The Parable of The Angry Fundamentalist New-Agey Cafeteria Christian

Posted on February 25, 2014. Filed under: Apologetics, Atheism, Atheist Ethics, Humour, Original Sin, Personal, Politics, Religion, Science, Social Justice |

Or Why I Don’t Think Your “Angry Fudamentalist Atheist” Exists, Any More Than I Think A Cogent Argument Exists In Your Article

“I believe that science offers solid evidence for God,” she said- eyes peering over her hot cup of coffee.
Was she engaging me because she knows I’m an atheist blogger, I wondered?

"Coffee Talk"-Image by John LeMasney via lemasney.com

“Coffee Talk”-Image by John LeMasney via lemasney.com

Wendy was the wife of a close friend, who had done me a solid the week before. To express my gratitude, I was treating her to coffee at one of those swanky $10 latte joints. Was she trying to be argumentative? I didn’t want an argument. I flashed a coy smile. “Well, I’m not here to judge your personally held beliefs,” I said, “but for the record, the God you believe in is probably so vague that it is immaterial for us to argue the point,” I was trying to diffuse any hostility and maybe open a dialogue about her confused cafeteria Christianity, since she brought it up. She was having none of it.

“No,” she said leaning forward, “I still believe in the biblical God” her words loud enough to push me back in my chair. I tried to pacify her. “I’m not interested in shadowboxing a vaguely effective but specifically affected triune God. You can self-identify how you please ” I said, trying to avoid the inevitable.

“I believe in all of it!” She was becoming increasingly hostile. I was unsure how to respond. Her husband also identified as Christian, but we’d had a great discussion about skepticism as well as relationships, friends and past experiences on a road trip all the way from Toronto to New York City. As I was parsing a reply she cut me off before I could drop a syllable, “I think science and philosophy prove the Christian God.”

Should I tell her I that science can not and will not vindicate personal faith? That the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which infers a more dynamic universe than we previously imagined, doesn’t mean what Deepak Chopra thinks it means? That even the loosest allegorical reading of the Bible is entirely inconsistent with what we understand from evolutionary biology and geology, that there is no place for anything more than the most uninterested of Gods as the artistic author of creation- like the man who first created the first rectangular wooden frame taking credit for the Mona Lisa? It seemed she was more interested in contorting her faith into an abstract forgery of science that might look science-y if you tilted your head and squinted really hard from 100 yards. I wondered if she had ever read a peer-reviewed article in her life. I tried my best to explain.

“You know,” I sighed, “There have been so many discoveries in biology and physics in the past hundred and fifty years, it’s a shame that they haven’t been understood by the informed general public. They talk as though we’re still talking about large gaps in knowledge that could as easily be filled by God as by curiosity. Anything more specific than a ‘Prime Mover’ requires increasingly intricate apologetics that render the biblical Word impotent at best and demonstrably false at worst, leaving someone arguing for the bible as The Word Of God–a God who is like a puppeteer pulling strings, controlling the progression of life, saying, ‘I shall redeem you of Original Sin through faith in Me’- without anything more than naked faith in Bronze Age mythology. That’s nutty. That’s not an open mind, that’s creating religious fan fiction”

She broke in. “But God is an awesome God who used scientific laws to bring forth His Creation!”

“Let’s roll with that idea for now,” I interjected, hoping that my concession might stop her from bottling up, “but you must have some immutable traits of the God you believe in. Everyone does, and many Christians have the same concept of what makes their God uniquely Christian. That He felt His creation was perfect. That He created man in His likeness. That we are cursed by His anger. That He is perfectly moral and just- that salvation can come only through belief in Him.  That He performed and continues to perform miracles big and small. Those facts are definitional to your God. If you claim to be a Christian you must choose to ‘believe’ your God possesses these attributes. Yet all of these premises are logically incompatible with each other- and are equally incompatible with what science has shown us.  Imagine what it would be like if you simultaneously agreed that you were a virgin and the mother of your children, and yet that’s exactly the inconsistency of your epistemology!” I chuckled, knowing that she would immediately get the inside joke. I thought the analogy was apt, that it might make her ask more questions. It didn’t.

