One of them was an interview with Peter Singer about his book The Life You Can Save: Acting Now To End World Poverty. He challenges the “western world” about its apparent apathy towards poverty.

In this conversation with D.J. Grothe, Peter Singer details how twenty-six thousand children die each day of preventable diseases and poverty worldwide, and contrasts this toll with the public’s moral outrage over the blackest days in our history, such as 9/11/2001. He talks about the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth regarding the poor, and questions why most Christians today have seemed not to make ending world poverty a priority, instead focusing on issues such as abortion and homosexuality, which are not mentioned by Jesus. Singer argues that when people in affluent societies value even small luxuries more highly than saving the lives of the world’s poor, that it is morally equivalent to standing by when one could easily save someone from drowning.

He acknowledges the psychological differences, but argues for equivalence with regards to morality/ethics. (Seeing someone drowning in front of you is in your face, whereas poverty is typically on the other side of the world.)

That’s something about Europe, or America, or the developed world in general: these nations are typically quite out of touch with what real poverty looks like, or what it feels like. Cinema and TVs show images, good movies evoke emotions, but it’s a two hour experience of something “exotic”, then it’s over.

Of course, “back home” (Cape Town, Stellenbosch) most of us are probably also shockingly out of touch, considering the fact that real poverty is within walking distance there. (In Stellenbosch, it’s even within rich-folks’ walking distance: only 2km. Perspective!)

If you’re curious, go read the synopsis, or listen to the podcast. Maybe read his book (I’m considering it). Check out thelifeyoucansave.com, or GiveWell. For some ideas challenging Singer’s apparent simplification of the matter (referring the drowning-person example), there’s some debate in the comments on the Point of Inquiry site. Then come share your thoughts!

In what ways do you currently contribute to charitable causes? What other ways might you investigate in the near future? And how do you feel about the suggestion raised in the podcast, that in some ways Peter Singer, an atheist, could be considered “a better Christian than most Christians”?

[TED Talk - Jonathan Haidt]

Ben-Jammin also shared two links that are related to this video. For those that prefer text (hello bandwidth starved South Africa, amongst others):

Edge: MORAL PSYCHOLOGY AND THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF RELIGION: A Talk with Jonathan Haidt

and then a more scholarly paper, in pdf format (which was written in MS Word, how immoral! ):

When morality opposes justice:
Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize

I have not read the first link, other than scanning over it to let my eye catch a snippet where Haidt even dares to take on The Philosopher Himself , and I haven’t read the scholarly paper either — the TED talk was sufficient for encouraging the writing this post, and could be sufficient for sparking some discussion on whether the threat of hell is of use to humanity. Other discussions related to the material are also more than welcome.

John Wilkins from Evolving Thought writes in The Dark Knight about dualities, order and chaos and Zoroastrian metaphysics (with a cute mention of the first chapter of Genesis). He points out the movie serves as a good illustration of two classical moral quandaries: Wilkins discusses The Prisoner’s Dilemma mentioning some differences between humans and other apes, and points to The Religion Blog of the Dallas Morning News for a discussion of the trolley problem.

On Submitted to a Candid World, The Dark Knight, the War on Terror, and Science Fiction’s Moral Authority connects the movie with America’s “War on Terror”, discussing issues such as torture and surveillance. Ames also points out what terror aims to accomplish, and that responding to terror in a way that compromises on your ideals is to lose the fight. He further discusses Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica and their investigations of moral questions that are more easily thought about through fiction than in reality.

Lastly, Peter Rollins discusses Batman as the ultimate capitalist superhero (without reference to The Dark Knight), pondering our economic and socio-political structures and whether we simply do things (including prayer meetings, worship service or bible study) to make us feel good about ourselves, rather than actually addressing the real challenges, the real roots of the problem… Should be thought provoking, if it you permit it.

The conversation was great. It rotated around the meaning of life, the source of values, “why be good”… And it helped hack out some terminology and ways of expressing ourselves in order to bridge philosophical divides. Bring two thinking people together, coming from somewhat different perspectives, and figure out the language that you could both agree on, leads to increased ability to communicate the ideas to others.

