63 thoughts on “I am who I am: Why I am not an atheist”

1. The image is a painting by New Zealand artist Colin McCahon. Lloyd Geering chose it for the cover of “Tomorrow’s God” (1996)

2. There is SO much wrong with this post it’s kind of frustrating, but funny at the same time.

   Do I have to have quit smoking or actively reject cigarettes to be called a “non-smoker”? Can I metaphorically call myself a “smoker” if I have addictions to other things like consumerism or love? Can I adopt the term “racist” to describe my strong belief in the importance and tolerance of racial diversity?

   Words have accepted definitions and connotations that go along with them, so to use them to mean things they don’t (especially the OPPOSITE meanings) is to render these words useless.

   1. You can do what you like. I’m only describing why I don’t call myself an atheist and I’d rather other people respect the reasons why and not call me an atheist. The fact I am not rejecting former belief wasn’t the only reason I gave. I don’t recall telling anyone else what to do. I find it sad that all you could say is there is so much wrong with my post, although it was supposed to be funny so whether you laughed at me or with me I don’t really care. Have a nice day.

      1. You’re free to do whatever you like, of course. I have a friend who refuses to call herself a “non-smoker” because she feels that it implies that smoking is the norm. But it doesn’t change the fact that that’s what she IS. Likewise, someone who lacks the belief in any gods is technically an atheist, even if they don’t like the term (which I don’t, either).

         I firmly believe we’re defined by what we DO believe and what we DO do, not by what we don’t, so I respect your right to choose which labels define who you are. But at the same time, these terms do exist and the do have meanings which may or may not apply to people, so to reject them outright as wrong is, well, outright wrong.

         1. To call me an atheist is insulting to me. I have already told you that the fact I am not rejecting a former belief is not the only reason I described in my post. It is only part of my argument. I am NOT an atheist. I am a humanist and an inclusive one, historically understood, from the Renaissance. Not an atheist humanist. Just a humanist – free, and eternally suspicious. Your friend may not smoke, but she is not a “non-smoker”. She is a friend (so what – who does not smoke or kill whales). I completely empathise with your friend’s reasons for rejecting a negative label of something that should not be considered in the first place. Life for me doesn’t revolve around convictions and never has. I am today who I am and tomorrow I will not be the same. We change, grow, die, evolve. That’s all part of the human story. Life for me springs forth from history and celebrates the sensual things we experience.

            Of course these terms exist. I NEVER rejected them. I just explained why they don’t apply to me.

            1. Creationists too are insulted when told they are primates, because they claim they AREN’T primates. It’s unfortunate when someone takes insult from a neutral, yet accurate, descriptive term, the definition of which they’ve either misunderstood or misconstrued, but it’s ultimately not my responsibility to educate nor my desire to press the issue, so I’ll leave it at that.

               Ironically, while you’ve taken the word “atheist” and pigeonholed it into something it’s not just so it no longer fits who YOU are, you’ve taken words like “god” and “religion” and expanded them to include ANY appreciation for anything, thereby not only rendering the terms useless, but ignoring the way they’re used by most of the human population. Again, I have respect for your beliefs and pretty much agree with every one of them, but you need not be afraid of embracing the language rather than adapting it to represent ideas that will only confuse people.

3. Doug. I have used atheist as others use it today to express who they are and what they don’t believe. I have provided evidence for the ways ‘god’ and ideas are used by theologians today. These theologians do not find the term useless. As above, Lloyd Geering says he finds these religious terms useful. ‘ “God” is a useful symbol, inherited from the past, to refer to that meaning, to those values I find to be supreme and to those goals I feel myself called to aspire.’ I have provided plenty of other examples for the term used today. Language evolves, Doug, as do ideas and theology too. It is all quite clear in quotations provided in the post above.

   1. Yes, and I very much look forward to a day when use of the word “God” can be universally accepted as the exact definition you use yourself. And I do often use the word in the same way myself among friends and like-minded people, but I would never do so publicly or around religious people as it’s unnecessarily misleading. Eventually the word “god” will have no literal meaning left and will only be this metaphorical imagery, but unfortunately we’re not there yet.

      I’m guessing that you choose to avoid all definitions of the word “atheist,” including the literal one, because it’s somehow garnered negative connotations associated with it; the stereotypical “angry atheist” and the like. Yet this is the exact same prejudice you talk about above when those “angry atheists” get all up in a huff about Islamic radicals and Christian fundamentalists.

      To the uneducated, there’s a stereotyped image of The Atheist (angry!) and a stereotyped image of The Theist (crazy!). You seem to have chosen to disassociate yourself from the group that defines you BECAUSE of its stereotype, and associated yourself with the one that doesn’t doesn’t define you to BREAK the stereotype.

      And I’m glad you clarified whether you are on the side of Geering or not. When you posted contradictory quotes from him I thought maybe you were making some point, but didn’t elaborate on it:

      “With these words I mean that I believe there is a purpose permeating the world and that I reject the alternative possibility, namely, that the world is a meaningless chaos and life is a horrible mistake.”

      Then:

      “It is my belief that there is no ultimate meaning or purpose permeating the universe, amazing and mysterious though it is.”

      1. I can’t quite see how you have misunderstood. The point is that there is no “exact definition” for God and I have not chosen any for myself. And the point is that for many believers, the whole God idea has no definition at all. It is not definable, or the concept has no attributes or the question of existence and or non existence is irrelevant. This is all above in my post.

         Doug. I’m glad you have noticed (I think) that I do not follow the literalistic American definitions of terms, as this is not the way words are understood or used or written about (as I have demonstrated above) in less fundamentalist saturated parts of the world.

         I’m sorry however you think those Geering quotes are contradictory. They are not. If you go and put them back where they came from, in context, and read “ultimate purpose” and compare it to “purpose” you might understand he is talking about two different things.

         1. And since there is no “exact definition” of God, I would argue that it’s a largely useless term, then. I mean what good is a word if everyone defines it however they like? How can people communicate without a set of agreed upon definitions? If I decide to call all animals “cats”, it makes it very difficult to have a conversation with someone at the pet store.

            And I’m very curious to know: If you have something that’s not definable, the concept has no attributes, and the question of its existence or non-existence is irrelevant, how do you then feel that it’s something that’s worth talking about, or even something that you CAN talk about? And how do you distinguish it from something that’s not?

            Haha, yes I DID notice the word “ultimate” differentiating the two sentences, but I still saw it as a contradiction since I’d argue that the man-made purposes we create ARE “ultimately” the purpose of the universe. I mean after all, what else COULD be an ultimate purpose, right? But I’ll give Geering the benefit of the doubt, and just chalk it up to grammatical ambiguity and/or a lack of thinking it through.

            1. Doug and Stephanie,

               I just wanted to interject for a minute that State of Formation is intended to be a place for meaningful dialogue and interchange. I fear that your conversation may have become more accusatory or harsh than dialogical. As such, I think it may be worth holding off on further discourse until the tenor can be brought down.

               With thanks,
               Josh

            2. I was under the impression that we ARE having a meaningful dialogue. If anything I’ve said has come across as harsh I sincerely apologize. My only purpose here is to fulfill my deep desire to comprehend the thought process of other people.

            3. I felt the discussion, while probing, was respectful. I’m concerned that this mild level of disagreement could be considered “harsh”. I’d like to have a discussion as a community about the legitimate boundaries of debate here because I am becoming unsatisfied with the increasing unwillingness of people t engage with critical ideas.

               Further, I feel that if we are to have “meaningful dialogue and interchange” that requires an attention to accuracy and clarity by all parties – authors as well as commenters. I don’t think we always achieve that as a group.

