Guest Blogger: ChristianAtheist on Theological Anthropology

I have just returned from a trip to North Carolina, where I presented workshops on Bridging the God Gap: Finding Common Ground Among Believers, Atheists and Agnostics in Charlotte, Raleigh, and Greensboro. I learned some lessons I’ll be sharing in future posts, but for now here is a guest-post by ChristianAtheist, who sometimes comments on my essays. She writes about an idea that might be called “theological anthropology.”

 

Working at Oxford University is a wonderful way to get to know people from other cultures, and many of my conversations with visiting or newly employed researchers from abroad revolve around the bewildering unwritten rules of English culture. (These are amusingly described in Kate Fox’s book Watching the English, which I recommend to them.)

As part of their Oxford experience, I also recommend attending the service of choral evensong at an Oxford college chapel. This, like many other English rituals such as tea drinking, needs some deconstruction, both for the non-English and the non-religious.

I hate the idea of people going to a church service for the first time and not at least glimpsing some of the nuances of the rituals and symbols – it seems such a waste of an aesthetically rich experience. But, like most art forms, if you don’t get the references, you will only engage at a superficial level, and if you have any hang ups about religion, these can get in the way.

So maybe we should think about the cultural gap between English and non-English as similar to the gap between theist and non-theist: both should try to bridge that gap by explaining the unwritten behaviours, values, norms and beliefs of the alien culture. This can be done without any suggestion that one is right and one wrong, but just as a way of gaining insight into the culture and, in the case of evensong, appreciating its liturgy in greater depth.

This is an email I recently sent to a group of social psychologists before going to evensong and dinner at New College, Oxford:

Dear fellow amateur anthropologists of English culture,

If you are thinking about whether to come to evensong, but are worried you will feel like a member of the outgroup because you’re not a religious person (or maybe because you have negative feelings towards the Church as something oppressive or outdated), it may help to re-frame the experience of evensong in a non-religious way. The Church of England encompasses a broad spectrum of beliefs, and is very un-dogmatic; although it is Protestant, in many ways it is not like the Protestant churches in the rest of Europe.

You will see the word “inclusive” used to describe New College Chapel on their website (as most of the college chapels do): this means they welcome people from all backgrounds, whatever their beliefs, sexuality, class, etc, and is a way of communicating that the chapel does not believe in the Bible as literally true, but attempts to find contemporary meaning in its stories (just as one might in other forms of literature).

The tradition of evening prayer goes back to at least the fourth century and at New College it has been conducted almost every day since the fourteenth century, so it can help to think of yourself as taking part in a historical tradition. It is also an uplifting aesthetic experience, which it is possible to describe as transcendent in some way that may or may not involve some kind of supernatural dimension! In other words, there can be some continuity between the aesthetic and the spiritual.

So I would suggest not thinking too much about the theological content or truth value of the words but about their poetry; and about how the symbolism of the architecture and rituals contribute to the experience.

There is also a political dimension to it – look out for the words in the Magnificat about the rich and the poor, for example. Oxford is very liberal theologically and politically, and this is the way many people come to a service like evensong, so don’t feel you are a member of the outgroup, but instead as a member of a superordinate group of people who are intelligent, sensitive, open minded, politically aware and with good taste.

I look forward to discussing your experiences over dinner!

 

Thanks to ChristianAtheist for suggesting ways of transcending ingroups and outgroups from a superordinate perspective. The more we identify with the group called “all humanity,” the more we will sense our kinship, regardless of our theological orientations.

Roger Christan Schriner

To subscribe to Theists & Atheists: Communication & Common Ground, click the “Follow” link on the upper left.

Beyond Theological Tribalism: A Checklist of Challenges

I recently read a helpful comment by ChristianAtheist on my March 30 entry, “The Tribal Trap.” I asked permission to share her comment, so here it is. (I have bolded some key phrases and I slightly modified item number two.)

