tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post3499505147116082635..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Dr. James McGrath on "Why I Am a Christian."Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4178559053270341952007-11-21T16:16:00.000-05:002007-11-21T16:16:00.000-05:00What the hell - there is no evidence for an "histo...What the hell - there is no evidence for an "historical figure of Jesus".<BR/><BR/>How can he be so dishonest (with us, or with himself)?<BR/><BR/>Josephus was a forgery. There is no evidence.Luzidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15862297674415830596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55620674973498256342007-11-17T19:37:00.000-05:002007-11-17T19:37:00.000-05:00Ive never described myself as a liberal, so frankl...Ive never described myself as a liberal, so frankly thats just a mis-characterization. You may be able to follow us into our foxholes John, but whether or not you ever actually engage seriously with the fox is another question entirely.GordonBloodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426901390201595020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78687567618729200392007-11-17T12:11:00.000-05:002007-11-17T12:11:00.000-05:00I hate responding so promptly on a Saturday becaus...I hate responding so promptly on a Saturday because it signals loud and clear that I have no life!<BR/><BR/>I think "Ego" is how I'm known around here (for obvious reasons) and it avoids confusion when there are two or more bills (like around the beginning of the month). Just don't call me Alistair, and I won't call you Alistair (anymore)!<BR/><BR/>I've probably opined more than I needed to on the subject of the appropriateness of your use of the terms in question so I won't comment further. <BR/><BR/>I didn't confuse you with this Mc but I highly recommend giving him a listen:<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt1fB62cGbo&feature=related<BR/><BR/>Bill Ross<BR/>http://bibleshockers.blogspot.comWoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11903523236801881262007-11-17T11:42:00.000-05:002007-11-17T11:42:00.000-05:00Do you prefer to be called 'Bill' or 'Wounded'?I w...Do you prefer to be called 'Bill' or 'Wounded'?<BR/><BR/>I would have thought that my declaring my faith as my allegiance to to ultimate, all-encompassing reality (= God) would be understood to be more in keeping with the root meaning of faith than 'believing dubious propositions on the basis of little evidence'. It is, in the end, about trust and faithfulness, rather (or at least more) than propositional beliefs.James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37514861045189723232007-11-17T00:01:00.000-05:002007-11-17T00:01:00.000-05:00Yes, Richard, John just keeps me on to make everyo...Yes, Richard, John just keeps me on to make everyone else look good!<BR/><BR/>Bill Ross - "the man with no friends"<BR/>http://bibleshockers.blogspot.comWoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11539388348536378042007-11-16T23:53:00.000-05:002007-11-16T23:53:00.000-05:00Bill Ross-Im honored to make it into your signatur...Bill Ross-<BR/>Im honored to make it into your signature line!---<BR/><BR/>Richard <BR/>"The blogger who is definitely better than Bill"<BR/><BR/>;)Richard Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06071672526594753513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40820040517140957032007-11-16T23:26:00.000-05:002007-11-16T23:26:00.000-05:00Thanks, James.Now, do you think that these glosses...Thanks, James.<BR/><BR/>Now, do you think that these glosses would appear in any extant dictionary? If what you mean is "ultimate concern" then why in the world would you use the Enlish word "faith?" Why not say "ultimate concern?":<BR/><BR/>*************************<BR/>Main Entry: 1faith <BR/>Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\ <BR/>Function: noun <BR/>Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\ <BR/>Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide <BR/>Date: 13th century <BR/>1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions<BR/>2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust<BR/>3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs _the Protestant faith_<BR/>synonyms see belief<BR/>— on faith : without question _took everything he said on faith_<BR/>http://m-w.com/dictionary/faith<BR/>*************************<BR/><BR/>You say that you are using the word despite the **fundie commandeering of the word**, but I submit to you that you are the one doing violence to the term, and that the fundies have it right. It is absurd to expect anyone to understand this sentence:<BR/><BR/>"I have faith in God" <BR/><BR/>To mean this:<BR/><BR/>"My ultimate concern is reality."<BR/><BR/>Again, I'm cynical enough to believe that this is not a lapse of appreciation of the conventions of language but is actually a dishonest attempt to simultaneously gut a religion while ostensibly embracing it. <BR/><BR/>Ok, that won't be the nicest thing you'll hear today, but it is the most honest.