Switching sides on belief in a personal God.
By Richard N. Ostling for the Concord Monitor and New Hampshire Patriot
August 10. 2004
Where God is concerned, two blue-blood theology professors floated in opposite directions and passed each other in midair.
The one thinker is Harvard Divinity School's Gordon D. Kaufman, who was raised in the devoutly evangelical Mennonite faith. His father served as president of the Mennonites' oldest U.S. school, Bethel College in Kansas. Following theological study and clergy ordination, Kaufman gradually adopted radical agnosticism and has long since rejected the supernatural, all-powerful and personal God of the Bible.
Oxford University's Alister McGrath went in the opposite direction. As a youth in Northern Ireland, he enthusiastically embraced atheism and Marxism, figuring that believers were "very stupid people." But advanced study in biochemistry and mature reflection caused McGrath to reconsider. Today he's not just a believer but a leading figure in the conservative wing of the Church of England and world Anglicanism.
Kaufman's latest book, "In the Beginning ... Creativity," denies God as a capital-C Creator. He thinks a lowercase and impersonal "creativity," defined as "the coming into being" of all that's new in the cosmos, is "the only proper object of worship, devotion and faith." To Kaufman, religious concepts are mere "creations of the human imagination," though some might retain the noun "God" to symbolize the mysterious creativity. Notably, his manifesto against the biblical God wasn't issued by a secular publisher but by Fortress Press of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, a slowly declining mainline Protestant denomination.
McGrath has a new book out, too, and it's something else, a bold broadside aptly summarized in the title: "The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World" (Doubleday). Sounds like wishful thinking, considering the widespread disbelief in Britain and continental Europe and in influential U.S. academic and media circles. McGrath doesn't so much prove the near-demise of atheism as claim that, in principle, the props that made it credible and attractive have been rudely knocked aside. His basic theme is that in past centuries, Western faith squandered its moral stature when Christians ran around killing each other and oppressing dissenters. Back then, atheism seemed to promise human liberation.
Today, of course, churches abhor any hint of coerced faith and have long since embraced full freedom of conscience. Meanwhile, when atheistic Communists or neo-pagan Nazis gained political power in the 20th century, McGrath comments, they proved to be even more bloodthirsty than their misguided Christian predecessors and produced "just as many frauds, psychopaths and careerists." The reasonable conclusion: "It is not of the essence of atheism to be a liberator, nor of religion to be an oppressor."
He brackets the "golden age" of atheism between 1789, the start of France's bitterly anti-clerical revolution, and 1989, when the fall of the Berlin Wall announced the death of atheism as a European political force. Though Kaufman decided that science had dethroned the God of old, McGrath concluded from studying the history and philosophy of science that things aren't that simple. He realized that the great atheists (Marx, Freud) presupposed atheism rather than proving it. Thus, "the belief that there is no God is just as much a matter of faith as the belief that there is a God." Impasse. "The grand idea that atheism is the only option for a thinking person has long since passed away." Moreover, McGrath argues, atheism failed in matters of "imagination" and created mere "organizations" instead of the sort of "community" that humans crave, and that religion fosters. Apart from Western Europe, faith is booming.
Still, McGrath maintains a certain respect for his youthful credo. Atheism's past successes showed that "when religion is seen as a threat to the people, it will fail; when it is seen as their friend, it will flourish. Atheism stands in permanent judgment over against arrogant, complacent and superficial Christian churches and leaders."
About Me
- CyberKitten
- I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.
3 comments:
Interesting article.
... fall of the Berlin Wall announced the death of atheism as a European political force -- I find it fascinating that people will always try to equate communism with atheism. Communism is dead, so too must atheism? I may be misunderstanding him. He did say it was dead as a "political force", not dead in general. But still, lack of religious belief was not the main thrust of Communism.
Would people say that Christianity was dead as a political force if the U.S. lost a war?
... the great atheists (Marx, Freud) presupposed atheism rather than proving it. Thus, "the belief that there is no God is just as much a matter of faith as the belief that there is a God." -- again, the need for Christians to classify atheism as just another religion. This persistent belief that you have to PROVE that God doesn't exist. I cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist. Hell, when I was 7, I swore that I heard his sleigh on our roof (I'm not making this up). So, by that reasoning, if I don't believe there is a Santa Claus, then it is a matter of faith? As an engineer, as a scientist, as a skeptic .... if I ever saw anything that I believed to prove the existence of God, I would acknowledge it. But every day, I see the exact opposite.
dbackdad said: I find it fascinating that people will always try to equate communism with atheism. Communism is dead, so too must atheism?
I think basically that is his and other peoples arguments. Communism is a failed ideology (except that it was Soviet style Totalitarianism and a command econony that failed... but anyway). Communists were atheists. Therefore atheism is a failed ideology. QED. Alass things are not quite that simple and the death of atheism has been greatly exagerated.
dbackdad also said: again, the need for Christians to classify atheism as just another religion.
Weird isn't it. I had many long and fruitless debates with 'Q' and other theists who could only conceive of atheism as an exact negative of theism - complete with holidays and icons. 'Q' in particular couldn't understand why I wasn't all in favour of Darwin Day as a national Atheists day or some such nonsense. He couldn't understand the idea that atheists as a (very losely defined) group tend not to worship anyone - including Charles Darwin!
finally dbackdad said: if I ever saw anything that I believed to prove the existence of God, I would acknowledge it. But every day, I see the exact opposite.
I'm right with you on that one. I'm not an atheist because I hate God (something I have been accused of BTW) but because I see ZERO evidence of His existence.
Post a Comment