So that’s what I’ll be trying to do soon: namely, trying to share all the ideas from that conversation (discussing the likes of theistic existentialism, atheistic existentialism, absurdism and nihilism, referring to the table)… but it will take me some time to get there. I will make some run-up posts (stalling for time?), and maybe tie up loose ends of previous “threads” if I feel I need to do so first.

Here’s a thought to start off with then, another attempt at “defining God”, :n the general sense: god as the source of meaning in your life, the source of your values, the source of your concept of what is right and what is wrong, especially including the reason that you stick to doing right and avoid doing wrong. (The answer to “why be good?”… and “why bother living?”)

God: the assigner of meaning and value in life…

But I digress. Psalm 14:1 says:

The fool* says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

I’ve seen this quoted at non-theists. The theist doing the quoting typically interprets this to mean “those that say there is no God, are fools”. I’m not convinced. In particular, this talks about what the heart says, not what the lips say. Note in particular the footnote on “fool”:

The Hebrew words rendered fool in Psalms denote one who is morally deficient.

Now there is a huge difference between

1. The person that says there is no God…
   …is a morally deficient person, and
2. The person who is morally deficient…
   …has a heart that says there is no God

Understand how different these two interpretations are. Also, be sure to understand exactly and completely how one can arrive at each of these two interpretations. Also remember this is poetry.

Now this is written from a theistic worldview, in a theistic culture, with a theistic audience in mind, where “God” denotes “higher purpose”, encompasses the ideals we strive towards. (See What is God?: The Personal God for some background on this understanding of theistic language.)

Here is my translation of the first verse into non-theistic language (please excuse the bits that I lose in translation), using the second interpretation:

A morally deficient person has a heart that believes there is no reason to be good, that they can do whatever they want. They have no moral compass guiding them. With no higher purpose than their own gain, they are corrupt, their deeds are vile. They do no good.

Verse two says: “The LORD looks down from heaven / on the sons of men / to see if there are any who understand, / any who seek God.” Heaven does not exist in the material universe. Heaven is a description of an ultimate ideal, a description and an idea, i.e. something in our Meh. The ultimate love and compassion is found in this ideal. A personification of this ultimate love and compassion witnesses what we are doing in our materialistic reality, to see if there’s anyone that understands, anyone striving towards such compassion, anyone reaching out to heaven. (Talking Meh here…)

A humanist may not have a belief in the particular idea of “God” that most Christians promote, but they definitely have a belief in a greater ideal. They believe that what they do does matter. They have compassion and the golden rule as their moral compass. Their deeds are not corrupt or vile, they do good. This poem cannot be talking about them, can it? Described in theistic language, the humanist has a heart that knows God, a heart that knows good, a heart that knows compassion and cares about the oppression of the poor (verse six). Effectively, they worship a God of compassion and love, even if they don’t care much about supernatural intervention.

Now consider a particular theist that verbally announces “there is a God”, but that is in fact corrupt. Consider someone calling themselves a “Christian”, but who does no good, a theist that focuses on personal gain. I propose that this psalm speaks about such people. This psalm says that while the morally deficient theist may confess “there is a God” with his lips, his heart is saying “there is no God”, as seen through his actions.

Don’t you think that challenges your perspectives on this verse a little? Do you think this makes sense? For interest’s sake, also take a look at The Message’s paraphrase of Psalm 14.

This post is a filler, so that this blog does not sit idle until I can publish my feedback on the creationism seminar. There will be more thorough feedback than I originally planned, because I’m not alone in tackling this highly biased, unscholarly, unobjective misrepresentation of science (i.e. using straw man arguments), coupled with dishonest quote mining, and topped off with a potent dose of argument from incredulity.

