McLaren suggests at TPM Cafe:
On the one hand, our religions can fan the flames of holy-war narratives –whether expressed in terms of terrorism or counter-terrorism, jihad or crusade. On the other, our religions can inspire us with framing stories of reconciliation and peace. On the one hand, our religions can foment stories of scapegoating and vilification, but on the other, they can inspire us toward compassion and understanding through stories of reconciliation and grace.
Instead of baptizing greed and self-interest, our faith communities can teach us stories which promote the common good, inspiring us to creatively pursue sustainability both environmentally and socially. Instead of sanctifying the consumerism that reduces everything to a financial “resource,” our faith communities can teach us stories that inspire true reverence for the planet and all it contains – opening our eyes to the signature of God in the hawk soaring among the mountains, the school of minnows flashing in the shallows, the cricket singing in the back yard.
Instead of distracting us from this-worldly injustice, our religions can embed in us a sense of stewardship and responsibility, so that we who have been given much gladly accept much responsibility for our neighbors. Instead of preoccupying us with raising our own moral score so we can consider ourselves spiritual winners at the finish line, we can live in a story of hope that turns our hearts towards our neighbor, toward the stranger, and even towards our enemies.
This fundamentally shatters the claims in Dawkins claims and castigations against Christianity. Thoughts? Agree? Disagree?
(h/t to Zach Exley at Revolution in Jesusland)
3 responses so far ↓
Jon Henshaw // December 15, 2007 at 9:03 pm |
With or without religion, people can choose to hurt or love, be kind or mean, kill or have mercy. I’m struggling to find any substance in what McClaren said, other than to state the obvious.
I also don’t think anyone’s arguments were shattered by that. Human beings throughout history have been linked to the death and destruction of others, and it’s religion in general that has often been at the root of that destruction – driven by the drunkenness of the “one true way” mentality and the desire for control and power.
Regardless of that, Dawkins argument is much more complex. He’s arguing against the teaching of an unreality, and a belief driven by the desire for hope and meaning that is void of logic, reason and scientific observation.
compassioninpolitics // December 16, 2007 at 10:45 am |
Thanks for adding to the discussion Jon…
you bring up some interesting observations.
I think he’s answering those who would criticize Christians for the Iraq War. Internally, he’s saying to Christians that they have another option and to those outside the faith he is correctly rhetorically distancing himself from those who would use the Bible in the cause of militarism or in the pursuit of oil riches.
I seem to think that Christianity and religion are all to easily group together–which seems like a category mistake. To even make broad statements about those who hold Christian faith are unified is to make a sizable assumption in the same way as to lump all feminists, all socialists, or all those in the cause of freedom or democracy. In all four movements there is a wide continuum of beliefs and practices.
Thats one of the key problems I have with making any definitive judgments based on Dawkins work or any who would criticize either Christianity or religion wholesale.
Dawkins claim that religion is illogical is based on certain suppositions about what is vs. what isn’t logical. The fact that two scientific studies come to opposite conclusions isn’t logical. There are certainly paradoxes to the human experience that transcend logic and science has yet to come up with a rational understanding for human emotions (the iatrogenic and counterproductive effects of drugs as a solution to emotional irregularities. please note I’m not saying the drugs don’t ever work or aren’t sometimes good). Science only has partial truths–especially when it encounters other cultures that don’t share our assumptions about human nature and interaction.
Thoughts?
Jon Henshaw // December 16, 2007 at 4:00 pm |
Yeah, my initial comment on the quote was obviously a reaction to the quote itself, and I was sure that my reaction was going to be taken out of context – just like if I were to comment on verses from the Bible, taken out of context of the book or underlying story and history behind it.
“The fact that two scientific studies come to opposite conclusions isn’t logical.”
It’s not logical in the sense that we can’t understand the reasons for it (at the moment), but it’s certainly part of the scientific process of testing and observation, which you have to do (often times for years or decades) to get to a solid working theory (aka: logical understanding of the problem). My hypothesis to that statement would be that one or both of the studies were flawed and/or one or both of the studies was tainted by bias, poor procedure or a flawed control group.
Back to Dawkins – the main point of my original comment is that Dawkins relies on the logic and rational methods of scientific discovery, and I didn’t mean to imply that religious people aren’t logical or rational. I only mean it in the sense of how one approaches their faith.
Dawkins’ point is that you cannot prove that God exists. In the same way, you can’t prove that the Holy Spirit exists or that Jesus some how lives in your heart. Furthermore, from a scientific and psychological standpoint, a belief in and a relationship with Jesus or God is no different than an imaginary friend. Meaning, the characteristics of the two are essentially the same from a scientific observational standpoint.
In my experience, from all of the books I’ve read and debates I’ve seen, the Dawkins argument always makes the most sense from a scientific viewpoint. Whereas, the religious side’s debate generally culminates into the trump card of faith. And if you want to believe in something bad enough, you will. And once you’re a true believer of anything, there’s not much that will sway your beliefs, because beliefs trump logic. Oh, and having your family and an entire sub-culture constantly reinforcing your beliefs helps to keeps those beliefs solidified too – that’s something I know all too well.