<BR/><BR/>If indeed your ultimate concern is with reality, (as mine is), then by golly get real. Be a straight shooter. Lose the facade of a religion you evidently reject. Say what you mean. Mean what you say. Sure it costs, but it is very freeing.<BR/><BR/>If, by some chance, I am incorrect about your motives, then I still urge you to wise up in your choice of words because the words you use DO NOT have those meanings to any but the tiniest of minorities - possibly only yourself and Paul Tillich.<BR/><BR/>"Eschew obfuscation!"<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>Bill Ross<BR/>"The perfect example of the worst type of blogger, unlike Richard"<BR/>http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com<BR/>"What I lack in youth, I make up for in immaturity!"WoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72812518344535651002007-11-16T23:05:00.000-05:002007-11-16T23:05:00.000-05:00James, I think soft-agnoticism ("I don't know") is...James, I think soft-agnoticism ("I don't know") is the default religious position. Anyone leaving the default position must offer arguments in doing so. That's why both you and I argue that moving from that initial position to a full-blown fundamentalist Christianity is as hard to do as flying a plane to the moon. <BR/><BR/>Yours is a very small step off that initial position. You affirm little. Since the smaller the claim is, the easier it is to defend, yours is a more reasonable position than fundamentalism, and harder to debunk. I too make a small move off the default position, but in the opposite direction. However, your claim offers you nothing...no hope...no morality...no propositional content...no solid evidence. A distant God like you have is no different than none at all. Once I grasped this I became an atheist, for even if there is a God, it makes no difference to believe he exists.<BR/><BR/>I see you struggling with why you aren't an atheist. I stuggle with why I don't affirm Tillich's religious view, and maybe I do, since even John Hick claims it's rational to interpret life as an atheist, as an ultimate concern.<BR/><BR/>I think all attempts to figure this existence out end in absurdities. Some people, I suppose you, embrace those absurdities and punt to mysticism and mystery as pointers to the ultimate. Existentialists do so. Pantheists simply claim all is <I>maya</I>, an illusion. <BR/><BR/>But when I reflect on what best explains this absurd existence then I offer a meta-explanation. Since no explanation is rational, I offer a meta-explanation for why this is so. It's because chance events, by their very nature, cannot be figured out. Our number came up in a Monte Carlo game. the universe is a brute fact, and this best explains why we cannot figure out why we exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56781802065437463102007-11-16T22:37:00.000-05:002007-11-16T22:37:00.000-05:00Since it is my definitions you want, it is my defi...Since it is my definitions you want, it is my definitions you will get. Any similarity to the views of other McGraths living or deceased is purely coincidental...<BR/><BR/>God: <A HREF="http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/search?q=tillich" REL="nofollow">I'm pretty happy with Tillich's definition</A>, taken up by John A. T. Robinson and others, of God as 'Being itself' and not simply 'a being' among others in the universe. God means that reality which is all-encompassing, or in other words, reality itself. As the Sufi tradition puts it, interpreting the shahada (the first pillar of Islam) in their own distinctive way, "nothing but God exists." Since I'm talking about reality, the key question is not 'does God exist?' but 'What is the <I>nature</I> of reality?' Does it have depth? Does it have higher orders of organization that transcend us?<BR/><BR/>An analogy I like to use is of <A HREF="http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/10/meaning-and-syntax.html" REL="nofollow">two cells in the human body talking to one another</A>. One says "I look around and all I see are cells. We're born, we die, and that's it". The other says "You know, sometimes I think we're all part of one big cell." The latter is being 'cellulomorphic' (as opposed to anthropomorphic), and has no idea what this transcendant reality it is part of is really like, but hasn't it nevertheless intuited something important and true that the other cell has missed?<BR/><BR/>Faith: Tillich again - 'ultimate concern'. Being centered around an ultimate reality outside and greater than oneself. Surrender of control. Trust, awe and humility. <A HREF="http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/11/taking-things-on-faith.html" REL="nofollow">I definitely don't mean believing dubious propositions on the basis of inadequate evidence</A>. <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure I want to try to define 'Christian' in any more specific a way than 'connected with the Christian tradition' (which, since the definition has 'Christian' in it, becomes meaningless anyway). But it clearly must be connected with the stories about Jesus and the teachings attributed to him. But there is no reason why the focus would have to be on the Jesus of the Gospels as opposed to the historical Jesus, or why, on the other hand, the focus cannot be on the inspiring and challenging teachings about self-sacrificial love even if one cannot determine that those specific teachings originated with Jesus as opposed to his later followers.