[dedicated to my 1 billion beloved brothers and sisters worldwide who identify as atheist/ agnostic/secular humanist / non religious]
Sam Harris thinks that Jesus, (and Mohammed and Krishna and every other prophet of an ancient fabled deity) should be banished from the public square and the political, legal and educational systems of modern nations. Sam, moreso it seems than Richard Dawkins, who I find more scoffer than skeptic; has some appreciation of some of the gifts religion has bequeathed to the development of human society – in morality and ethics, in insights into the development of human potential, insights into the nature of mind; its pivotal role influencing our quest to understand the cosmos, and every facet of social organization we now appreciate at this stage of the evolution of our species: politics, government, law, music, the arts, architecture, even the sciences.
He is simply of the hardened opinion that we have come this far with the burden of superstitious nonsense. Enlightened by science, we now can afford to cast off religious BS and metaphor. Whatever is to be known in the world and in ourselves can be cast in a modern conversation, using the language and concepts of science, unbeholden to the dark tyranny of the stultifying and delusional spirit-talk of fearful iron age tribes, or perhaps more accurately their priest/shaman manipulators.
What does Sam think about Jesus? Not very much. A student of religion himself, his exegesis of the teachings and evaluation of the contribution of the Jesus story/person to humanity is not very flattering (to say the least). And yet, as a Christian, I see so much of Jesus in him. (his passion for truth, justice, intolerance of oppression, commitment to integrity, human compassion…..that’s who Jesus is to me.)
Maybe I should talk more about my own opinion of Jesus. I’ve been trying to communicate this for decades now, but when people are filled with one particular BS, it’s hard to hear anything else. O, I should have mentioned what the acronym stands for:
BS = Belief System – the language of religion.
Recently, a young man sought my counsel. A messianic Jew (Jewish believer in Jesus) when I met him, now being drawn to Orthodox Judaism and essentially concerned about the social and spiritual fallout from making a change in his BS. I was not concerned when he was exploring Islamic faith, neither am I concerned with him exploring Judaism, nor would I lose sleep should he feel the need to explore atheism. (…and Sam and Richard can talk themselves blue protesting atheism’s categorization as a belief system or religion. Atheism is not a science. It is a philosophy that defines itself by what it does not believe.
I have heard Sam and Richard- whether they are aware of, or want to publicly admit to the many foundational and untested (or untestable) premises of so much of what they present as factual science, or not; they themselves are as much a party to BS peddling as anyone else. Hear again Sheldrake on the ten dogmas of modern science rooted in Philosophical Materialism.
I am not denying that some axioms are more reasonable than some, I am saying science has its uncertainties as much as religion produces, for all the metaphoric jargon Sam wishes to avoid, its certainties ….and certainties the likes of which, (for all Sam’s ambition; which I admire, and wish him well on his quest to expand the scientific domain to encompass ‘sacred’ territory; I think he is making a meaningful contribution) are essential to human society and endemic to the religious domain. I am convinced that there are some journeys that science is simply not equipped to take, and thankfully we do not have to wait on the science train to get us there.
I agree there is value in a skeptical disposition….but only when it feeds one’s curiosity, not if it kills it. I find however much greater value in faith, especially when placed in fruitful ground; and even wrongly placed, leads to experience which can be corrective.
As an anthropological case study, take the time to examine these 3 religious services in their entirety, disregarding how outlandish the phenomena may be if you are not already familiar. It is the effects and causes that are of our interest. Tell me what conclusions upon investigation you arrive at when you’re through.
I see a religious movement effectively addressing the human condition. I see a Jesus more powerful and effective than any known human technology producing solutions. I see a mighty God at work.
Sure there are those who practice religion recklessly and injudiciously, trapped in the peculiar language religion uses to express its profound insights; more deluded than enlightened by its metaphors. Indeed, Science has always been a modifier of religion – so, neither God nor Science is ever going away (Thank God….no credit to scientists here who, if only some could, would banish God from the universe. ……Alright, I confess equally there are those maniac religionists, both ancient and modern, who left unchecked muzzle, distort and suppress not only the voice of Science, but of Truth and Justice also, which if God be anything, most certainly is that ).
But to dismiss the metaphysical truths and meta-technologies of religion without examining their claims and effectiveness is about as foolish as dismissing Principia Mathematica as hieroglyphic nonsense because one had no initiation into the axiomatic premises nor usefulness of the symbolism therein invoked.
I understand in part Sam’s discomfort with the ‘iron-age’ language of the Bible governing present day ethics. But even if we replace the term ‘God’ with the Grand Unified Field, the Old and New Testaments with the Lagrangian of the Super String as expounded by Hagelin and others, there are issues of the heart (human consciousness and behavior) that test tubes and mathematical formulae can never begin to address; some human projects science at present simply cannot handle: The rebuilding of post apartheid South Africa, The opioid scourge, Inner city crime and poverty, personal guilt, greed, grief, human diseases and disorders beyond the pale and capacity of modern science. The list is endless. The interest and capacity of science at present lie light years away from effective solutions.
What can I say with certainty about these? What is my informed opinion of Jesus?
Jesus saves. He heals. He delivers.
© YeKengalé 2017 All rights reserved
See also The Cosmological Foundations of Faith , Religion and Science, What do we know
I am confident that hardened atheists would disagree with your view that:
“some human projects science simply cannot handle: The rebuilding of post apartheid South Africa, The opioid scourge, Inner city crime and poverty, personal guilt, greed, grief, human diseases and disorders beyond the pale and capacity of modern science. The list is endless”
The hard-line atheist is confident that any limitation in science that exists today will be done away with in the future. Moreover they can claim – and with some justification – that religion was at the root of (or at least was an important device used in) the creation and sustenance of some of the human problems you listed, e.g.., apartheid/racism, poverty arising from the legacy of slavery/colonialism, personal guilt etc.
LikeLike
I acknowledge some truth in your perception of my failure to properly represent the atheist perspective in the cited phrase. My point however really is about science as at present, moreso than science as a discipline. I allude to this in my comments at the end about science being light years away from some solutions because of issues of capacity and interest.
Furthermore, In my footnote at the end of the sequel post: “The cosmological foundations of faith” I note ….
“Yes I am aware of the recent promising breakthroughs in Consciousness Studies (snubbed as they are by the academy) and its applications for personal and community transformation. This is all very good, but hasn’t the process been painstakingly slow, and constantly reined in by the need to anchor the racehorse of intuition to the turtle of the intellectual processes and canons of science? This is what i mean by ‘(science is) ill-equiped’. If iron-age intuitives could have long covered the ground that we, with all our modern information hyper-processing capacity are just beginning to discover, then is the scientific method the best tool to explore this field?
I actually share much in common with Sam and Richard when it comes to the historical critique of organized religion. Anyone who wishes to attack (or defend) either religion or science has their reasons I’m sure. For me, I wish to promote honesty and integrity in both indispensable fields of human endeavor.
LikeLike
One cannot argue with others of different thoughts and ideas of Jesus or any other religious based argument of faith or belief since the foundation at its base is different and opposite.
One can however, reaffirm or add to one’s faith or belief from the argument of the other. In this case the believer in Jesus can claim addition space for belief by its own prognosis of the fact that the Sam argument places Jesus at the center of its argument.
LikeLike
A very interesting comment on the nature of beliefs/axioms (as opposed to assertions of fact…which some beliefs claim to be, but not all). They are realized by attention and nullified by ignorance (withdrawal/absence of attention…not denial or even repudiation – which is negative attention.
LikeLike