A couple times now I have read this article from the Christian Science Monitor, titled “Christians and Atheists Start a Calmer Dialogue,” and still have not figured out what the point is.
Here are excerpts that set up the relevant context:
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, among others, go beyond questioning God to charge that religion is a plague that needs to be eliminated. Their vehemence, some suggest, is in response to ChrisÂtian attacks on evolution and stem-cell research.
. . .
Amid the rising heat of this latest culture clash, though, a few people on both sides are finding calmer ways to engage, seeking to build bridges and even learn from one another. Some Christians, concerned that millions of Americans never cross the threshold of a church, want to understand why, as well as learn what it is in evangelistic efforts that turns people off. Some atheists, worried that polls show they are the least accepted social group in the country, want to break down stereotypes and change people’s attitudes.
The remainder of the article centers (mostly) on Hemant Mehta, who became quasi-famous for selling his soul on eBay, a former pastor named Jim Henderson who was the highest bidder, and Matt Casper, another atheist who travels around the country with Henderson speaking to churches.
Yeah, that’s right; apparently there are churches who will allow an atheist in to explain his perspective. I’ve always thought that would be fun to do, but didn’t think any churches would have the balls to let it happen. I suppose it’s nice to know that some of them do, but I don’t think it’s what the author of the article seems to believe it is.
Frustrated at his inability to draw more people to his church, Mr. Henderson set out to learn how “the unchurched” respond to various kinds of worship services – what it is they find appealing and what leaves them cold. He began to pay nonbelievers $25 to go to a church and tell him what they thought.
Aside from the annoying way that Christians seem habitually to consider atheists “unchurched,” such that we’re all just ignorant of what Christianity is really about and would change our minds if only they could get through to us, I find Henderson’s position pretty odd. He starts from the idea that he needs to get more people into the church, recognizes that there are more and more people who are totally unconvinced by religious ideas these days, and then goes out looking for atheists who will offer a critique and let him know what would get them in the door.
Mehta says “a church would need to appeal to his sense of reason, challenge him to think more deeply, and allow for asking questions. ‘I wasn’t confronted with a new line of thinking that challenged my commitment to scientific empiricism,’ he writes.”
Which basically means a church that can win over Mehta is not really a religious institution. But then, the kind of church that Henderson seems to be moving toward is not really a religious institution, either:
Henderson’s experiences have led him . . . into “something larger than evangelism,” what he calls “otherliness.” Otherliness – “the spirituality of serving others” – involves “drawing people into the idea of paying real attention to each other, of listening.” He wants to teach individuals and groups of all kinds how to do a much better job of listening to those they interact with.
There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s an excellent goal. But “paying real attention to each other” is not “spirituality” and it is certainly not religion. Rather, it is a practice for living, a kind of ethical philosophy.
No doubt, our world needs more interfaith dialogue. But the idea that interfaith dialogue, when practiced genuinely, can remain interfaith dialogue, without becoming simply human dialogue is naïve. If people set out to discover what they hold in common, then they are building on what can be communicated between them and understood by all, rather than relying on something that is communicated only to some by revelation and thereafter hidden away, to be taken as an article of faith by those to whom the revelation was not given.
Finally, a calmer dialogue is not a good thing in itself. In my experience, people who demand a calmer dialogue are often simply looking for a dialogue without real communication, where the participants speak only vaguely, without much candor, and without addressing their large and legitimate disagreements. That the “rash of bestselling books by atheists challenging religion” declare vehement opposition to religion should neither shock nor scare anyone for at least two reasons.
First, if religion has something valid in its pockets, if it is truly backed by the ultimate authority, then it ought to be willing to turn out those pockets in the face of even the most vehement challenges, to meet its critics head on. If there is something real to religion and it is what religious people claim it is, then it will survive every attack. Simply complaining, as many religious people have done in response to the recent vehemence against their beliefs, that the rhetorical bombast of the critics is inappropriate or simplistic is not a sufficient response; a better one is to meet the challenges of the critics as they stand. The other popular response, which is to claim that the critics overgeneralize religion and fail to differentiate between “bad” religion and “good” religion is also not a sufficient response, not least because everyone who responds that way is essentially saying that his or her own religion is the “good” kind, so the critics must be talking about someone else. That response is just a dressed up deflection and evasion. Even if your religion is the “good” kind, you must address the criticism and demonstrate: (1) how the bases of your religion differ from the bases of the “bad” religion, and (2) why, if the bases are the same, your version of religion is different. If your religion turns out to be the “good” kind for reasons other than religious ones, then you are not really practicing “good” religion; you are practicing an ethical philosophy that you have dressed up as religion.
Second, the fact that the books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens are bestsellers ought to tip off those reluctant to recognize the validity of the criticism that many, many people in our society are ready to address religion in a critical fashion. To write off the vehemence of the critics, or to dismiss their attacks out of hand without addressing the substance of their claims, while their books are flying off the shelves and into the hands of a great many people seems pretty irresponsible to me.
At any rate, it is good to see people actually talking about religion with their eyes open. Also, if you’re interested, check out Mehta’s blog: Friendly Atheist.
Posted by Peter 
Posted by Peter 
Posted by Peter 