<BR/><BR/>All of the evidence suggests that Jesus himself pointed to God rather than himself as the focus of his actions and teaching. Presumably anyone convinced that the God they have encountered is ultimately the same one Jesus was pointing to can legitimately call themselves a Christian.James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2140025767411923172007-11-16T20:28:00.000-05:002007-11-16T20:28:00.000-05:00The Wrath of McGrathIs wond'rous to see"Why can't ...The Wrath of McGrath<BR/>Is wond'rous to see<BR/>"Why can't people see<BR/>That I'm in fact me?"<BR/><BR/>He pulls out an arrow<BR/>And carefully aims<BR/>At all who don't know<BR/>That he is named James<BR/><BR/>"I'm really quite hurt<BR/>It just isn't fair<BR/>When people don't know<BR/>I ain't Alistair."<BR/><BR/>A little 'catterel' for what'sname. (Sprout, Kittenz and Captain Puddles won't let me call it '<I>dog</I>gerel'Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70357654438877277722007-11-16T18:28:00.000-05:002007-11-16T18:28:00.000-05:00Ah, I know I deserved that, but it doesn't mean I ...Ah, I know I deserved that, but it doesn't mean I have to like it!<BR/><BR/>I recently had another bout of confusion with a pair of D'Souzas. I really need to start checking IDs.<BR/><BR/>But I'm not completely senile, though I am endlessly amused by just one joke.<BR/><BR/>Ideally, all three McGraths, but the one closest will work. James, was it? Yes, that's it. I'm almost sure of it.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>Bill Ross<BR/>http://bibleshockers.blogspot.comWoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75545906102327880612007-11-16T17:59:00.000-05:002007-11-16T17:59:00.000-05:00Sorry, I have to ask before responding...Which McG...Sorry, I have to ask before responding...<BR/><BR/><I>Which</I> McGrath are you asking about?James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21684716659872982182007-11-16T14:58:00.000-05:002007-11-16T14:58:00.000-05:00What I would like to see and have asked for is a s...What I would like to see and have asked for is a simple glossary of what the following terms mean to McGrath:<BR/><BR/>* God<BR/>* faith<BR/>* Christian<BR/><BR/>Is that possible to obtain?<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>Bill Ross<BR/>http://bibleshockers.blogspot.comWoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33423665369610307422007-11-16T14:47:00.000-05:002007-11-16T14:47:00.000-05:00Woundedego-Maybe this got lost in my post, but let...Woundedego-<BR/>Maybe this got lost in my post, but let me re-iterate. I totally, wholeheartedly, unreservedly agree with you that liberals or any other revaluators are duty-bound to make themselves clear and explain what they mean, and what they do not mean. Kaplan himself did just this and in fact wrote a book called "The Meaning of God in Modern Jewish Religion." No one, and I mean no one, who is familiar with reconstructionist judaism is unclear about what he thought nor what he meant by "god", because he didnt want them to be.<BR/><BR/>So yes yes yes, we have no quarrel on this issue. Liberals need to be clear. Catholics, baptists, mormons and even atheists need to be clear. You should probably specify (when appropriate) what sort of atheist you are. Hard/soft/etc. Clarity is the essence of communication, or at least this kind of declarative communication.<BR/> <BR/><BR/>Our dispute is rather about, *once you have been clear about the meaning of your terms* (and by now, we all know what McGrath means), whether it is somehow illegitimate or incoherent to use them that way. I have tried to show that it is not. <BR/><BR/>As I said, "Christian" is not a Form in the mind of God. It is not a "natural kind", like the periodic table, wherei nature itself tells us where the joints are. Its a human designation and you thus will always have to specify a reference class. Deviation from majority use certainly makes this even more important, but it does not make it invalid.Richard Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06071672526594753513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77131594421849442332007-11-16T13:32:00.000-05:002007-11-16T13:32:00.000-05:00Next time I'll define more clearly the sense in wh...Next time I'll define more clearly the sense in which I am using <I>McGrath</I>, and not merely the sense in which I use the term <I>Christian</I>. :)James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68158366179223898072007-11-16T13:31:00.000-05:002007-11-16T13:31:00.000-05:00Aaggh... apparently I have.Well, I'll be on the ot...Aaggh... apparently I have.