            4. I also want to push back a bit on the closing of this conversation. If Stephanie or Doug felt it was out of hand, then I understand them bringing it to a close. But the comments looked reasonable, moderated, and civil, and had a good point to them.

               I would hate for comments to devolve into back-patting and compliments. We should welcome real discourse, which is rare enough in comment sections of any website.

            5. Doug – The point about Geering was not merely the ‘ultimate’ qualification – it was reading things in context. I will type out fuller quotations below.

               “God” is an idea. A cat is not an idea, this cat purring on my desk is four legged, furry, and called Delilah. She has travelled from New Zealand to England, back to New Zealand, and returned to England again. Eventually she will travel somewhere else with me.

               The term “God” is a term covering open minded ideas about things that human beings do not understand. I think we need to be open minded and sympathetic to those who express these ideas, and should not demand literalistic interpretations of everything.

4. I am a Christian. I suppose many of my beliefs are fairly traditional. However, there is so much in this article which resonates with me. Every now and then I have a powerful feeling that ‘being a Christian’ is just stepping into the shallows of a very deep sea of meaning. I like Steph’s ‘inclusive humanism’ very much – I think it is included in my version of Christian faith; I certainly find it attractive, because it escape so much of the sterile dogmatism which clouds this issue and makes it about ideas rather than people.

   One of the best discussions I ever had was over a few months on an internet forum with someone who termed himself “an agnostic whose faith-position was atheism” – I felt so much at home with his thinking, and replied that if i was completely honest, I’d have to say I’m an agnostic whose faith-position is Christian. I am very sure of my Christian faith, but it is still faith, not knowledge, so I’m essentially agnostic.

   But the real thing, that which is so much part of being human, is that sense of wonder, of awareness of the transcendent, in music, beauty. those moments where words are so utterly inadequate. That is very much at the heart of who I am.

   1. Thank you so much Tony for commenting here. You’ve shared the internet forum discussion with me before and I’m appreciate you sharing it here. You are one of my special friends whose honesty I have in mind when I discuss these things and also when I wrote this. Each of us is who we are – you are Christian – and both you and I can resonate with an inclusive humanism and share the mystery of those wonderful things that arouse and stimulate our human senses. But in a deep and real sense we are all agnostic (by faith not definition), for none of us “knows”. We no have gnosis. We’re (only) human.

5. Stephanie,

   I think you clearly and meaningfully demonstrate the problem with labels. Thank you for your voice against them.

   All the best,
   Josh

   1. Thank you too Joshua for commenting here and thank you so very MUCH for understanding!

6. I think I can respect and understand your desire not to call yourself an “atheist”, or to be labelled as such by others. I object to being termed a “person of faith” even if that person’s definition of ‘faith’ would seem inclusive of me. So I can understand the desire not to be saddled with a descriptor you do not claim for yourself.

   I do not quite understand why you feel ‘atheist’ is a term that insults you, though. Perhaps you could say what about the term, in the sense that you take it, causes offense?

   I’m still baffled by your (in my view) uncharitable description of American atheism, especially as it is combined with a (in my view) charitable description of religious belief. It is very difficult to make well-evidenced judgments on these issues due to a lack of solid evidence, but what evidence I am aware of does indicate that most people who self identify as religious do indeed hold the sort of supernaturalist views you talk about here.

   I tend to think that the more sophisticated metaphorical views you describe (what I like to call, cheekily, ‘trendy theologies) are the province of a rather small percentage of religious people. And hence the major emphasis on the ‘vanilla’ types of religious faith that many American atheists critique.

   1. Faith is really synonymous with trust … and I am too suspicious … although I do have faith in my own sensual experiences of wondrous mysteries in nature and art.

      My ‘description’ of American atheism is not uncharitable, it is a critique, in the same way that a critique of scholarship (like Grayling’s) is not “unkind”.

      The point is, modern believers do not have ‘supernatural’ views. This term is irrelevant to much modern theology. The ‘sophisticated’ views I describe are not ‘a rather small percentage of religious people’. They reflect a large part of Christianity (and theology) in the non American literate Western world, eg Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, etc.

      The whole post describes why I am not an atheist, therefore the label, whatever it implies to you, is inappropriate and ultimately, offensive. You may criticise me as skinny, but you would be grossly wrong to call me fat. 😉

7. Lloyd Geering “To speak of God, in my view, is not to refer to a supernatural personal being who holds the universe in control and to whom one may pray in order to have one’s wishes [however laudable] come true…. As I see it to speak of God is to use symbolic language, hallowed by long tradition, in order to refer to the mystery of the universe, to the origin of life, to the source of truth and to the meaning of human existence… When I say ‘I believe in God’, I mean that I can trust the world into which I have been born, in spite of all the threats and disappointments, in spite of the evil and tragedy so often found within it. With these words I mean that I believe there is a purpose permeating the world and that I reject the alternative possibility, namely, that the world is a meaningless chaos and life is a horrible mistake. If I give thanks to god, it means that I am expressing gratitude for life itself. If I worship god, it means that I stand in awe of the eternal mystery of the world and of life… As I see it, the former dichotomy of reality into two worlds – physical and spiritual, temporal and eternal, seen and unseen, has long been losing its credibility over the last two to three hundred years and is now being replaced by the much vaster and even more complex view of the universe as one… It is a physical universe: all spiritual reality [such as we experience in the human condition] is based in the physical and cannot exist in complete independence of it. This means that among my many beliefs there is none which refers to any hoped-for life after death. On the contrary, I believe that each human being, like every other form of life known to us, is mortal and their existence as a conscious living organism is bounded by the limits of conception and death.

   “The ultimate reality is that we humans find ourselves as the highest form of life in our little bit of the cosmos. We are alone in a vast cosmos. The future of this planet is in our hands. We are faced with immense problems. We have built weapons of unbelievable destruction. Our chief problems have been created by humans and can only be solved by humans. It is much harder to have faith in our fellow-humans than it is to have faith in the gods and other absolutes of the pre-modern world. Yet it is just such a demanding act of faith which this radically new age requires of us.”

   “It is my belief that there is no ultimate meaning or purpose permeating the universe, amazing and mysterious though it is. The universe is as it is! If we want to find any meaning within the short time any of us are here, we have to create that meaning for ourselves. And we create the meaning of our lives by the way we live. For me “God” is a useful symbol, inherited from the past, to refer to that meaning, to those values I find to be supreme and to those goals I feel myself called to aspire. So when I say “I believe in God, I mean something like this “God” is the symbol which holds together in a unity all my bits of knowledge about the world and all the virtues I have come to value such as love, justice, compassion. The more I respond positively to all this and learn to trust my fellow humans and the world at large, the more I find human existence to be of great worth and meaningful. Surprisingly, I find much of the language of the bible and the Christian tradition is still very helpful to me. For God, as I understand the word, is to be found in people, in human relationships, in my own thinking, as well as in the mystery of all living creatures and in the stars and distant nebulae. So when I say I believe in God, I mean a whole bundle of things, including such things as: I trust my fellow humans. I trust the world. I say Yes! to life. I look forward to each new day in hope and faith.”

8. Ah, understood – so it is offensive because it is inaccurate, not because of anything inherently offensive about the term itself. That I understand.

   I think your critique of American atheism is indeed uncharitable because it is essentially based on a misrepresentation, or at the very least a representation far less nuanced than that you give theistic belief systems. It’s interesting that you spend a lot of time stressing the complexity and multiplicity of religious systems of thought but seem to think of atheism as a monoliic and uncomplicated phenomenon. I simply think this is not even-handed, and therefore uncharitable.