“The Bible is as much allegorical as literal” she quipped. “I believe that no inconsistencies exist between facts and the Word of God . I told you: I believe that science proves Christianity!” She rhymed off an incoherent word salad of Deepak Chopra buzzwords. She was becoming increasingly agitated. She started to talk about the very personal experiences she had that made her certain of God. I listened. She raised the holocaust as an example of atheism inspired nihilism, along with some horrors that she thought proved Free Will.

I obliged. “I agree there are horrible people in the world.”

“It’s not just people, it’s the wages of sin. But with such a world, how could you deny we need salvation?” she asked. It was an honestly asked but dishonestly pondered question.

I still proceeded as though I was talking to a liberal thinker, open to discussion. I knew her to be quite liberal on other issues, such as politics and sex. So I took a swig of my Venti fair trade Peruvian dark roast and plunged in, “You know, I think I have something insightful to say about this,” I offered. “If a religion is going to take root and spread- it has to have some explanatory value to the people who adopt it.  If a religion said ‘people are always benevolent’ then you could imagine how worthless that religion might be to people seeking an explanation for observed phenomena.  Religions start the same way science does- with an interesting and perplexing question.  The difference is the process used to provide an answer.  Science tests a hypothesis, religion dictates an answer.  We ‘appear’ to be sinful not because we fell from perfection but because we are risen from instinct.”

“I already told you, I think God is necessary for science to work- Who created the laws of nature and physics?” she interrupted. In her head Laws were created for man, man was not a creation of the laws . I stopped. I wanted to ask what she thought science really said about spirituality, the appropriation and perversion of physics, the hijacking of great thinkers like Einstein and Bohm, who would never have imagined their complicated work being obfuscated to lend credibility to the dubious claims of touchy-feely New Age Mystics. I wanted to, but I didn’t because I realized she didn’t want to engage with the questions; she already knew all the answers. She wasn’t interested in an informed and honest discussion. That’s when I realized….

I was talking to a fundamentalist. What I was saying threatened her very identity and construct of life. My coffee shop companion knew that God existed, and by God the knowns are going to fit the narrative whether they require reshaping or not. Most people adjust their beliefs to new evidence, she just makes the evidence sound something like her belief. Where I would adjust my narrative, she would adjust the knowns. I remembered being told that her mother died a few years ago. Clearly she had wrapped that faith around her like a security blanket.

This was not my first time trying to discuss science with a fundamentalist, but every other time they were Young Earth Creationists or Climate Deniers. The whole conversation seemed eerily similar. I was talking to someone who claimed to know exactly how ‘it’ is, who believed in a flexible, infinite, and compassionate universe that was designed to nurture them (despite every available fact in biology, astronomy and physics) and believed it with a kind of pseudoscientific cognitive dissonance as dogmatic as Biblical literalism.

A fundamentalist is not willing to consider the unsettling possibility that the universe is governed by immutable, explainable, and observable rules that require no intervention in order to function.  A fundamentalist will systematically disabuse themselves any part of a fact that might contradict his/her epistemology or faith, be it carbon dating or theoretical physics. A fundamentalist does not want to examine specifics and presuppositions, or really study and understand concepts, scientific or philosophical, that otherwise could be twisted into ignorant half-truths–similar to the bumper sticker slogan of Biblical literalists, “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.”  The new fundamentalists say “God said it, I wan’t so badly to believe it- that I’ll make the facts agree with it.”

When did Liberal Christians become the new fundamentalists? I have known many Liberal Christians beginning with the Pastor of my past church, who passionately defended the difference between knowledge and faith. But this new breed is different: pompous, unmoved, and belligerent, insistent that science owes them absolution from the sin of blind faith.   These people feel that fundamentalism is the opposite of what they profess, because they have staked out the middle ground. There is no virtue in the middle ground when you are discussing facts- any more than I might call you open minded because I want gays to have equal rights, someone else thinks they should have no rights- and you want to compromise that science recently suggested that “gay” might not even exist. My mind is not blown.  I’m nonplussed. And do you need to be so angry?

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

9 Responses to “The Parable of The Angry Fundamentalist New-Agey Cafeteria Christian”

RSS Feed for Misplaced Grace Comments RSS Feed

So I think what you may be observing is a vindication of one of my own predictions, that if all Christians do is reinterpret texts to more socially acceptable ends, within a generation, there will be new problems which they are ill equipped to face. If Christianity is true in any form, it must dramatically recast a vision for what faith is and how we should relate to our beliefs.

