[MD] False Messiah

[Scott Roberts]

DMB,

Scott said:
..Another source for improvement is that all theologians, other than
fundamentalists, recognize that God-talk is necessarily metaphorical. Only
fundamentalists and anti-theists take it literally, and their problem is to
privilege the literal over the metaphorical. In this regard, religious
thinking is ahead of, say, the scientific materialists, in questioning the
value of "being literal".

dmb says:
Only fundamentalists and anti-theists take it literally? First of all I have
to say that this is a re-phrasing of a Joseph Cambellism I've posted here
several times over the years. The problem is that you've re-phrased badly.
Campbell's idea is that theists and atheists both take it literally, and
they're both wrong. Your change gets theists off the hook, so long as
they're not fundamentalists. I think the difference is just a matter of
degree. And the switch from atheism to anti-theism is equally uncool. These
two terms are not entirely interchangable. Roughly, the atheist doesn't
believe in God, while the anti-theist doesn't believe in religion. The
anti-theist is not making a metaphysical claim. She's only critical of
theology and the churches. Sure, one could be both at the same time, but the
distinction remains.

Scott:
I would say it is a difference in definitions. I would call a 'theist' 
anybody who says they have faith in God. Since theologians, all of whom call 
themselves theists, have consistently pointed out that talk about God must 
be taken analogically, symbolically, and so forth, I don't know where you're 
getting the idea that theists take God-talk literally. Even saying "God is 
Love", as you complained about in another post, must be taken symbolically, 
since we have no idea what that could mean literally.

On definitions, I would call an atheist someone who would not say they have 
faith in God, while I would call an anti-theist someone who spends a lot of 
time trying to convince theists that they are wrong. Such people tend to 
assume that theists take God-talk as literal truth. Many do, of course, but 
not those who think about it.

Scott said:
There is, of course, a huge difference between theory and practice in this
regard. But things are changing. Even among evangelical Christians, there is
movement, as a search on "emergent Christianity" will tell you. Also see the
Sea of Faith stuff (www.sofn.org.uk). Among intellectuals, there are various
post-modern or post-secular thinkers of interest, such as Gianni Vattimo and
John Caputo ("The Prayers and Tears of Jacque Derrida: Religion without
Religion"). There is a book called Religion After Metaphysics, which
contains essays by these two and others, which might be of interest. Whether
such ideas ever get into the mainstream is, to be sure, not foreseeable --
not soon, at any rate. ...In short, there is much of the Dynamic going on in
religion, or at least in
Christianity in developed countries.

dmb says:
I took a quick look to see what you were getting at here. As you admit,
these people and organizations aren't exactly mainstream. These figures
describe themselves variously as postmodern humanists, Radical theologians,
non-theologians, continental philsophers and Vattimo is a gay, Catholic
politician, among other things. My point? I think its rather disengenuous to
suggest that these people represent theism or to use them in defense of it.

Scott:
I didn't say they "represent theism". I said they are working to change 
Christianity. And some of them would like to change it to something more 
non-theistic than theistic. My point is that you continually attack 
Christianity, as if they were all locked into a particular belief system.

DMB continued:
Don't you think it would be more accurate to characterize them as people who
are thinking about the death of god, the collaspe of a belief system? I do.

Scott:
Some of them, yes. And I think that's a good thing. It's my personal opinion 
that a spell of secularism is good for people, and for religion in 
general -- but only if one goes back to religion, though now fully purged of 
superstition and such.

DMB said:
In any case, I'd much rather you bring some specific thoughts to the table
because the actual content strikes me as pretty damn interesting. Instead,
you seem to be side-stepping the problem with theism (even when it isn't
crude fundamentalism) and faith-based beliefs in general. I mean, don't you
keep up with current events? Surely you can see that there is a huge
conflict between the secular world and the religious one? You do realize
that we're fighting fundamentalism at home and abroad. With your defense of
theism, faith and your attack on Darwinism, well... I think Pat Robertson
would approve.

Scott:
You say there is a huge conflict between the secular world and "the 
religious one". There isn't. There is a huge conflict between those whose 
religion leads to suppression of individuality, freedom, and so forth, and 
those who don't like that. On the "don't like it" side are many religious 
people. Yet here you are lumping them with the Pat Robertson's. Remember, 
over 40% of American Christian voters voted for Kerry in 2004. These are 
people who dislike the neo-cons and the Christian Right as much as you do. 
Yet you would alienate them to preserve your prejudice against theists. Not 
very politically astute, in my opinion.

- Scott