[The comment begins:] Being an atheist often seems to be defined purely in terms of what one does not believe or how one is different from believers, which makes it more difficult for atheists to avoid outgroup derogation. Religous believers similarly are often defined in terms of how they are separate from non-believers, and how they must try to convert them. So the challenge to the tribes of atheists and non-atheists is:

1. To see oneself as a member of multiple ingroups, some of which one will share with the outgroup on the belief category.

2. To value … [outgroups] on dimensions other than those which seem most salient [or which] enhance the ingroup.

3. To resist the temptation to succumb to the outgroup homogeneity effect, in which we see all members of the outgroup as more similar than they actually are, by e.g. getting to know outgroup members better and allowing our emotions to become involved and reducing depersonalization processes. Research shows that friendship is the best way to reduce prejudice (cognitive, behavioural and affective), and increase empathy and trust.

4. To resist the temptation to succumb to the accentuation principle, in which we exaggerate the similarities within our ingroup and the differences between ingroup and outgroup.

5. To be humble, relaxed and not defensive about our current beliefs: to make the boundaries of our group more permeable and allow overlap between ingroup and outgroup.

6. To resist the temptation to make beliefs a test of loyalty or a “marker” to our group membership.

7. To ensure our self-esteem is not dependent on this one group membership.

I expect there are more, but this is a start! [End of Comment]

We could use these points as a checklist, in thinking about communication between different theological and political viewpoints, as well as interactions between different national and ethnic groups. Thanks to ChristianAtheist for these ideas, and I welcome additional suggestions.

Roger Christan Schriner

To subscribe to Theists & Atheists: Communication & Common Ground, click the “Follow” link on the upper left.

Conversational Generosity

I recently read a brief paper called “Let Your Wisdom Shine as a Reflection of the Other,” by essayist Charles MacDermed. His words manifest a rare generosity of spirit, expressed in elegant language. With Charles’ permission, here are some excerpts:

“Can you show as much genuine respect for your fellow conversationalists as you would have sincerely shown to you? Do you grace your correspondents in dialog with deferential esteem and appreciative admiration? Can you in working fact give them a higher quality of camaraderie than you expect or require of them? Don’t stint. Rather be radically bighearted: give more than you get – by far more. Don’t wait to get before you give. Be the very epitome of outgoing benevolence. Display an affable gregariousness that is the manifest paragon of conversational engagement. Outdo yourself as though your partners in talk were the source of your inspiration: demonstrate to them the degree to which they indispensably are your cherished personal muse. Let your wisdom shine as a reflection of them.

“Speak the language of the other: use their words – as an efficacious means of proving that you both hear and value what they say (be they right or wrong). . . . [T]hey are offering you a look into their own personal thought. Treat their confession of trust with reciprocal sincerity. . . . Make even more of their intended meaning than they themselves might imagine.”

Reading Charles’ essay reminded me of a passage from Bridging the God Gap: Finding Common Ground Among Believers, Atheists and Agnostics: “Attitude is crucial. If you are sincerely interested in connecting with another human being, he or she will probably feel safe enough to open up. Even if you stumble and stammer, your good intentions will come across. But if your goal is to attack, debate, or dominate, it’s hard to conceal this agenda with handy-dandy communication techniques” (p. 51).

In MacDermed’s essay I especially appreciated these comments: “Don’t stint. Rather be radically bighearted . . . Don’t wait to get before you give.” And: “Make even more of their intended meaning than they themselves might imagine.”

Although Charles was not specifically discussing conversations about theology, his suggestions would certainly apply to that context. I admit that generosity of spirit may do little good if the gap between world-views is too wide, or if tensions are too high. But even then, being “radically bighearted” may produce surprising results.

Thanks, Charles, for the opportunity to share your thoughts with others.

Roger Christan Schriner

To subscribe to Theists & Atheists: Communication & Common Ground, click the “Follow” link on the upper left.