   But this is the most confusing part for me: “modern believers do not have ‘supernatural’ views. This term is irrelevant to much modern theology.”

   Is a ‘modern believer’ someone who follows ‘modern theology’ then? Because I still would say that in the modern world the vast majority of those who call themselves religious are also supernaturalists. Think of the vast numbers of Muslims in the Muslim world, Hindus in India, the enormous numbers of Christians in Africa, the Catholics in Italy, even many Buddhists – I’d say a majority of these people do have some supernaturalism in their worldview. You see it in how cultures celebrate religious holidays, venerate religious individuals, icons and symbols, make pilgrimages to religious sites, pray etc. The behavior of most of the world’s people seems to indicate supernaturalism of some sort.

   And this is no less true of my own country (Britain) where, although very secular, those who do profess religious belief are indeed supernaturalists. Further, many non-religious people in developed western nations are still suoernaturalists. This manifests itself in our Parliament, with faith-based ideas about policy being disussed, our health system, which offers homeopathy on the public dime, and Our obsession with horoscopes. So in short I think that very few people say they are “religious” out of adherence to “modern theology”. What evidenc do you have to support your claim?

   And in what sense can “supernaturalism” be irrelevant? It seems to me we still very much live in what Sagan called the “Demon-Haunted World”, and we have an interest, if we care about human welfare, in exorcising those demons.

   1. I cannot imagine who you met or whose books you read when you were in ‘Britain’. What do you mean by describing ‘many non-religious people in developed western nations’ as ‘still supernaturalists’? This has no connection with my experience of being here, nor of the people in New Zealand or Australia and I already provided Germany. Include Denmark and other literate populations too. Some of us have benefited greatly from our National Health, and cannot see any connection between our experiences and your extraordinary and inaccurate description of it as ‘offers homeopathy on the public dime’. What of books by people such as John Robinson and Lloyd Geering which attract a wide popular audience and are not written for an academic market? When I owned a second hand bookshop for seven years, I came across multiple copies of books by these authors everywhere I went – every home had them it seemed. I have never met anyone who have an ‘obsession with horoscopes’. I’ve known the odd ‘spiritualist’ but these people have different views and aren’t even ‘obsessed with horoscopes’ either. Of course there are such people, or horoscopes in the gutter press would not be published, although how many people actually take them seriously, really? Not many.

      The atheism I am referring to is obviously the vocal kind – the kind represented by organisations and the kind predominant on the internet. The kind that published books on atheism and living without belief. This atheism consistently misrepresents modern religious ideas which is does not understand. However the atheism I am familiar with elsewhere is apatheistic at best and does not hold such strong convictions as for example new atheists do.

      What evidence do you have for all your assertions implying religious believers in the countries I mention? I have provided two authors and could provide numerous more, and I have 46 years of experience, living in three of these countries I mentioned, and actually focusing specifically on the study of history of world religions for seventeen years now, which much time spent engaging with religious communities.

   2. and after my bikeride along the river… James:

      The term ‘supernaturalism’ comes out of eighteenth century philosophy. Some naturalist philosophers still refer to supernaturalism, eg Gregory W Dawes from Otago, New Zealand. However in history and the social sciences it is avoided. These terms, ‘naturalism’ and ‘supernaturalism’, have been adopted by atheists particularly at least in America, and of course naturalism is the norm expressed in the third Humanist Manifesto which I don’t subscribe to. Twentieth century manifestos do not represent inclusive humanism historically understood, nor to they correctly reflect modern religious ideas. Humanism is neither religious nor anti religious but it cannot include religious fanaticism in the same way it cannot include anti religious obsession. Supernaturalism is inappropriate for a lot of literate religious people because a god who influences the natural order of things is not their view. It may be a term you feel comfortable with in your atheist circles but it is not a term respected elsewhere.

      I remind you also that I have never set foot in a theological seminary and have never studied theology formally although I have read volumes over the years through research into modern and historical religious ideas. My first degree was in education and music and my next degrees have covered not only world religions but history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, classics, English literature, psychology, criminology and art history. I have studied religion in not only departments of religion but in the peripherals of departments of music, psychology, history and philosophy as well. I worked in theatres for almost ten years, I’ve done market research, worked on farms… I’ll stop. 🙂

      1. Lots to respond to here:

         “I cannot imagine who you met or whose books you read when you were in ‘Britain’.”

         I’m not sure why you put Britain into scare quotes – it’s one of the many names for where I’m from and where I spent the first 24 years of my life! In my time there, which included membership of the British Humanist Association and a prolonged period of spiritual exploration which included the visiting of churches, mosques and temples and countless disussions with religious people and even a bible study course, I did indeed come to the conclusion that many British religious people are indeed supernaturalists. 

         This is evident if you listen to British Christian radio such as Premier and hear the people calling in (as well as the presenters of course); if you listen to one if the many explicitly religious radio programs on BBC Radio 4 (Thought for the Day offers a daily dose of religious moralizing, frequently explicitly based on supernatural ideas); if you listen to debates in the House of Lords, where Church of England Bishops sit as a matter of course and frequently lobby for political changes based on supernatural ideas; and if you attend Alpha Courses, or Christian Unions at universities, or indeed one of the many (and growing number) of faith schools which ground their education on supernatural ‘foundations’ while supported entirely by public money.

         “What do you mean by describing ‘many non-religious people in developed western nations’ as ‘still supernaturalists?'”

         I simply mean that being nonreligious does not mean one has escaped from supernaturalism. Many people, even in developed western nations, believe in nonreligious forms of supernatural nonsense – I gave as examples homeopathy and astrology, and could add: ghosts, crystal healing, speaking to the dead (and other forms of spiritualism), ESP, telekinesis, and clairvoyance.

         To evidence this, here are the results of a study published just in April this year by UK think-tank Theos:

         “The poll of over 2,000 people, conducted by ComRes on behalf of Theos, shows that 70% of people believe in the human soul, 55% believe in heaven and 53% believe in life after death.
          
         Almost four in 10 (39%) of people believe in ghosts, 22% believe in astrology or horoscopes, 27% believe in reincarnation and 15% believe in fortune telling or Tarot, the research reveals.
          
         The comparison with the 1950s is especially striking. In 1950, only 10% of the public told Gallup that they believed in ghosts, and just 2% thought they had seen one. In 1951, only 7% of the public said they believed in predicting the future by cards and 6% by stars.”

         From http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/Four_in_ten_people_believe_in_ghosts.aspx?ArticleID=3015&PageID=14

         There is also ample evidence in the broader culture – witness the huge popularity of charlatans claiming to communicate with the dead (like John Edwards) and the ubiquitous presence of horoscopes in ever major newspaper, often with advertisements for premium lines to call for more detailed readings. So I think my analysis of the culture of my home is quite sound. Nothing I have read about New Zealand and Australia suggest to me that the situation would be enormously different there.

         “Some of us have benefited greatly from our National Health, and cannot see any connection between our experiences and your extraordinary and inaccurate description of it as ‘offers homeopathy on the public dime’.”

         I have benefited from the NHS too – this issue is just a red herring, completely orthogonal to the fact that the NHS does in fact offer homeopathic remedies subsidized with public money:

         http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/media_centre/facts_about_homeopathy/nhs_referrals.html

         £4million a year on homeopathy – and that estimate is from the British Homeopathic Association itself! I expect a retraction of your false claim that my descrtiption of the NHS was “extraordinary and inaccurate”.