<BR/><BR/>Well, I'll be on the other side of town, then, if anybody needs me.<BR/><BR/>Bill Ross<BR/>http://bibleshockers.blogspot.comWoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14204037251147216122007-11-16T13:24:00.000-05:002007-11-16T13:24:00.000-05:00I think that, in spite of one's best attempts to b...I think that, in spite of one's best attempts to be clear, there can still be misunderstanding. For instance, is it possible that you have combined or confused <I>James</I> McGrath, who is the subject of this discussion and currently writing to you, with <I>Alister</I> McGrath who is neither of the aforementioned things? :)James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70674002485982139162007-11-16T13:20:00.000-05:002007-11-16T13:20:00.000-05:00Ok, Richard, let's try an experiment. You "revalua...Ok, Richard, let's try an experiment. You "revaluate" the terms "thanks", "library" and "dog" without explaining the new meaning, then use them repeatedly in a post here and let's see if anyone knows what the hell you are talking about. Then we can re-examine the compatiblility of this practice with mental health in light of the findings.<BR/><BR/>My children have a game where they declare a given day as "Opposite Day." On these days, "up" means "down" and "in" means "out." They are endlessly fascinated by this game. <BR/><BR/>Woody Allen said:<BR/><BR/>"My rabbi was Reformed. In fact, he was VERY Reformed - he was a Nazi!"<BR/><BR/>The joke, of course, is that "Reformed Jew" denotes someone who's Judaism has undergone a change - but when you become the antithesis, the term becomes inappropriate - even absurd. So also when someone says "I believe in God" but what they mean is "I don't believe in a personal God, just the universe itself" I think you have repeated Allen's joke - but with a straight face!<BR/><BR/>I watched the McGrath-Hitchens debate. In light of today's revelation, why was there a debate? All McGrath had to do was say "I don't believe in God, I believe in the natural order but choose to refer to it as God in order to exploit religious tradition and symbolism." This would have led to his being understood, as he was understood today. Instead, religious jargon abounded and Hitchens left the protracted discussion with no more understanding of McGrath's true position than before the debate. I doubt that the audience had any more clue either - I know I didn't - though I did note that he did not make any clear assertions.<BR/><BR/>As usual, I've probably worn out my welcome, so I'll "withdraw my foot" lest my neighbor "becomes weary of me and so hates me" - to quote the proverb.<BR/><BR/>Bill Ross<BR/>http://bibleshockers.blogspot.comWoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65545635216040813862007-11-16T12:40:00.000-05:002007-11-16T12:40:00.000-05:00I haven't made any brochures lately, but I do have...I haven't made any brochures lately, but I do have a blog. Is where I am coming from and what I am talking about really that unclear? <BR/><BR/>When I am teaching, I certainly don't always say everything I think, or everything I think I know, but that has more to do with pedagogy and the fact that learning occurs in stages, as well as the fact that I don't assume that I'm right just because I happen to believe certain things very strongly. One reason I started blogging was precisely so that I could be on record about my own personal opinions, while still trying to maintain a reasonably impartial setting for discussion in the classroom.<BR/><BR/>For what it's worth, I do put <A HREF="http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/" REL="nofollow">disclaimers at the ends of my syllabi</A> precisely for the sake of those who <A HREF="http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/science/" REL="nofollow">might misuse them</A>...James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68005160217825262622007-11-16T12:35:00.000-05:002007-11-16T12:35:00.000-05:00Mr. Ross:You exemplify the worst elements of this ...Mr. Ross:<BR/>You exemplify the worst elements of this blog. You want to (a) impose a definition of Christianity on James; then (b) tell him, based on said definition, that he's foolish to be a Christian.<BR/><BR/>I have two words for you: "straw man".<BR/><BR/>Richard, on the other hand, exemplifies the best elements of this blog. One can set out to debunk Christianity, and yet be unafraid to acknowledge when someone else has made a legitimate point. Even if you continue to disagree with him or her.stchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04018824090441668781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1996657919883076092007-11-16T12:31:00.000-05:002007-11-16T12:31:00.000-05:00As I said, WHENEVER you use a term in a situation ...As I said, WHENEVER you use a term in a situation where you are likely to be understood to be saying something different from your usage of the terms, the responsible thing to do is to identify your usage of the terms.