I started realizing this issue (albeit from a Christian perspective) about the time I wrote this post http://wp.me/p31dyu-m6 about Christians and epistemology. The issue is not about updating one’s beliefs via the same epistemological practices as always. The issue is to update the epistemology as a whole. The Chopraesque Christians feel to me like fundamentalists who caved to social pressure rather than honestly evaluated their beliefs and found them lacking.

[…] But the point is not to update our beliefs just to be right. Any of us could very well turn into a fundamentalist 2.0, smug and confident in the certitude of your new dogma to the point of silencing our critics. […]

George,
Your primary disagreement with this woman seems to be that she thinks that science can PROVE God. (she makes that claim repeatedly) I’m a Christian. I’m also a PhD chemist. I disagree with her. I have read a few (actually a lot) a peer reviewed literature in my life. Science doesn’t prove that God exists.

However, I become equally flustered with people like you (NOT a scientist) who make claims that science simply does not make. Let’s take this one for example. You write:

“That He felt His creation was perfect. That He created man in His likeness. That we are cursed by His anger. That He is perfectly moral and just- that salvation can come only through belief in Him. That He performed and continues to perform miracles big and small. Those facts are definitional to your God. If you claim to be a Christian you must choose to ‘believe’ your God possesses these attributes. Yet all of these premises are logically incompatible with each other- and are equally incompatible with what science has shown us.”

Let’s leave the logical incompatibility aside for a moment. I want to focus on the last statement you made: Can you please cite a peer-reviewed scientific research article that refutes even ONE of those claims about God?

Later you wrote: “A fundamentalist does not want to examine specifics and presuppositions, or really study and understand concepts, scientific or philosophical”

By this definition, I would call you a fundamentalist. You’ve put your blinders on and started assuming that science and philosophy underpin your belief system – when they don’t. I’ll give you an example: Late in the article you say that “the universe is governed by immutable, explainable, and observable rules that require no intervention in order to function.”

Can you show me any apriori philosophical or scientific reason or evidence that the laws of nature are immutable, as you claim? Or is this merely a belief? (based on evidence, sure – but a belief none-the-less)

As you know, a miracle (by definition) *requires* regular, sustained, and predictable laws of nature. Otherwise we would never recognize anything to even be a miracle. Therefore, I agree that science cannot prove a miracle. But neither can it DISPROVE a miracle. Philosophical naturalism (which is what you describe) is a BELIEF – a FAITH system. It is supported by evidence – but it isn’t PROVED by evidence. Christianity is also supported by the evidence, but not proved by evidence.

I have typically read your articles with respect – you write well and I enjoy your logic and wit. But it seems that you have crossed the line from a well-reasoned agnosticism to a fundamentalist atheism. No?

I’m not the author, but here you have it:

“That He felt His creation was perfect. That He created man in His likeness”
–> Quite clearly, the Theory of evolution, finding the remnants of the Homo sapiens’ predecessors indicates that God either did not create us in his likeness, or that we were not created as perfect, because by definition, there is nothing to improve on perfect, and we are significantly improved now than our predecessors were during prehistoric era.

Logically speaking, “performing miracles” is in contradiction with “being (perfectly) moral and just” (because if you make a miracle in favor of ONE of your creations yet you do not make the same miracle for another in equal conditions, you are obviously preferring one creation over the other, which cannot be considered JUST)

It is not up to us to prove that miracles don’t happen. There is no good evidence that they do: just legends, frauds, and special pleading about coincidences. It is up to you to produce evidence that they do happen. Otherwise, I am equally correct to ask you to prove that unicorns, leprechauns, and the 5,000 other gods that have been worshipped don’t exist.

When you ask the author: “Can you show me any apriori philosophical or scientific reason or evidence that the laws of nature are immutable, as you claim?”

My fist thought is that if there are laws that are somehow not immutable, then they’re not laws by definition. Science, as far as I understand it, is based upon discovering regularity, and consequently discovering patterns that nature adheres to. We call these laws. If those laws change, as in Quantum vs. Classical mechanics, we change our theories with regards to those laws, and we conclude new laws. Moving from a natural to a supernatural explanation, however, is to move away from attempting to find laws of nature. If we could find some supernatural events, and substantiate them, by definition ‘supernatural’ would be defying what we consider natural laws.