Yom HaShoah, 2012

I’ve just returned from the Yom HaShoah (holocaust remembrance) service at Temple Beth Torah in Fremont, California. This annual program is sponsored by Tri-City Interfaith Council, and I have attended it several times.

My mood is always sober as the service begins, because I know I will hear of atrocities which are almost beyond belief. But there is great power in confronting the truth, facing what humans are capable of doing to other humans.

This post may seem off-topic, since this blog is about theists and atheists. But I want to find ways of breaking down artificial barriers that obscure our common humanity. Tonight I felt new hope that this is possible, partly because so many different faith traditions were present in that room. Yom HaShoah originated among Jews, but it is an important tradition for all of us.

It especially inspired me to see at least two Muslims in attendance. One of them participated in the program and the other helped plan it. Our main speaker was a marvelous Jewish storyteller, and I noticed that one of his stories was from the Sufi tradition of Islam.

As I left the temple, I recalled what Hosea Ballou wrote 200 years ago: “If we agree in … love, there is no disagreement that can do us any injury; but if we do not no other agreement can do us any good.”

Thank you for reading this post, and welcome to the readers who have subscribed while I’ve been traveling. If any of you want to suggest specific topics for this blog, please let me know. I’m always happy to hear from people who want to build bridges between seemingly irreconcilable antagonists. That’s what we need, if we’re ever going to have a world that works.

Roger Christan Schriner

To subscribe to Theists & Atheists: Communication & Common Ground, click the “Follow” link on the upper left.

Theists and Atheists, on the Common Ground of Mystery

Julian Baggini has suggested that in seeking common ground between theists and atheists, “we should not look to substantive beliefs about the purpose and nature of life, but to shared values …” (See http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/series/heathens-progress.)

Although I agree that shared values are crucial, I can also see a way of finding conceptual common ground between some believers and some skeptics. In each camp, many people are amazingly confident that they have The Truth about God. But others place their personal beliefs within the context of an underlying agnosticism. Those of us who realize that we could be wrong about deity have something extremely important in common with each other.

These days many of us have become “broad-spectrum” agnostics, willing to admit that we are fallible in dealing with all sorts of topics, including religion. Yet even though we realize that our knowledge of complex and controversial issues is limited, we need beliefs to guide our actions. So we place our bets – yes, there is a person-like god hidden in the darkness, or no, there is not. All opinions about ultimate reality are spiritual wagers, “leaps of faith” into belief or “leaps of doubt” into unbelief.

Two people who are genuinely aware of the limits of their own knowledge have thereby established important common ground, even if one is a theist and the other is an atheist. One could even argue that the difference between belief and disbelief is less important than the difference between dogmatism and intellectual humility.

We can think of belief-systems as metaphors rather than as literal facts, and learn from each other’s metaphors. Using the metaphors of theism, some atheists might consider thinking of the cosmos as having personal characteristics. I have known atheists who appreciate James Jeans’ comment that the universe seems “more like a great thought than like a great machine.” Similarly Albert Einstein, who did not believe in a personal deity, saw the universe as manifesting a profound intelligence. He spoke of this intelligence as God, but he could have also have described this cosmic intelligence in atheistic language.

Similarly, theists can learn from atheists who write about the absence of God, since God frequently seems to be missing during the trials of everyday life. (The phrase, “God hides his face,” occurs repeatedly in the Hebrew Bible, so even in ancient days God’s absence was often palpable.) Many atheists and agnostics have learned important lessons about living as if we are wholly on our own, with no invisible allies. Thus believers could benefit from reading, e.g., Andre Comte-Sponville’s work, The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality.

In short, “belief and disbelief can meet on the common ground of mystery. Mystery-affirming theists and mystery-affirming atheists are brothers and sisters in disguise.” (From Bridging the God Gap, p. 101, emphasis added.)

A personal note: I’ll soon be leaving for a gathering that relates to my current book project. It’s the 10th annual Toward a Science of Consciousness conference, in Tucson Arizona. I’ll resume blogging around April 20.

Roger Christan Schriner

To subscribe to Theists & Atheists: Communication & Common Ground, click the “Follow” link on the upper left.

The Tribal Trap

I’ve been commenting a lot lately on Julian Baggini’s Heathen’s Progress series on the Guardian web site. Baggini has completed this series, so I will conclude with posts about his last few entries.

On March 22, reviewing several months of reader comments, Julian found it “dispiriting to see how tribal so many people seem to be.” Although his readers often posted thoughtful remarks, “many more” seemed happy to find a “pretext to get in the familiar old digs against whoever the other tribe happens to be.” And whenever Julian criticized his fellow atheists, people thought this showed he was “on a certain ‘side’, as though … we only agree with friends and those we disagree with are enemies.”

Indeed. While reading responses to Heathen’s Progress, I was appalled to see childish schoolyard taunts disguised as intelligent theological discourse. In my January 17 post I noted that comments marked “recommend” by large numbers of readers often contained language that was hostile and demeaning. One very effective way to be loved by some is to be hateful to others.

Our whole world is trapped in tribalism. So how can we get out?

On March 15 Baggini talked about finding common ground between theists and atheists. “It’s just not good to have families, streets, neighbourhoods or nations divided by faith, or lack of it.” He then suggested that we can find common ground in our common flaws. Every person has prejudices, blind spots, and intellectual weaknesses, and “no matter how sure we are, we could be mistaken.”

I emphasized the same idea in Bridging the God Gap. And I agree with Julian that the difference between theism and atheism is less important than the difference “between those who show the virtues of reasonableness and those who do not.”

To get out of the tribal trap, we must face our own limitations.

We must also learn to communicate across ideological divides, especially about political issues. Whenever people who follow a particular philosophy of life advocate some public policy, they need to justify that policy in terms that people with other world-views can understand and accept. As Julian stated on February 16, this “is simply the minimum requirement for fruitful, peaceful co-operation between people with different world views.”

If we want to promote cooperation among people of all faiths and philosophies, pluralism is the only practical path. Those who do not agree with this goal want to impose their lifestance on others, by force or by guile. That is an excellent game plan, if you want to cause endless warfare all over the world. But if we want to build peace, we must first break out of the tribal trap.

For Julian’s series see http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/series/heathens-progress.

Roger

To subscribe to Theists & Atheists: Communication & Common Ground, click the “Follow” link on the upper left.

The Heathen Manifesto

For several weeks I have been commenting on Julian Baggini’s “Heathen’s Progress” essays on the Guardian web site. He has now concluded his series by proposing a “heathen manifesto,” “an attempt to point towards the next phase of atheism’s involvement in public discourse. It is not a list of doctrines that people are asked to sign up to but a set of suggestions to provide a focus for debate and discussion. Nor is it an attempt to accurately describe what all atheists have in common. Rather it is an attempt to prescribe what the best form of atheism should be like.”

This manifesto is being widely read and will be widely discussed. It is a significant step in the attempt to find common ground between theists and atheists. I will comment on it in later posts, but for now, a bare list of his twelve principles will suggest Baggini’s general direction:

1 Why we are heathens

2 Heathens are naturalists

3 Our first commitment is to the truth

4 We respect science, not scientism

5 We value reason as precious but fragile

6 We are convinced, not dogmatic

7 We have no illusions about life as a heathen

8 We are secularists

9 Heathens can be religious

10 Religion is often our friend

11 We are critical of religion when necessary

12 This manifesto is less concerned with distinguishing heathens from others than forging links between us and others

I encourage you to read Julian’s statement in its entirety:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/25/atheists-please-read-heathen-manifesto

Roger Schriner

To subscribe to Theists & Atheists: Communication & Common Ground, click the “Follow” link on the upper left.