This is one of those occasions when a passage in a Poul Anderson text prompts personal reflections that take on a life of their own - and we think that this is valid and legitimate. Each of us has our own reflections, of course.
Today is Sunday, day of reflection. Yesterday I met and had a friendly conversation with a Methodist minister at a community event. A week from today, members of our meditation group will visit the Buddhist monastery to which we are linked over in the North East and will meet the Head of the Order before he returns to Canada. Although Jews have Saturday and Muslims have Friday, Sikhs in Christian countries attend Gurdwara on Sundays for convenience!
The passage:
"Perhaps I should not even have dismissed the chaplain. With so much religiosity about, as our universe goes down in wreck, I have painted myself more strongly Lucifer (for references to "Lucifer" in Anderson's works, scroll down) by not spending these last hours in prayer. Will my children hear at school, He wasn't just a traitor, he was a dirty atheist -? Never mind, I am not entitled to a great deal, but let me claim the dignity of remaining myself." (p. 50)
"Remaining myself" can mean either shutting everyone else out or remaining honest and authentic.
Society is unhealthy if there is a religiosity that condemns "dirty atheists." Was the narrator offered a chaplain of his own denomination or was a single appointed chaplain foisted upon him? If the latter, then, if I were in the narrator's position and depending on the chaplain, I might have a conversation with him, then invite him to pray silently while I meditated. If he told me that I was damned, then I would invite him to leave.
"Spending these last hours in prayer..." can mean such different things for different people! God, if He exists, hears it all.
13 comments:
Throughout history, people have been overwhelmingly religious. Most still are.
Yes but taking gods for granted the way we take atoms for granted is not the same as being pious or devout.
Well, yeah, but if you believe in the Gods, you have to take them into account when you act.
Kaor, Paul!
Except, many times, too many of those "dirty atheists" themselves brought on themselves that kind of hostility. I need only cite, considering how France is in the news lately, how the Radical Republicans dominating France in the early 1900's, provoked infuriated opposition from millions of the French, outraged by the regime's persecution of the Catholic Church. I can cite many other examples of fanatical atheists provoking opposition, such as the Cristero civil war in Mexico.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There have been fanatics on all sides. Can we move beyond it?
Paul.
I count myself as atheist pending me encountering some evidence for the existence of an entity that could reasonably be called a 'god'.
My main objection to religion is not the idea of god, but the idea of faith. Faith always sounds to me like believing a proposition despite a lack of evidence for it, or even despite an abundance of evidence against it. This will be a giant obstacle to correcting any mistakes in one's beliefs.
Jim,
When Christianity grew in the Roman Empire, the Emperor Constantine realized that it was a belief that could unite the Empire. However, Christian doctrinal disagreements and arguments were divisive and there was no way to resolve them by merely arguing. There was no evidence and reason could not settle matters like Arianism versus Trinitarianism. Therefore, Constantine convened a council of bishops that merely declared which doctrines were true and banished anyone who did not accept them.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul. There is no evidence the human race will "move on" from fanaticism--because no one can predict how future generations will behave. I expect future waves of all kinds of fanaticisms. Humans are like that, prone to passionately held beliefs that, when acted on, can go too far.
Jim. Then I can only suggest looking up John Wright's essays on these topics at his blog. He used to be an atheist with views much like yours. But he became convinced even the philosophical arguments against the existence of a First Cause were unconvincing.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I meant, when you and I are discussing theism versus atheism, can we move on from making an issue of the fact that there have been fanatics on the other side.
The First Cause is not a premise that sceptics have to disprove. It is a conclusion that believers have to prove. This apparent assumption that the First Cause is a given and that sceptics are obliged to present "convincing" arguments against it is a massive barrier to mutual understanding. It seems to absolve believers from having to prove their case. But, logically, they have to do that. A positive proposition must be proved, not a negative one. I keep trying to clarify this point.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then I suggest you might discuss this with John Wright as well. Or at least look up some of Mortimer Adler's books, where he too discusses such issues.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I specialized in Philosophy of Religion as an undergraduate, then did postgrad work in it. Later, I read Biblical commentaries as a Religious Education Teacher.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I still reiterate what I said above re Adler/Wright.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There are all sorts of people we could read! I have had some experience with Wright.
Paul.
Post a Comment