[Dialogue] {Spam?} God or no God? Spong's take

[KroegerD at aol.com]

James Jensen from via  the Internet writes: 
"My name is James Jensen. I read of you through UU World and recently  read 
Sins of Scripture (excellent book, by the way).  
Today I ran across an article on Wired entitled "The Church of  
Non-Believers." The author talks about a so-called New Atheism pioneered by  Richard 
Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennet that is quite militant about  their 
non-belief. They accuse moderate and liberal believers of being  essentially 
accessories in the harm done by the fundamentalists and radicals.  
They make a few good arguments, essentially mentioning the fact that no  
politician in this country has declared himself or herself an atheist because it  
wouldn't be politically safe to do so. I can also sympathize with the idea 
that  moderate and liberal believers aren't doing enough to oppose the  
fundamentalists, who strike me as not unlike the Nation of Islam in their  approach to 
freedom and justice. It seems likely to me that this means there is  going to 
be a new consciousness (as you term it) breaking through soon enough,  but I 
am left wondering whether this will be more of a breakthrough in Christian  
thinking or in atheist thinking. In other words, is this the end of religion, or  
of atheism? What's your opinion on the matter?  
Personally, I am no longer sure what to believe and while I sympathize with  
atheism, it seems to me that without some basis in faith for proclaiming that  
life is not only good but right, crackpots are going to start thinking they 
can  "fix"human nature, just like people have thought nature needs to be 
"fixed"and  made more orderly — resulting, of course, in environmental destruction. 
After  all, both the experience-affirming Carl Rogers and the 
utopian-behaviorist B. F.  Skinner were chosen Humanist of the Year by the American Humanist 
Association"  
Dear James,Thank you for your  letter. Religion is for many a vital and 
confusing subject and it justifies most  of the criticism it receives. If religion 
were really about what the Religious  Right proclaims, I would want no part of 
it. If my only choice was to be a  Christian like the Falwells or the 
Robertsons, I would find atheism a compelling  alternative. I believe that Richard 
Dawkins and Sam Harris are expressing  exactly that.  
I met Richard Dawkins when I did some lectures at New College, Oxford  
University, several years ago. Just that day I had been reading Dawkins' book,  "The 
Selfish Gene" at the Bodleian Library in Oxford. I found it fascinating. It  
was even more fascinating to discover that we were seated that night side by  
side at the High Table. I found the man personable and charming. Every  
theologian in England wants to debate him. Few come out unscathed. There is much  
irrationality in our God thinking and Dawkins loves to point it out. Does that  
mean that there is no reality in the human search for God? I do not think so.  
Does it mean that human definitions of God are always doomed to die? Because  
they are human creation I am convinced that they will. The God Richard 
Dawkins  rejects is the one I also reject. What is in doubt is whether the God to 
whom I  am drawn is real, whether the human yeaning for the 'Transcendent,' the 
'Other'  is real and whether Richard Dawkins' search for truth and my search 
for God are  in fact the same search, but by different names. That is not so 
easy to answer.  
I have never met Sam Harris. I have read him, read reviews about him and  
watched him at great length talk about his book and answer questions on C-Span.  
I think his work has articulated what many people feel. It is difficult for  
religious people to admit they might be wrong so when Sam Harris points out the 
 flaws he finds in religious understanding, he elicits great hostility. 
Religious  threat always produces religious anger. I found him to be dead set 
against the  abuses he observes in Christianity. He sees no alternative to those 
abuses than  to attack and rid the world of Christianity. I think a better 
alternative is to  attack and to rid the world of that abusive Christianity, which 
suggests that  ultimate truth has been captured in creedal forms, that God is 
an angry parent  figure in the sky who wants to punish us but relents and 
punishes the Divine Son  instead, and that followers of Jesus have the right to 
hate anyone who disagrees  with them. I have no need or respect for such a 
religious system or for that  abusive deity. That is also not the God that I 
believe I engage as a Christian  when I worship.  
So I welcome the Dawkins, the Harrises and the Dennets of the world and  
believe the Christian Church must be willing to listen to them, to hear their  
criticisms and to respond to them with the respect that their criticisms  
deserve. When we do that, I believe we will discover that Christianity can still  be 
a vital and alive force in the 21st century.  
My best,  
-- John Shelby Spong
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070314/87c35eef/attachment.html