I am not theologically trained, I’m just an electronic or software engineer that turned amateur theology into my official thesis procrastination project. (This was a part of the process of deconstructing and defeating the harmful memes that had lodged themselves in my mind, as well as figuring out how best to help other people stuck with harmful memes. But I digress.) During this time, I came to understand more of what I believe is taught to people studying theology. This post is based on that. I’d love it if some of the theology students reading this blog, or any other theologically educated person, could comment on my understanding (or lack thereof).

In theological language, every human has a god. Their god is the thing by which they direct their lives, that thing that serves as their moral compass, that influences their decision making. Let’s start with some simple, stereotypical examples…

The alcoholic has a life ruled in part by alcohol. The drug addict, drugs. This influences their ethics (consider drug-induced theft, etc), their behaviour (while under the influence), their motivation in life (figuring out where and when to get the next fix). In theological language, one could say that alcohol is the alcoholic’s god, drugs the junkie’s god, etc. (I realise I’m over-simplifying the situation, please bear with me and understand what I’m trying to communicate, rather than poking at the holes.)

The psychopath, or the serial killer rather, to take another extreme-stereotypical example, is someone who has in some ways made himself his god. He goes around deciding who lives and who dies, without much care for any other kind of authority, they have become their own ultimate authority. On a much lighter note, I’d suggest a number of stereotypical celebrities also have a strong element of self-worship going on.

I’m sure the “god-shaped hole” is something most of my readers would have heard of by now? There is something in this remarkable human creature that has a particular desire to attach itself to some guiding principle in life.

It does seem some people are trying to turn Darwinism or evolution into their god, caring only about game theory or survival as the ultimate truth in their lives. (Such people would argue for altruism only for its survival benefits.) How our altruism or morality evolved is not important in this discussion, that’s “Lah”. We live and experience on the level of “Meh”. We believe in compassion and the golden rule as a guiding principle, not because we had a debate with our genes and our genes convinced us through better rhetoric that compassion is a better choice…

This is potentially one of the big breaks in communication between “sophisticated” theologians and atheists, they’re not talking about the same kind of God concept. The atheist often talks of “god”, referring only to the supernatural, while the “sophisticated” theologian would like to know what the atheist’s “god” is, i.e. what concepts he has guiding his life. What has the atheist, what has Dawkins, for example, filled his “god-shaped hole” with? (Science and empiricism plays a big role for him, clearly, and guides most of his life?)

I’d like my readers to each contribute descriptions of their god. You don’t have to call it “god”, you can also name fictional characters if you like. Christians: please try to refrain from citing scripture or dogma. Please describe your “god” in terms of values. (A God of love? Compassion? Or a God of jealousy and punishment?)

The humanist, for example, would be worshipping a “God of compassion/love and reason…” Feel free to drop the “god” part, I’m just explaining the language. Some people have “humanity”, community, or our grand interconnectedness, as a kind of “god”. Some people have a pantheistic notion of “existence as a whole”, the universe, being “god”.

In my post about the Golden Compass, I quoted Timothy Mills:

…she is only reacting to what Pullman rejects and condemns in his books; she makes no mention of what he promotes. Inquiry. Curiosity. Maturity. Compassion. Determination. Loyalty. Opposing tyranny and evil.

If that were to be described in “theological” language as “a God of inquiry, curiosity, maturity, compassion, determination, loyalty and opposition to tyranny and evil”, it would sound much like the kind of God Christians are supposed to be worshipping, right?

So, according to what values and principles do you direct your life? Where do you find your meaning in life? What values and principles would you be prepared to die for? Or more interestingly, what would you live for? Please try to be as constructive as possible, and try your best to leave phantoms and other people’s baggage outside. Thanks.

The key idea presented was pretty much the “Be Holy, for God is Holy” meme. The source of this meme is the Old Testament, in particular, Leviticus. Peter refers to this meme in 1 Peter 1:16. The question that comes next in my mind is, what does it mean to be holy?

The general idea that seems to feature amongst Shofarians (please correct me if I’m wrong), is that Jesus came to “raise the bar”. They seem to believe, and this was the topic of the sermon as well, that they are supposed to be more “pure” than the Pharisees…

The Pharisees were not mentioned in the sermon, but I refer to them because they were the group that had exceedingly high standards in Jesus’ time. They believed that God would deliver the Jews from Roman oppression once they had eradicated the sin in their community. To quote from Brian McLaren’s The Secret Message of Jesus (amazon, kalahari), Chapter 2, The Political Message of Jesus:

A fourth group, the Pharisees, had a different diagnosis and prescription [for the question of why they are under Roman oppression]: “The Lord would send Messiah to deliver us if we would just become purer. If we would obey the Bible’s teachings more rigorously, God would liberate us. There’s too much sin and not enough piety among us. If there were more righteous people like us and fewer sinners among us — fewer prostitutes, drunks, and Roman collaborators — then Roman domination would be brought to and end by God. It’s the fault of those notorious sinners that we remain under the heel of the Roman boot! Religious piety and rigor — that’s the answer!”

The Pharisees bore the brunt of some of Jesus’ harshest words. I’m trying to figure out in what ways the things Jesus said to the Pharisees translates to our contemporary context. I’m also spending many hours pondering whether Shofar’s idea of what “holiness” means, differs from that of the Pharisees. I’m still struggling with finding an answer to that question, the similarities seem rather significant to me? (Cue a Shofarian quoting Matthew 5:20 at me, leading to a discussion of what “righteousness” means. sigh.)

The way I understand Jesus, having read the likes of Marcus Borg, the core of his message stands in a kind of juxtaposition to the rule-based idea of holiness found in Leviticus. The new emphasis: Be compassionate, for God is compassionate. A clear echo but adjustment of the Leviticus meme? (I don’t have a copy of the Marcus Borg book here right now).

An example of a verse often quoted in support of the “raising the bar” idea, is Matthew 5:27-28:

You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (NIV)

This verse is often used by fundamentalists to condemn any form of physical attraction, to the extent of even discouraging or condemning passionate kissing. The first thing to realise is that Jesus often employed hyperbole. I’m convinced understanding texts such as these, requires critical thinking. Critical thinking does not require much modern knowledge, I don’t see any reason to think Jesus’ audience were not intelligent. Often speaking in parables, I’m sure the aim was to get people to think in particular ways, to get them to ask the right questions, rather than to give them easy answers. But I digress. Hyperbole…

Imagine for a second some sexual harassment, some lustful obsession with a married woman, or something else that is similar. These people could argue they did not transgress the “do not commit adultery” commandment, for it did not lead to actual sex. The point of this lesson then, is that it isn’t about the final act. It is about the value. The legalistic approach to morality, the law-based approach, ultimately lends itself to finding loopholes, or else obsession with the things you are “not allowed to do”. My understanding of the New Testament, therefore, is one that is much more concerned with the values underlying immoral acts, than a legalistic “do this, don’t do that”, black-and-white, Sith-like morality.

Compare this:

You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (NIV)

and this:

You have heard it said that “you should say thank you”. But I tell you that anyone who says “thank you”, but is not truly grateful, commits a sin worse than mere ungratefulness. In addition to having an ungrateful heart, he or she commits dishonesty.

The latter was the opening line of a previous post of mine: Saying Thank You vs Being Grateful.

I’m not attending Shofar today, due to a lack of time. I hope to share some more thoughts and questions that popped into my head last Sunday, before year’s end.

I would go so far as to say that saying “thank you” is not important. It is ultimately much more important to actually be grateful. If you are truly grateful, your thankfulness should shine through. The exact method of communicating thankfulness is not important. The words “thank you” is just one (rather shallow) potential method for communicating it. Ideally, the words should be unnecessary, because the recipient of your thanks should be able to see, smell, taste and feel your thankfulness, even without words.

Moreover, all too often, people do things purely for the purpose of receiving a “thank you”. This is also not ideal. It is not the best reason to do something. The best reason to do something, is that it is the best thing to do. Receiving thanks should be a wonderful bonus. I wonder if withholding a “thank you” could teach someone to either learn to pay heed to other communication channels, or to learn to do things for better reasons than me-me-me?

More importantly, if you don’t really feel thankful or grateful, isn’t saying “thank you” then just exhibiting dishonesty? It’s all on the outside. What is on the inside is much more significant than what is on the outside.

Just be grateful. Value-driven morality, rather than rule-driven. Logos-morality, rather than Mythos-morality. The rest should come naturally.

The only difference between theists and atheists, is that we speak different languages.

This post proved much more difficult to write than I had hoped. The draft I wrote nine days ago, when I sketched out my schedule, was completely inadequate. In fact, there really is a lot of ground-work and foundations that should have been laid before I tackled this post. As such, this post became a long one…

The Search for God

Humanity as a whole, has been “searching for God” possibly for longer than the age of the earth according to creationists. This search has been a journey that has passed along many potential “destinations” en-route. Still the journey does not end, understanding develops more, our “relationship with God” continues to change and grow.

A long time ago, the polytheistic understanding of “God” was common. “God” consisted of a whole pantheon of gods, and humanity was at the mercy of the soap-opera playing out on Mount Olympus (or equivalent). As the power shifted amongst the gods, the humans’ loyalties also shifted, to whichever god then supposedly had the upper hand.

(Dealing with middle-eastern religion now:) A contrasting, revolutionary perspective of “God”, is that there aren’t many different gods that need to be worshipped. “God” became understood to be a “single entity”. Monotheism revolutionised human culture, and removed a lot of insecurity. Humans were no longer at the mercy of the big soap-opera in the sky.

I feel this really is less a case of humans being “atheistic” about all the other gods, than it is an understanding that consolidates all the gods into one God. A development, an improvement, in our understanding of the abstract notion of “God”, that thing “beyond human comprehension”. This is why that cliché popularised by Richard Dawkins irks me so much: “We are all atheistic about all those other gods, some of us just go one god further.” If I hear that many more times, it might start to irritate me as much as some creationism seminars do…

What is the difference between Islam, Judaism and Christianity? All three are monotheistic, all three worship “the only God there is”. Defined that way, they all have to be worshipping the same God (the only God there is…) The difference then, is merely in their understanding of that one God. Each of the three think they have a better understanding of that God than the other two. Possibly all three claim “God is beyond our comprehension”.

The (controversial?) question then becomes: might each not learn something about God from the other?

My discussion here is the difference between “atheism” and “theistic belief as a whole”, rather than between “atheism” and any particular form of Christianity. There is already great diversity within the Christian tradition. If I recall correctly, there may be something like 33000 different denominations? Many of these denominations probably think they have a monopoly on The Truth. Denominations with such monopolies on truth, should not bother trying to reach atheists, in my opinion. This post is addressed to the more humble denominations.

Humble denominations recognise that there will necessarily be diverse understandings of something that is “beyond human comprehension”, and recognise that inter-denominational conversation would be valuable to understand “God” more accurately. Each group can learn from every other, and in the process each group can also teach.

Christians that are humble enough, will be able to recognise there is value to be found in Islam and Judaism as well, that Christianity does not have a monopoly on “God”, and that each religion can learn from every other. In the process, again, each religion can teach. Only once the Christian has learned from the Jew what they believe and what they do not believe, can they open up a conversation which is mutually beneficial, where the Christian can maybe teach the Jew of other aspects of “God” which they might have missed, and vice versa of course. Amongst others, Brian McLaren has opened up such inter-faith conversations. He goes so far as to say:

“I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts.” –A Generous Orthodoxy (found on Theopedia.)

I have yet to read A Generous Orthodoxy. Many more conservative Christians do not like Brian McLaren’s earlier works much. Do not let that frighten you away from The Secret Message of Jesus though, I have seen reviews saying something along the lines of: “no matter what your perspectives were of Brian McLaren’s previous works, you should give The Secret Message of Jesus a chance”. (amazon, kalahari)

To get back to the point, then, Christianity is very diverse. Monotheism is even more diverse than that. Pull in Polytheism, Deism and Pantheism, and in-betweens such as Panentheism, Pandeism and Panendeism… and you realise how broad and diverse humanity’s understanding of “God” is. And each tradition surely has at least some fragments of “The Truth”.

So, what about atheism then?

Godly versus Godless

I lack the right words, unfortunately. “Godly” and “godless” are not perfect, but they will have to do for now. Consider this Dutch quote:

“Ateis: zonder God,
maar niet goddeloos.”

Filosofie Magazine (hat tip to Auke at Psychohistorian).

Translated: “Atheist: without God, but not godless”. This defines the essence of what I mean by “godly” and “godless”. I am suggesting we could talk about two kinds of atheists, the godly kind, and the godless kind.

Atheism has been stereotyped, stigmatised or demonised in certain circles. The impression the word “atheism” gives in such circles, is someone without appreciation, without a sense wonder, someone who lacks humility or has no appreciation for mystery, someone who is not at all thankful or appreciative of his or her existence (because they supposedly show no thanks to “God”), someone that lacks a sense of morality, an immoral person.

What such theists are effectively doing, is projecting their worldview onto the atheist, and then adding an anti-God sentiment. In the theist’s worldview, the concept of “God” encompasses all of the aspects mentioned in the previous paragraph – claim you have no belief in “God”, and they think you are throwing out all of the above. They think you are a “godless” atheist. There may be “godless” atheists, but I have yet to meet one… on the other hand, I know many “godly” atheists.

What is a “godly” atheist, then? “Godly” atheists do have an incredible sense of wonder and awe at the majesty of the universe, sometimes much more so than the theist. Sometimes the atheist is much more aware of the incredible mystery that is out there. Often atheists have an incredible sense of thankfulness and appreciation for their existence. This may be hard for the theist to believe, as the theist directs his or her thankfulness and appreciation towards a personified God. (Humans understand how to be thankful much better, when dealing with a “person”, or a “personified” entity. “Personifying” things is a very human thing to do.) The atheist’s thankfulness and appreciation is more abstract, directed at “an unknown god” if you will. The lack of a clear notion of a personified God to whom the thankfulness can be directed, can even lead to a more overwhelming experience of appreciation and “majesty”.

Some atheists have an incredibly strong sense of morality as well. Some details may differ, they likely think fundamentalist religions’ homophobia is an example of immorality, or that discouraging contraceptive use or HPV vaccinations are some of the most immoral things done in the name of religion. Atheists are often shocked to hear that some Christians would not think twice about cheating on their spouse if it were not for the seventh commandment.

CS Lewis argues for the existence of God based on the existence of morality. Effectively, he defines the source of morality as “God”. The atheists have morality, they have a source of morality, why not call that “God” then? There has long been a tradition of attributing things we do not understand, to “God”. What’s wrong then with an atheist calling the mystery in the universe, the “original cause”, that which is beyond our comprehension, “God”? Can we personify the abstract thing to which atheists express their thankfulness and appreciation, and call that “God”? Some call any sense of a “higher power”, even our community or interconnectedness, “God”.

The only difference, therefore, is that atheists have a different understanding of “God”. I personally don’t feel this difference is greater than the diversity already found within theism and religion, which is why I state “the only difference between theists and atheists, is that we speak different languages”. In the language of the theists, “God” has a rather specific meaning. Because of this, the atheist does not use the word “God” to describe his or her notion of “God”, as it could be too misleading.

In “3001: The Final Odyssey”, Arthur C. Clarke had a thousand years of history to play with. He used this freedom to remove religion, and even ban the word “God”. (If the notion of banning the word “God” frightens you, what do you think about the notion of banning the word “Allah”?) However, they still needed a word with which to refer to “God”, abstract notion or not, so they created a new word…

Concluding Remarks

Understand the language differences, and honestly and humbly investigate what you can learn about God from an atheist. (After all, if God can talk to you through the mouth of a donkey, surely God can talk to you through the mouth of an atheist?) Learn what the Gospel is, go find out what Jesus taught. Then, we can have us a conversation.