<BR/><BR/>Among scientists, the term theory is understood. In textbooks and now, in popular literature, the particular scientific meaning is expounded because people are prone to misunderstand it. To the degree that the term is used without such clarification, people DO misunderstand what is being said, and that is a correctible situation.<BR/><BR/>Consider the liability of companies that do not forsee and head off misunderstandings about their products, and the great lengths that they go to to provide instructions with their products. "Do not use this product in a Microwave oven." If you think some people would misconstrue the product and use it in a microwave, the responsible thing to do is to explicitly explain its intended usage. Failure to do so will be culpable in a court of law.<BR/><BR/>I am incrdulous that you think your usage of the terms "God" and "faith" and "Christianity" are obvious to your hearers and how little responsibility you feel and what little effort you expend to avoid confusion, even when you are addressing as wide an audience as you do.<BR/><BR/>Suppose you received a brochure in the mail emblazoned with Christian symbols on every page, peppered with references to "Christ" and "faith" and "God" but after reading the fine print you came to realize that it was an invitation to an IMAX film on the wonders of evolution at the ocean floor. Would you not be confused? Might you not feel that you were being misled? I feel pretty certain that many would consider that a wolf in sheep's clothing.<BR/><BR/>Honesty is not just about what one says, but also about what one allows to be misunderstood. "Mom, I'm going to John's house" (and, unsaid, then on to Mary's party). The cards need to all be on the table and every effort made to be seen as one is. <BR/><BR/>I don't think I speak only for myself when I urge this kind of clarity.<BR/><BR/>Bill Ross<BR/>http://bibleshockers.blogspot.comWoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22493586792288430292007-11-16T12:30:00.000-05:002007-11-16T12:30:00.000-05:00I’d like to quickly address Prup’s question of wha...I’d like to quickly address Prup’s question of what it means to be Christian. I have had personal motivations to think about this. When I deconverted from fundyism to liberal Christianity, on my way to atheism, my family (who remains evangelical) denies that that is Christianity. This caused me no end of consternation, so I had to think it through. Here’s what I came up with.<BR/><BR/>Wittgenstein exhorted us to abandon the search for a essential meaning of the words we use, “out there” as it were, a la Platonism. His example: there is no single definition of the word “game” that encompasses all and only instantiations of what we consider to be games. No single set of criteria unites football, chess, tag, World of Warcraft, peek-a-boo, military wargames, and solitaire. His point: look to the use, not the meaning. Our language is not a mirror of nature, it is a tool for accessing nature. Games are not “carved-out” by nature, they are carved out by our use of the word “game.” In his terms, they share a family resemblance, not an inner essence.<BR/><BR/>The implications here for Christianity are obvious. Even more so since, as we atheists believe, there is no God for it to be in the mind of. Therefore, there is only this Christianity, and that Christianity, not “Christianity” in the abstract. There is no “Form of the Christian.”<BR/><BR/>To borrow from relativity: just as you don’t mean anything by terms like simultaneity unless you specify a reference frame, so too in religious identification you don’t mean anything unless you specify a reference group.<BR/><BR/>Who is a Christian? Doesn’t the answer have to depend on who you ask? Church of Christers don’t think Catholics are Christian. Catholics return the favor. Neither of them think John Spong would be a Christian. They all disagree about the definition. But how could we ever resolve this definitional dispute? I could give you my opinion, and rock-out argument… thereby join my voice to the dispute, not settle it. It is obvious that there is no higher authority to appeal to, no empirical test to run, to settle the question as to which definition is “correct.” <BR/><BR/>So, since you cant get to the “bottom”, because there is no bottom, you must specify a reference group when asking who is a Christian. There is no bigger or better or more solid answer than that. Is McGrath a Christian? According to who? To Baptists, probably not. To the early “Christians”, no, probably not. To his own congregation? Most surely. <BR/><BR/>It doesn’t get any better than that. So if you have a reference group that claims you, and you self-identify as a Christian, then you are a Christian.<BR/><BR/>At least, according to me.Richard Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06071672526594753513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35849950750474368752007-11-16T12:10:00.000-05:002007-11-16T12:10:00.000-05:00"And I doubt strongly that it is compatible with g..."And I doubt strongly that it is compatible with genuine mental health." <BR/><BR/>Careful, my friend. There’s no need for utterly unsubstantiated rhetorical excess. I know something about mental health and will gently suggest you examine some evidence before promoting these sorts of sweeping generalizations.<BR/><BR/>You've made it clear you don’t like liberal religion. Fine, you're allowed. But does not this question ultimately reduce to a pragmatic one? Liberal religionists say their way of life works for them. Why isn’t that good enough? Maybe you think it’s silly and immature. And maybe they think your presumably ritual-less and myth-less life impoverished. But if you say how you do things works for you, then who am I to complain? More to the point, who am I (or anyone) to tell you what is valuable to you?<BR/><BR/>This is where atheism can cross the line into a kind of ugly ideological purity. It’s a position we need to strenuously avoid. <BR/><BR/>I agree with you wholeheartedly that it is incumbent upon liberals to make their meanings clear. I’m not sure the dangers of not doing so are quite as bad as you seem to fear, because I think it will be obvious in many ways that liberals, despite God-talk, are not fundies. Fundies themselves certainly seem to have little difficulty picking them out.<BR/><BR/>McGrath is certainly correct in noting that religion has always seen its terms and ideas evolve. Surely we, as atheists, aware of religious history, know this as well as anyone. Mordecai Kaplan, whom I mentioned in another post, was a Jewish theologian who developed a "theology" with no supernatural elements whatsoever. He gave explicit definitions of what he meant by things like God. But he also noted that religious ideas had always evolved, usually over many years and therefore unconsciously in the community. I.e., it is the most natural thing in the world. He called that process “transvaluation”. He proposed that for modern religionists, who find their religion valuable but cannot accept orthodoxy, this is no longer possible, mainly because they are aware of the process. So he suggested the term “revaluation” -- the conscious altering of meanings and definitions to "reconstruct" the religion. This is what folks like McGrath are doing -- doing consciously what has always happened unconsciously.<BR/><BR/>This is obviously not everyone’s cup of tea. Some will see the better path to simply abandon institutional religion altogether. This is perfectly fine. It just doesn’t feel adequate for everyone. I think atheists, as believers in religious tolerance, have it incumbent upon them make their own internal peace with whatever negative assessment he or she might have of religion in general, and make common cause with liberals, because it is the fundies who are the real danger.Richard Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06071672526594753513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31115698093243833402007-11-16T12:07:00.000-05:002007-11-16T12:07:00.000-05:00Dr. McGrath:Let me start my coment by being fussil...Dr. McGrath:<BR/>Let me start my coment by being fussily pedantic about the word "Christian." (If you've come across my previous comments, you know I'm usually being fussily pedantic about <I>something</I>.)<BR/><BR/>Isn't the term, at a minimum, an acknowledgement that 'Jesus' (i.e., Joshua or Yeshu'a bar-Joseph) is, in fact, 'the Christ,' the 'anointed' (or 'chrismed') one? That is why I have attempted never to use the term 'Christ' in discussing him and what he is reported to have said and done.<BR/>I don't believe, from your comments here, that you do accept that Jesus was either 'divine' or 'the Messiah' -- though I expect to spend a good part of the day reading and possibly commenting on recent entries on your blog, which will give me a better idea of exactly your position.<BR/><BR/>I realize that there are definite praqctical advantages in continuing to call yourself a Christian. It enables you to hold a position that you might not otherwise be accepted in, a position in which you can be better heard in your criticism of the more obnoxious and dangerous forms of fundamentalist Christianity, and it enables you to be heard by Christians whose ears have been trained to automatically seal themselves at the words of an atheist.<BR/><BR/>But in fact, wouldn't it be more accuyrate to describe yourself as a 'spiritual humanist' as I would describe myself as a 'secular humanist'?<BR/><BR/>More later, here after on your blog, after I have read further.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81218337520144957562007-11-16T11:55:00.000-05:002007-11-16T11:55:00.000-05:00Presumably, if I follow your line of reasoning, sc...Presumably, if I follow your line of reasoning, scientists should stop talking about the 'theory of evolution', since in <A HREF="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php" REL="nofollow">popular understanding</A> a theory is just a hunch, and evolution is progress.<BR/><BR/>How do we decide when to surrender hijacked terminology and when to fight to reclaim it and change what people misunderstand it to mean?James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.com