         I have no doubt that Robinson and Geering have been widely read and influential in their way, but I deny absolutely that their success has been so great as to bring so many believers over to their point of view that a trenchant critique of supernaturalism is rendered unnecessary! 

         “The atheism I am referring to is obviously the vocal kind – the kind represented by organisations and the kind predominant on the internet. The kind that published books on atheism and living without belief.”

         Here you display no awareness of the varieties of vocal atheism even with the United States! Are you talking about the vocal atheism of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the Brights, or the American Humanist Association? They are all very different! Are you talking about the website of Chris Stedman or of Ophelia Benson, of PZ Myers or, indeed, my own? All vocally atheists, all very different in tone, focus and interest. Are you talking about ‘The God Delusion’ or ‘The End if Faith’ (very different in themselves), or ‘Good Without God’ or ‘The Philosophy of Humanism’ or ‘Parenting Beyond Belief’? These are all extremely different, all vocally atheist. Failing to make distinctions here is to fall into precisely the error of which you accuse the atheists: misunderstanding (and dealing unfairly with) the tradition you critique.

         “the atheism I am familiar with elsewhere is apatheistic at best and does not hold such strong convictions as for example new atheists do.”

         What is the value in apathy and weak convictions regarding some of the most significant questions we face as a species?

         In short, it seems to me that there is something very inadequae about your analysis: it misses the multifarious ways in which supernaturalism still affects the world and overlooks the rich diversity of atheistic philosophical expressions.

         As for the question of the worth of the term “supernatural”, you do not offer a term that can take its place. What other term can we use for a belief in, essentially, magic? You say that “Supernaturalism is inappropriate for a lot of literate religious people because a god who influences the natural order of things is not their view.” I agree. But that suggests that is IS appropriate to describe SOME beliefs of SOME religious people. We probably disagree about how many, but you seem to accept that the term does sometimes apply. The evidence I offered above would seem to suggest that MANY people believe in some supernatural forces/entities etc.

         Incidentally I have never, in my scientific and philosophical career, encountered anyone who considered the term unworthy of respect. I generally find that it is perfectly understood and used quite widely within my academic circles (which are much broader than my atheist circles). Its obverse, naturalism, is THE predominant worldview among well-respected scientists and philosophers of today, and it is defined precisely as a response to supernaturalism! So the attempt to somehow rule the term ‘supernatural’ out of the boundaries of respectability is very strange – what would we gain by ceasing the use of the term?

         1. First I thought it might be obvious I wasn’t referring to Chris Stedman’s atheism. I don’t read your blog although I’m not impressed with your atheistic stance on this thread.

            I am extremely skeptical about the reliability of your poll of 2000 but they think the problem is belief, whereas in fact it is the people who hold beliefs not necessarily ‘belief’ itself. You also take everything very literally. You lump together all sorts of things. Some of them are from very conservative places: goodness knows how many people believe in the traditional Thought for the Day. Alpha Courses and Christian Unions are both on the extreme conservative wing of Christianity. You lump together all sorts of different beliefs as ‘supernatural’. For example, some homeopathic remedies are believed by some doctors to work, (compare St John’s Wort as a replacement for Prosac for highly dependent drug takers who might otherwise be given Prosac) which is why the NHS spends £4 million on homeopathy if it does, I would like a more reliably source than the British Homeopathic Association, and it is a very SMALL amount compared to the £BILLIONS spent on the NHS as a whole. It is hardly surprising that doctors who are less dogmatic than you, and who are constantly faced with phenomenally sick people, sometimes go for remedies that his dogmatism will not allow. You might care to tell us why you think placebos sometimes work too, and what should be done about that. Stop them all? Your absolute faith in selected surveys is also astonishing. What does it mean that a survey says that over 70% of people believe in ‘the human soul’. Perhaps you might like to read modern theological ideas on religious language and concepts of soul. I know alot of people who talk about ‘believing’ in soul – but not in the way you might think. How you know what that is supposed to mean without asking them, I have no idea. The contrast with Gallup is indeed striking. Gallup were supposed to be relatively reliable, goodness knows about the surveys you quote. I don’t see that alot of vocal American atheists are as different from each other as you think.

            It is completely inappropriate to make assumptions about Australia and New Zealand, countries you know nothing about. Atheist PMs, secular government (and no prayer breakfasts!!) and education, no religion in schools until university. Over a third of NZ, a multi cultural nation, has no religious affiliation, and while half claim to be ‘Christian’ that means a number of things including more often just following the nicer things attributed to Jesus without believing in bodily ‘resurrection’ or miracles and somethimes not even ‘God’ whatever it means, and less than 10% attend a church.

            Supernatural is an offensive term to alot of religious believers and it is not a respectable term in history or the humanities.

            1. “I’m not impressed with your atheistic stance on this thread.”

               Why?

               “I am extremely skeptical about the reliability of your poll of 2000”

               Based on what?

               “You also take everything very literally.”

               Like what?

               “St John’s Wort as a replacement for Prosac”

               Not a homeopathic remedy!

               “Supernatural is an offensive term to alot of religious believers and it is not a respectable term in history or the humanities.”

               Why?

               Assertion after assertion, mixed in with a few blatant falsehoods.

9. I generally refer to the place you came from as England and the extended lands as Great Britain. Being a member (for however long) of the BHA explains alot. Of course the fringe audience of Christian radio and those few who attend Alpha Courses are as about as conservative as you can get. The most popular radio station in the UK is of course, Classic FM. You miss my points and I regret that this reflects a vocal American atheism I had discussed, that takes notice of those it likes not, in order to vilify religious believers. There is an enormous literate Christian audience outside these closed conservative views. I also regret that my discussions with you are generally fruitless as you insist on your views as you persist in your use of ‘supernaturalism’.

   1. “Being a member (for however long) of the BHA explains alot.”

      Err, what does it explain, precisely?

      “You miss my points and I regret that this reflects a vocal American atheism I had discussed, that takes notice of those it likes not, in order to vilify religious believers. ”

      I believe I have addressed each of your points with evidence and clear reasoning. What specifically have I missed?

      ” I also regret that my discussions with you are generally fruitless as you insist on your views as you persist in your use of ‘supernaturalism’.”

      I insist on putting my ideas forward with the reasons why I hold them. That is why I joined this community! I regret that so many here are completely closed to any serious critique of their positions, and respond so inadequately and, frankly, so very rudely.

      1. The BHA is very atheistic and is one of the ‘organisations’ I find frankly hypocritical of humanism.

         1. just one tinsy example – BHA members of parliament promoting science and business at the expense of humanities in university funding.

      2. I’m sorry James, I found your previous comment not only rude, offensive and bossy but far too literalistic and full of assumptions. That is why I find my discussions with you, fruitless

         1. If you found my last post rude, we should discuss it with the Editors of this site. I don’t think there’s any point of this blog at all if people are not willing to discuss their articles. It’s a complete waste of my time to respond here is on the slightest push-back people either vanish or whine. There’s no proper discussion!

            1. I nearly didn’t post this because of you James and your rudeness on my previous post. Also my and others’ experience of you on facebook. I will not post at SOF again. Assertion after assertion and falsehoods? Really? Your acceptance of poll results and assumptions about what belief in things like soul means is literalistic…. I think this is futile – don’t you?

            2. Well, that’s unfortunate. It does seem we need a better way to discuss these things – I’m considering withdrawing from this forum too, since it doesn’t seem to lead to fruitful discussion.

               I’m sorry this is where we got to.