You also say that “… science cannot prove a miracle. But neither can it DISPROVE a miracle.”

This is correct. But can you disprove that I have garden gnomes in my backyard, that only I can see, that play rugby most Friday evenings? And not only is this a miracle, but because it’s most every Friday evening, it’s also a mutable law. So attempt to disprove any of that.

“Philosophical naturalism (which is what you describe) is a BELIEF – a FAITH system. It is supported by evidence – but it isn’t PROVED by evidence.”

Whatever part of what you think isn’t “supported by evidence,” and that isn’t a law of nature, that is also not Philosophical Naturalism. The philosophy of Philosophical Naturalism follows laws and forces that naturally operate. By definition, it doesn’t follow laws that have ‘no evidence.’ If it did, then that wouldn’t be “Philosophical Naturalism.” It is a philosophy that’s limited by available evidence. It isn’t a “BELIEF – a FAITH.,” It is a search of discovery that continues, and asks for available evidence for present belief. It appears to me that you’re continually attempting to use non-evidence as proof. Which exactly leads me to your next comment.

“Christianity is also supported by the evidence, but not proved by evidence.”

If there is no substantial evidence, and we haven’t found any yet, (and plenty have been looking pretty hard for a long time), then it is not proven. Proof, by definition, needs evidence. Again, right back to the very top. You’re using the same argument again. You’re saying that ‘Immutable laws cannot be disproven, miracles cannot be disproven…’ To which I respond: My garden gnomes that come to life are also supported by the same evidence as your miracles. There’s the personal belief that I believe in them, and they likewise cannot be disproven. The same claim, by the way, as those who follow “Big Foot.” And by your logic, all these claims must similarly be taken at face value, because as of yet, they’re just “not proved by the evidence.”

I think once upon a time, with this line of thinking, you would’ve been quite vulnerable to buying some pretty crappy swampland in Southern Florida. That is if you took merely the salesman’s word on it. And I’d surely hope that as a scientist, or at very least a skeptical investor, that you would’ve asked to see the land first with your own eyes, or at least verified its quality before buying, instead of completely believing what anyone tells you.

The problem you are facing in the discussion with that woman is that you still hope that there can be a logical, flawless discussion of these topics with someone who has religious faith.

Religious faith, especially one which utilizes a divine power, inserts this Divine Entity (power) into equations and processes and systems which don’t need it.

In simplest terms, You are observing an equation such as “3+2 = 5”, and while you are entirely happy with it, the religious person tells you that it should actually read “3 + 2 + God = 5”, where “God =/= 0”.

And all these “Liberal Christians” and other people are doing is they are inventing new ways of writing the number “5” so that the “3+2+G = 5” equation doesn’t seem so stupid. They invent “5~” and they invent “@5” and I don’t know what else, they will talk for hours and days about how “five tilda” and “asterisk five” are open-minded or emotional or pro-humane or whatever, and they will ask you to not reduce them to “just 5”, but they will never be able to give a clear, verifiable explanation of what that tilda or asterisk or whatever means.

I really enjoyed this post. “pompous, unmoved, and belligerent”…so why waste one’s time trying to discuss the existence or non-existence of “God” with closed minded fundamentalists? Even if they appear to be “learned” because they have a PhD in some particular science does not mean they are open minded at all about this question. As soon as anyone says, ” I am a Christian” it doesn’t matter how many letters he or she may have after their name: whatever remarks come after the “I am a Christian” statement will be filtered though their nonsensical, bronze age belief system. Now, I just nod politely and wait patiently for the sermon to be over.

My neighbor told me recently that she’d prayed to God about having her driveway repaved, and a few other house improvements. I did a lot of nodding… I just didn’t have it in me. But when anyone, or a “Ph.D.” states: “Can you please cite a peer-reviewed scientific research article that refutes even ONE of those claims about God?” It seems to me that they somehow lack even a fundamental understanding of Science’s premise. If a scientist, or anyone capable for that matter, saw any evidence of a biblical “God,” they’d no doubt cite those findings in a “peer-reviewed article.” With no proof, disproving isn’t required. So it’s all just stinkin’ thinkin’…

Yeah, when I do see that neighbor again, I’ll probably subject myself to more polite head nodding. Or, who knows, maybe if I’m feeling particularly contentious that day I’ll ask her how that God communicates his responses.


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: