for a Father to allow this or require this, is just ludicrous.
Other students said “I was wandering the same thing” and it started a discussion which put the “different” student at ease.