10. Stephanie,

    I infinitely respect your wish to be free to identify as you see fit. I think that is eminently important, and if “atheist” is not meaningful for your place in the world, feel free to let it pass (and others should give you that space). You ask that we leave religious individuals and communities the freedom to define “God” as they wish as well, which I feel is also important. Defining our terms helps to keep a lot of misunderstanding at bay, and prevents us erecting theological straw-men.

    I do wish, however, that you gave us atheists the same modicum of respect and freedom. If a contributor had swapped out the term “atheist” with “person of faith” in your piece, a lot of the community would be incised. I am a part of several “atheist organizations,” as you might term them–the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the American Humanist Association, the Secular Student Alliance–and am the Humanist advisor at my university here in the USA. I find it somewhat insulting that you lump involvement in secular groups and ignorance of religion together.

    There are vocal, confrontational atheistic figures. And there are less-forward voices too. James has made a solid point in that the atheistic community is just as diverse as any religious community, as there are wide variances in approach, commitments, and experience. We even disagree on how harmful (if at all) the “superstition” that James discusses is to society. I personally don’t think religion is wholly negative in society. Others strongly do, and have reasons to. Thus begins (hopefully) healthy debate.

    Just look at James and I! We’re both AHA members, but with very different religious histories. James already noted his upbringing, while I was a Christian for most of my life. I’ve been in more fundamentalist branches of the Church–Baptist–as well as more liberal, Episcopal churches. I’m a divinity school student right now, in fact, and still have cultural affinities for Christianity. I am regularly engaged with religious communities, study religion likes it’s my job, and try to treat any religious tradition fairly.

    But my own experience of churches and religious communities makes me hesitant to dismiss literal theism as a thing of the past. I was a literal theist–bodily resurrection of Christ and the like–for most of my life. And many, many people I know are to this day. Your experiences in specific societies may color your judgment on the place of literalistic theologies in our world, as my own experiences do. But I’m thinking the truth is somewhere in-between us.

    After all, I grew up in Virginia, one of the more religious American states. So my concept of religion in society is shaped by that. But your time in Denmark, the UK, and other countries with much less self-reporting of religious importance also affects your own perception of “religion in the world today.” What we focus on determines what we miss.

    Your treatment of people of faith is nuanced, generous, and encompassing. Please consider that your treatment of modern atheism–and it’s multi-faceted nature, even among us “public” non-theists–might need a little more generosity.

    1. I have already qualified the American atheists I was discussing in a comment to James. I was talking about the vocal new atheist variety who vilify religious believers as an homogenous whole. The ‘atheists’ I know and atheism in New Zealand, in the real not computer world, as ‘atheists’ themselves say, is the apatheistic variety. They really don’t care. They don’t believe and generally never have but in some more colourful ways, will often say ‘I don’t give a …’ because religion isn’t in their face. In NZ we’ve had a succession of atheist or agnostic Prime Ministers – the current is Jewish atheist, the previous of nine years (3 terms) was atheist (and is now a leader in the UN) and the government is secular. We also do not have religion in education. In some ways this is regrettable as I believe history of religions, atheism and humanism should be in state education systems. But the world’s religions cannot be studied formally until university level education. My religious studies department taught courses in atheism and humanism as well of course.

    2. I might remind you that I was not discussing American religion and therefore not suggesting biblical literalism was a thing of the past. It is for alot of literate non american people around the world (and no doubt for at least some American self identifying ‘Christians’ too. The American Christians I know personally are very far from biblically literal views. And I certainly do not regard your atheistic stance or that of other American non believers (some of whom are also critical of alot of American ‘atheism’) as harmful, offensive, or religiously illiterate. 🙂

11. I can relate to a lot of your post. For many years I had views/relations to the God-concept that did not fit into any already established categories. I even invented a label to capture my not-fitting into labels—I called myself “God-queer.” I invented this term because, when people would ask me my beliefs about God (as a theologian, I get this question a lot), I got sick of answering “Yes, but…” and “Well, it’s not a matter of belief…” Can you relate to that? So I started introducing my long-winded answers with the term “God-queer,” so people would quickly understand that God was not a simple matter of Yes or No for me.
    But do you see how helpful and meaningful the label “God-queer” became in my communications with others? Even though I was the only person using that label, I was able to succinctly define it for others so that it became useful. I really take issue with a point you make towards the end of your post that “Labels should be personal.” No—unless I’m misunderstanding you, I don’t see a different between “labels should be personal” and “language should be personal”—the second claim obviously reducing all chances at communication to nothing. A label needs to have social meaning, or else it is not a label. In the course of your piece you reference a few labels you’ve used for yourself, including your identification with humanism. When you use the term “humanism,” I imagine that you need it to have a meaning accessible to others—otherwise, using it expresses nothing.
    So, if you don’t mind, I would like to attempt to label you now. You sound like a religious humanist, in the same vein as Erich Fromm (and this Lloyd Geering-person sounds like one too). You believe in the word “God” and its power to gather matters of ultimate significance to humanity. You are not sure if there is ultimate meaning to the world, but you know that, sometimes, the word “God” plays a crucial role in navigating and expressing your search for meaning.
    Does that sound like you? Or, at least, does it sound a bit like you in this article?

    1. Thank you for your thoughts. But … No. I’m not a religious humanist. And yes I’ve read Eric Fromm… Please don’t call me a religious humanist as that is false. 🙂 I have never been religious but I am a historian of religions and ideas so I’m interested in the history and evolution of ideas and language. I don’t ‘”believe in the word “God” and its power to gather matters of ultimate significance to humanity’ – I am describing the way it is used and has been used throughout history. The freedom to express oneself is what I ‘believe’. I am able to call myself a humanist because I can clearly qualify it is historically understood inclusivism. You are absolutely right, labels have social meaning, and I am not an atheist and I am not nor never have been religious. However God is not a label, it is an idea and contains a history of thought and interpretation. I read an interesting study recently – a short thesis by a psychologist. He was analysing census answers on religion in New Zealand. Alot of people who call themselves Christian, aren’t really Christian at all, socially understood. In fact a large proportion don’t believe in any god ideas particularly but like the Christian label because for example, it represents, pacifism, loving our enemies (the irony of not having any), caring for the poor and sick. And the theory of evolution is accepted by all… And that’s pretty much all.

12. Ok, so you are not a religious humanist. 🙂 You are a scholar of religion. I think I was confused because, for me, the academic pursuit of a subject can constitute a kind of fringe identity related to the subject— for years, I have had a complicated relationship to Judaism, all the while being a teacher and student of it. Because I am constantly involved with Judaism in the classroom (but not in the synagogue), I still feel very Jewish… so when I’m asked what ‘denomination’ I am, I tend to answer “Academic.”

    I still want to push back and say that “God” is a label that has been applied to a diverse family of ideas. I prefer saying that “God” is a label, because it acknowledges the way in which the term seems to be so damn open to the how people want to use it (rather than having its own integrity, and thus capable of misuse). I dunno, maybe I’m not parsing ‘label’ and ‘idea’ that well. It’s just that… to call God an idea is to forget (or at least leave out) all the people for whom God must be a living reality, or else nothing. As a theologian, I repeatedly need to refer to the God-concept, so I think I get where you’re coming from… but I think I always think of “God” first and foremost as a name (used to point at a person… or at an idea).

    Anyhow thanks for your response. I have an upcoming guest post on SoF that definitely covers some of the same ground (although my writing in it is pretty glib, so I’m guessing I’ll be open to attack all over the place). I look forward to reading more of your stuff.

    1. Yes I know what you mean and I agree – and it’s because we’re not demanding literalisms when things are so complex, that it is difficult to express. But I don’t think that using “God” as a label applied to a diverse and evolving family of ideas leaves out the “God” idea which perceives a thing of reality. It’s just another (older more conventional and traditional) idea… 🙂 I never believed – just couldn’t, didn’t need to but was aware of people who believed in all sorts of different ideas from a very young age. I was always a people watcher, an observer and liked to talk to people incessantly about what they believed, and why, and where they thought their ideas came from. I trotted off to various different religious groups with various different people, out of fascination, from when I was very young. I read alot but it wasn’t til university I was able to study religions formally – and even then I studied religious ideas and rituals on the peripherals of other disciplines in my first degree…

       To say atheism, among other things, demands a rejection of a continually evolving family of ideas … I’m not agnostic, I’m not an atheist, I’m just an inclusive historical humanist student of Life.

       And only the dogmatic should be contradicted, and attack is not conducive to humanism… it’s a fanatical response.

       I like your denomination. Very pretty. 🙂

13. I don’t normally respond to representatives of new atheism as I find they are not interested, or do not understand, honest dialogue. They are dogmatic, literalistic and confrontational. Conversation to them consists of winning and convincing everyone they’re right in their preconceived views of religious people whom they lump together with hostility.

    I am extremely skeptical of the results of this poll of 2000 which has been accepted uncritically and interpreted literally without proper analysis. Notably the results do not correspond with the reputable results of Gallup polls which are unbiased and Theos is not. We would need proper evidence to suggest that these reflect a change in society rather than a difference in polling. The results do not correspond either with national census statistics. While the surveyer who is reputable asks the questions it is required to do, the questions in this case are simplistic and narrow. The publisher of the survey, Theos, can hardly be considered unbiased as its objective is to reinforce a religious view of society, claiming to offer alternatives to secular views of the universe.

    For example, how do we know what belief in ghosts means to different people. My father’s widow has told she ‘feels’ Dad is with her sometimes. How would she answer that question? This is why, for example, a psychologist recently analysed the census results in a NZ census. The objective was to find out why people ticked Christian. The results were revealing as most of those who approved the label, didn’t believe in God, or miracles, let alone virgin births or bodily resurrection. Many just considered basic ‘Christian’ principles to be good human values.

    As I had already said, 4 million pounds is a drop in the bucket considering the billions of pounds spent by the NHS. While “St John’s Wort” may not be strictly homeopathic, it is prescribed by homeopaths and sometimes advised for use instead of pharmeceuticals. I have no idea of the homeopathic remedies as I don’t know anyone who has been prescribed them by a doctor. But 4 million pounds, apart from being an amount defined by the homeopathic society, is hardly catastrophic and the actual homeopathic remedies are diverse. Are pharmeceuticals all reliable? Is it an advantage not to overprescribe drugs? I certainly think so.

    As with all new atheists ‘supernatural’ is freely used to lump together religious belief. It is not a reputable term in historical or social sciences as it does not effectively represent diverse religious belief. Persistence in it’s use reflects not only arrogance but ignorance too.

    Being sympathetic with the BHA explains the aggressive atheistic stance. The BHA is ‘explicitly atheistic’ in the same way it reflects the ‘explicitly atheistic’ ‘humanist’ manifestos of the twentieth century.“ The late great highly distinguished Professor of Religion, Michael Goulder left his faith and joined the BHA. However in order to distinguish himself from the aggressive atheists within, he specifically defined himself as a “non-aggressive atheist”.

    Therefore, I regret that conversation with literalistic dogmatic people who interpret things literally in order to vilify religious believers is futile. The assumption that New Zealand and Australia also fits into this fundamentalist view is ludicrous and is the view that they are so closely related to British perspectives, regardless of what those are. This suggests to me that some people really need to travel, and meet and talk to people around the world.

    1. I thought long and hard before deciding to respond to this, because I’m not sure that it will be a valuable exercise, but as a member of this community and someone with a deep and abiding interest in this topic I feel I should give some sort of response.

       I also can’t help but think that much of this is directed at me – and I may well have put myself in the firing line for pushing the issue so forcefully in this thread! That is ever one of my failings, as is my presentation, which is sometimes overly blunt and cerebral.

       So I want to make it clear what my purpose here is, and say a little about the values I hold, in an attempt to develop deeper understanding between us. I hope that if I can present why I respond like I do to posts like this it will feel less like an attack on you and more like a part of an honest search for dialogue.

       I come to this post with the following intentions: 1) to understand what you (Stephanie) are trying to say, 2) to express what I think about that and 3) to see if I can ask questions which push us both to thinking about the issues you raise more deeply.

       It’s not my hope to upset you or drive you away from posting here, and I understand that people have different thresholds for criticism and different levels of tolerance for debate. I am very interested in honest dialogue, and do not consider myself dogmatic (although I do accept that I am sometimes confrontational). The ways I try to avoid dogmatism are as follows: by subjecting my own opinions to constant critique (often through discussion like this, which is why I find them so valuable!); by ensuring that I support my positions with evidence and solid reasons (including linking to evidence on other sites); by thoroughly considering if the opposite of what I hold to be true could be true (a challenging intellectual exercise, worth trying!); and by trying to be very honest if I make an error or draw an illegitimate conclusion.

       I tend also to assume that other people will also value these things – i.e. people will submit their own ideas to rigorous (I’m happy with the term “ruthless”) criticism, that they’ll support their ideas with solid evidence, that they will expect others to raise intelligent and well-informed counter-arguments etc. I’m wondering now if this is actually a fair assumption, and whether others might have different values in mind when they post on this site and elsewhere.

       But I do want to make something clear – this approach I have described, this set of ideals which I try to hold myself to (and it’s very difficult, and I don’t get it right all the time), is a central part of my philosophical tradition. It is not a mode of discourse which I switch into and out of depending on the situation, but a fundamental commitment of my Humanism. It is as central to my life-stance as my other moral commitments. When I act in this way – probing, precise, critical, skeptical – I am honoring my Humanist forefathers and mothers. So this way of thinking is important to me, and I do try to uphold it and defend it when necessary.

       Enough about me! What about what you said? You said:

       “I am extremely skeptical of the results of this poll of 2000 which has been accepted uncritically and interpreted literally without proper analysis.”

       I’m skeptical of it too. You seem to have concluded that I have simply uncritically accepted every aspect of the study and that by linking it here I uncritically endorse every aspect of it. I do not. I present the study as one piece of easily-accessible evidence that supports a point that I was trying to make.

       Clearly there are lots of nuances and complexities when it comes to large-scale quantitative research using surveys, and it is entirely legitimate to raise them. Your point about what people mean by terms like “soul” and “ghost” is very well-made – these are critical questions and the inability to effectively explore these in a survey is a weakness of this form of research.

       These problems, however, do not obviate the entire thrust of the study. There would have to be an extraordinary amount of error in the study to bring belief in the supernatural down to minimal levels. The reported levels are very high! If a full half of all the people who believe in “heaven” take the term to be some sort of metaphor that would still leave almost %35 having a supernatural conception. And 35% is a lot of people!

       It is also important to note that you have not accurately represented the nature of the study. You say it was “a poll of 2000”, when it was conducted in 2008 and published in 2011 – a significant difference. Also, it was not conducted by Theos (you have suggested possible bias). It was conducted by ComRes, a highly-respected and independent research organization whose respectability as an organization depends in part on its impartiality and accuracy in areas such as these. So I find no compelling reason to dismiss the entire study.

       You mention certain polls by Gallup which might provide contradictory evidence, but do not cite them. Could you direct me to them? I’m happy to look at other evidence.

       On the NHS and homeopathy question, regardless of the amount of money spent on homeopathy through the NHS, I was merely presenting evidence to support my claim that there is indeed money spent on it through the NHS. I believe that I have demonstrated conclusively that public money is spent on homeopathy in the UK, which was my only contention.

       You initially rejected that claim, and now you seem to accept it – am I reading you rightly if I say you have conceded this point but still contend that it is a very small amount of money comparatively? If this is indeed the case I agree – I never contested this – but still, a lot can be done with 4 million pounds, especially at a time of economic hardship.

       On the question of the use of the term “supernatural”, I think I have given my reasons for continuing to use it – mainly that an alternative term does not seem to exist. So I continue to use the term because I simply don’t know what else to say to convey my meaning. I do not think the use of the term “arrogant” or “ignorant” – I think it is accurate. And by calling it arrogant and ignorant without providing evidence or good reasons why this is the case I think you do me a disservice. I would appreciate it if you would note that despite being characterized repeatedly on this site as, at the very least, “confrontational”, I have not used those sorts of words here to describe your position.

       You say that “Being sympathetic with the BHA explains the aggressive atheistic stance.” This seems strange to me on a few levels. First, I don’t consider myself “aggressive” in the way you seem to mean it here. I don’t think my responses have been aggressively atheistic at all. I’m a little upset that you should think so. Would you do me the kindness of pointing to a specific thing I said that you find an example of “aggressive atheism”, so I can see if this is simply a problem with my understanding of what you consider “aggressive atheism” to be?

       I also find this characterization of the BHA as “aggressive” because it simply doesn’t reflect my personal experience withthe organization, its members, its constituent groups or its leadership. I am blessed to be able to count Andrew Copson, the current Executive Director of the AHA as something more than an acquaintance, and he is simply the least aggressive person you could hope to meet. They are certainly “explicitly atheist” but not, I think “aggressively” so – but perhaps again I don’t understand what you mean by the term. Will you help me out?

       The last paragraph of your post would potentially be very hurtful if I weren’t so thick-skinned. In a reply that refers explicitly and repeatedly to arguments I have made, I can only take the description you give of “literalistic dogmatic people who interpret things literally in order to vilify religious believers… [with a] fundamentalist view” as applying to me. This is a very grave set of charges, and I do not think you have justified them. I certainly have not sought to “vilify religious believers”, either here or anywhere else. I also wonder if you would be willing to say something so potentially hurtful to someone of another faith tradition.

       On Lloyd Geering, I’d love to listen to the radio show if there is a link available. It sounds very interesting and I imagine I would learn a lot.

       I hope this reply has clarified my purposes and has respectfully articulated my differences with your positions without seeming dogmatic or aggressive.

14. I’ve just been listening to a live interview with 92 year old Lloyd Geering, still sounding as bright as a spring chicken, on New Zealand National Radio. Introduced as ‘one of New Zealand’s most highly respected spiritual thinkers and popular speakers, and its best selling author’, the discussion covered the human Jesus to the earliest settlers in New Zealand. These were representatives of 19th century English ‘Free Thought’ societies, in contrast to America’s first settlers, the Puritans… this explains they said, the reason for New Zealand now being ‘the most secular nation in the world’ and the majority of Christianity being ‘Secular Christianity’ with a human figure of Jesus, no miracles and without ‘God’. For James.

15. You can scroll through RNZ archives (that’s how I access home radio from here) – Lloyd often speaks on public radio. I don’t know how to transfer those links. But this blog links to the regular programme on RNZ, Smart Talk. http://otagosh.blogspot.com/2011/05/geering-at-92.html

    Lloyd is a senior fellow of the American Jesus Seminar (along with his former student and my former supervisor) whose methodogy is flawed so that the Jesus they have reconstructed is about as Jewish as me. They depend heavily on the reconstructed document “Q” which I have debunked in my doctoral thesis and I’m looking at double tradition material and suggesting a chaotic model which includes Aramaic, Greek and oral sources. While the ‘Jesus’ of the Jesus Seminar is historically implausible, it is a nice congenial wise philosopher cynic and a very very widely held and popular view. A perfectly human man who was crucified by the Romans. My Jesus is perfectly human too but also historically plausible perfectly Jewish too. A bit like Schweizer’s Jesus, he was a mistaken prophet who was tragically crucified by the Romans. His mission he believed: to have Jews return (tuv) to ‘God’ who were not abiding by the Law and in the first century there was a widespread (and mistaken) belief in the imminence of ‘Judgement’. A bit of a disappointment really. But despite that, he said among other things like, love your neighbour and give to the poor. So despite being wrong he meant well. My work also intersects with the latest work of leading expert in Aramaic, Em Prof Maurice Casey: Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s View of his Life and Teachings.

    However the Secular Jesus of the JS is the most widely held popular view and is all part of New Zealand’s Secular Christianity, the cause being, origins in Free Thought Societies… Of course Secular Christianity isn’t exclusively New Zealand.

    I don’t agree with his historical methods or conclusions and have argument and evidence against them, but he is the most likeable, adorable, honest and sweet man on the planet. I used to know him well personally as he was good friends with Jim my friend and supervisor and I also was Jim’s research assistance in a second doctoral thesis on the famous 1967-9 ‘heresy trial’ of Lloyd. And his views are widespread and popular, and neither ‘supernatural’ nor harmful.

    My own reading and research into the BHA has led me to the same conclusions as many others in England I have discussed this with. We have not joined for the reason that they are explicitly and sometimes aggressively athesistic. The people with whom I have discussed this are both religious and non religious. My own doctoral supervisor, a long time humanist who left ‘the faith’ in 1962, is also unhappy with the BHA and has not chosen to join because of their misunderstandings of religious people.

    I’m glad you are skeptical of the ‘poll’ for example. However you delivered it to me and insisted that you had provided reasoned evidence which it does not represent. If people had done the same thing from faith traditions I would be equally critical. It is published by Theos which has an agenda to promote religion and is biased, unanalysed and provides insufficient evidence to demonstrate that society has changed since reliable Gallup polls.

    I am still skeptical of the homeopathy claim – we don’t know what it means, ie what is prescribed, and your identification with the NHS is very limited. If decent doctors think some work, this is interesting evidence and it has absolutely nothing to do with ‘supernatural’ belief.

    It is also unnecessary to reach complete agreement in these discussions. It is important to have disagreements on major things in life and also reflects our freedom and human diversity. 🙂

16. James – I not only would be equally critical, I am and have been. I have confronted Christianity which has been active in trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. This has I think has flawed reasons and evidence as well as mistaken agendas. I have confronted this both on this website but also here in Nottingham where it was proposed by academics I know personally, to set up a centre for the purpose of converting Muslims to Christianity. I have also been highly critical of conservative Christians who are equally flawed and inhumane in their opposition and criticism to homosexuality. Some of this criticism has come from ministers of the church, who are guilty of gross social irresponsibility for doing so, as there is evidence to suggest that such bigotry leads to suicide. Fortunately most of the active advocates for homosexual rights and freedom I know are actually Christians themselves, not only here and New Zealand and Australia, but I personally know American Christians, generally active pacifists and advocates for homosexual rights and freedom. I have also written papers against radical Islam, but I have also defended the very moderate Islam which represents the Muslims in New Zealand where religion is so secular and otherwise personal. We have strong interfaith communities, inspired by a former (naturally atheist) Prime Minister. We have many examples of Muslim, Christian and Jewish groups worshipping together.

17. “Exactness matters, so I suggest this article to unbelievers and believers alike. What isn’t helpful is to say natural is to supernatural as science is to magic, which is, I think what a lot of atheists seem to be saying.” (R Joseph Hoffmann)

    http://www.enotes.com/science-religion-encyclopedia/supernaturalism

    I have deleted twice an extraordinarily rude comment by ‘Doug’. The art of dialogue is not to force people to “cooperate” with your point of view. The art of dialogue is to better understand each other’s often irreconcilable views. I find it extraordinarily rude to be referred to in third person, “I see Stephanie’s use of terminology hasn’t become any more cooperative.” with the implication that I should obediently submit to your patriarchal demands of dogmatic definitions when the whole point of my post is to demonstrate the evolution of language. Not only do you, Doug, insist I change my views, your comment is mixed with a blatant psychological projection talking about “strong willed people.” The art of dialogue is not to force people in such a patriarchal way to “cooperate” – ie obediently submit to your point of view. If you want to flower James which such high praise, that’s fine but please don’t do it here with your next breath devoted to laying such contempt on me. Follow him elsewhere. It sounds like a regrettable case of atheist apologetic cheering for ‘your side’ and that is not what I have intended for conversation on my post. You have clearly completely ignored my point about evolution which exists both in society, religions, ideas and human language.

    1. Despite quoting exactly what I said, you still misinterpreted it. Cooperating with the use of terminology isn’t expecting you to conform to anyone’s point of view. It’s working together (“cooperating”) to reach a shared understanding of how to communicate (“use of terminology”). I’ve specifically stated above that my goal here is to reach a common understanding, but that can’t be done until we agree upon what words mean.

       To consider the definition of a word dogmatic is to have no respect for the effort to communicate. The way people communicate is to agree upon the usage of words. As soon as someone starts changing the words to apply to their own personal beliefs, it creates an unnecessary wall that must be torn down before any progress can be made.

       You poo-pooed my cat analogy I guess because it deals with a physical item (you didn’t really make that clear), but what if someone used the term “love” to describe ANY emotion, be it positive or negative. For them, love means to be emotional, even if it’s extreme anger or hatred. Would you just sit back and accept this as their own viewpoint on love? Or would you agree that it pretty much reduces the word to a useless communication tool?

       Incidentally, I had to look up several words in the dictionary including “dogmatic” and “patriarchal” to see if there were any definitions I wasn’t aware of that could fit with what you were saying. Sadly, I couldn’t find any.

       I have absolutely no contempt for you, Stephanie. I do not know you. Even if I disagreed with every single idea you have (and as I stated earlier, there are actually very few), that wouldn’t make me feel contemptuous in the least. It’s merely that you play fast-and-lose with the English language and your inefficiently creative use of its words leaves people with no way of making any points, including yourself.

       Perhaps I should just assume that our current dictionaries haven’t yet “evolved” to include the definitions you are pioneering. If that’s true, I’ll come back some day when we’re both on the same page.

       And since my original post was deleted (as this one may be as well), let me just repeat James that your last post is one of the most articulate and inspirational I’ve ever read.

       “Idea” bless.

       1. “Kudos to one of the most articulate and inspirational posts I’ve ever read in my life, James.

          It can be extremely frustrating conversing with strong-willed people who either refuse to, have no interest in, or simply are unable to criticize their own ideas to any thorough extent.

          I see Stephanie’s use of terminology hasn’t become any more cooperative. It’s a shame because there are a lot of good ideas presented by both sides here and without any agreement on basic terms such as god, religion and atheism, communication becomes next to impossible.”

       2. Thanks Doug I appreciate that. This discussion has just become bizarre!

18. I am not ‘pioneering’ dogmatic definitions. That is my point. You are demanding dogmatic definitions. Language evolves. I assume you did not read the article on the history of the term ‘supernaturalism’. If you cannot read the discussion above as an attempt to explain what I mean and the demonstrations of uses of language as demonstrating their changing evolving meaning…

    ‘Inspirational’ really.

19. I’d be curious to hear your definition of “dogmatic.” Honestly, maybe I just don’t understand the word correctly.

20. I don’t know whether or not I believe in God; it follows that I don’t know whether or not I’m an atheist. God knows if I believe in God, but your guess is as good as mine.

    1. …or what ‘God’ means to you anyway. 🙂 I like your comment – I think you should frame it and hang it on the wall! I think you’re best described by your sense of humour. Your words are the most delightful words I have heard on this thread – and best expressed! Thank you for passing by.

21. http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/the-parable-of-the-dumb-lawyer/
    more on the term ‘supernaturalism’ misused to describe religious belief 🙂

    1. I took the time to read this article and saw a very good argument as to why e shouldn’t equate “supernaturalism” with “religion” (a point I made myself in this very thread) and why we shouldn’t forget the functional elements of religious belief and practice (something I wouldn’t seek to argue) but nothing at all bearing on this specific discussion we have been having.

       What specific section of the piece did you think was relevant here?

       1. James Croft writes: Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

          theism and other supernatural beliefs? The whole point of the encyclopedia article linked by R Joseph Hoffmann and the blog post he wrote was to point out why that term is incorrect as a description for the beliefs of religious people.

22. “Exactness matters … what isn’t helpful is to say natural is to supernatural as science is to magic, which is, I think what a lot of atheists seem to be saying.” (R Joseph Hoffmann)

23. http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/of-anachronism/

    religious people don’t believe half of what atheists think they do: the evolution of religious belief.

24. While analogies are never right they are sometimes interesting, useful or amusing, and while I might find an ‘analogy’ so, other people may not …. but I think defining God is like defining Art!!! I worry that the new atheist concept of language and logic is equivalent to the simplistic fundamentalist view of language and logic which ignores the usage of people outside their own social group, and interprets social surveys as if everyone surveyed with simple questions must have understood all the terms in the survey in the same way. There is a an American view of language which is more literalistic than that in the rest of the world.

    I was reading an article by BRIN on a survey about how many people in Britain belonged to church groups – it acknowledged “the meaning of membership was not defined in the question” and acknowledged this sort of thing prevalent in all questions, and that this type of enquiry “tends to encourage exaggeration” – demonstrated with the results of the National Trust which demonstrated that people were saying yes they belonged, but the results didn’t correspondent with statistics of members by about 30%! There are also many social reasons why people join groups of any sort – of to find partners and form relationships – rather than necessarily spiritual enlightenment. BRIN is great: I don’t think we need to conclude that there is a 22% decline in Christians in Britain because of the difference results of a 2001 census and a 2008 BSA survey, which it also illustrated.

    Anyway, back to work. 🙂

25. “Atheist” as defined by atheists simply means the lack of belief in God(s).
    You seem to be identifying atheism with the belief that there is no God, and also with anti-religious attitudes.
    I don’t call myself an atheist either. I call myself a nonbeliever. That means that I don’t just not believe in God(s), but in general, I try to question everything and proportion my belief to the evidence.
    However I do socialize with atheists online, and identify with them to some extent. Many of them are ex-religious people who’ve had a huge struggle to escape religion. A lot of their anti-religious attitudes come from this huge struggle. Many also need support in dealing with their religious families and the religious people they’re surrounded by.
    I’m not ex-religious, but I can sympathize with what they go through, since I was abused myself.
    But I do speak up against the exaggerated anti-religious beliefs that many atheists have. Rather than refusing to identify with atheists, one can change what they’re like from within.
    One person on the atheist social site I frequent, often criticizes atheists for tribalism. He sees the anti-religious attitudes as coming out of tribalism.

Comments are closed.