Returning to theology

[axver]

Over the last few days, during trips of nostalgia, I have noticed a pattern of increasingly infrequent theologically themed entries on my LJ. Back in the days when my journal had a decent readership, I wrote such entries regularly, but now? I haven't written such an entry in months. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact I now believe in

Comments

[axver]

Soon as I saw you were one of the commenters here, I was interested in what you would have to say. I can certainly understand willing to err on the side of assuming some sort of God exists; I was effectively doing that for much of 2006-07 (which, to tell the truth, was a sham I was unwilling to admit even to myself), and even when I became agnostic, it still took me a few months to proceed to the use of Occam's Razor that I mention at the end of the entry

[augustine]

I know this reply is a few days late....I didn't think of it until just today. So please forgive me. But I did want to comment on one of your observations. (Indeed, your whole comment deserves commentary, but I am not the one to give it).

Anyway, it seems to me that your criticisms are directed to conservatives, and especially fundamentalists, right? (though perhaps I'm misunderstanding you).

If so, then first let me point out that I am particularly fond of fundamentalists, and find them, on the whole (with a few very vocal exceptions) to be absoultely wonderful people. (Even though, no doubt, many of them probably think I'm going to Hell.)

That said, I think you make a very good point when you write:

There seems to be this idea spreading around in churches that the secular world is absolutely corrupt and vile and can offer nothing good whatsoever,That is one of the problems I do find with fundamentalism in particular. I am reminded of a quote by G.K. Chesterton, that it seems fundamentalists would do well to remember (and,

[evilmissbecky]

You've sort of summed up my own views on the topic, which are as follows:

I believe in God, not in organized religion.

If I feel the need to talk to God, I will do so when and where I want. I do not need to go to a particular building on a particular day and listen to a particular set of sermons and sing a particular song in order to feel that my prayer has been heard.

The other thing I used to say is, "Religion was invented by a bunch of old men on a rainy day with nothing better to do."

But you say it much better. :-)

(Also, the God I believe in isn't short of cash, Mister. *g*)

[axver]

I find it rather sad what organised religion has become. You'd think it would be beneficial to be amongst likeminded individuals, especially on something as significant as religion, but I suppose the inherent group dynamics and politics involved in something so serious are going to tend towards the more, uh, difficult side of humanity.

Hence I never really participated in organised religion. Off memory, I went to church three times, in roughly 4-5 years of believing in anything. Didn't like it much so I practiced belief by myself, outside of the most obvious institutional trappings of religion. Though I will continue touting atheism as having the perk that sleeping in on Sundays is not just allowed, but positively encouraged. ;)

[evilmissbecky]

I was raised Catholic, had the whole nine yards, First Communion, confession, confirmation, all that. But since I've become an adult, I can probably count the number of times I've been to church on the fingers of one hand. And that's including funerals, baptisms, and weddings.

The scariest thing about organized religion is that there is no arguing with those people. They know they are right about an issue because they have God on their side. And no amount of facts will ever sway them.

I got into an argument one day at work with a lady about gay marriage. I asked her why she was against it and she said because the Bible said so. I said, "So what? We're not living in a theocracy. This is a democracy. Our church and government are separated." I might as well have spoken in Greek. Nothing I said made any difference to her.

I've since learned my lesson. I never speak about politics at work.

[augustine]

Hi Andre,

Yes, I'm still reading. :-) (Though, for a few months there, I had not been reading LiveJournal at all. In fact, it was not until just a few days ago that I started to read it again.). So if you addressed me at all during those many months, now you know why I didn't answer.

With all of that "time off" from LiveJournal, so to speak, I haven't really quoted or linked to stuff by Chesterton that much for a very long time, so I warn you in advance that I'll be overflowing with Chesterton in these comments.

Anyway, as far as this discussion is concerned, like I have said many times in the past, I am not very good at putting my thoughts into words. And even if I were, on many subjects (such as this) in which I have admittedly not put a lot of thought into, it wouldn't matter. About the only thing you can count on me for is...er, well, quote Chesterton (of course!). So I think I shall :-)

For instance, when you wrote:

and I still have a strong interest in religion - just as an outsider rather than an insider.I am reminded of

[axver]

Hey Mike! Great you're still around. I don't think you've missed much either. I've been fairly reclusive and I'm trying to bring myself out of that.

Haha, you're predictable. But, of course, I enjoy the Chesterton quotage. And I really do think you sell yourself short. Whenever you do articulate your thoughts, I find them well-put, clear, and intelligent, and the resulting discussion is thoroughly intellectually enjoyable. There's a good reason why I namedropped you in my entry!

And Chesterton makes a good point there. It's something I've noticed too. I wonder if it is perhaps easier to view religion from the outside, from a more detached perspective. I personally find it valuable that I have had the inside perspective and can use that to now augment my outside perspective, but I definitely feel my outside perspective is both broader and deeper. Perhaps it's simply a consequence of additional knowledge, but I do feel my very underlying assumptions allow that greater scope in the first place.

[augustine]

Hi Andre,

I started to make a reply to this comment, explaining why I did not really wish to get into this theological discussion, (though I did remark on a couple points you made on this particular comment, however).

But my response grew so long that I could not fit it within the character limits that LJ has set for comments, so I decided to simply make a post of it on my LJ, and simply link to it. (I hope you don't mind that I did this. I apologize in advance if you do...)

Anyway, here it is:

Comment

And that will probably have to be my last word in this discussion. I hope that post helps you understand why I do not wish to continue this particular discussion, at least in responding to any questions you may pose. Anyway...

[augustine]

(continued from previous comment)

As for the actual substance of your post, though, I don't know if Chesterton wrote anything concerning it at all. So, of course, not only can I not offer my own thoughts (which would be worthless anyway), I can't even offer Chesterton's thoughts (though he might have very well written on these things). The closest that I am aware of is this, where you wrote:

Religions are inevitably celebrations of a localised culture - note the glorification of the Israelites in the Old Testament or the Arabic language in the Quran

Now, the following quote does not relate to the charge of a religion being a "celebration" of a localised culture, so I guess perhaps its totally irrelevant to the point you are making. However, this quote does relate to the idea that a religion with invariably have an intimate connection with the culture from which it first appeared.

Again, in Christianity and Rationalism, Chesterton wrote:

And, lastly. let me take an example which leads me on directly to the general matter I wish to

[axver]

'... not only can I not offer my own thoughts (which would be worthless anyway)'

If I may be so bold, rubbish! I am in fact quite interested in your take on something. I plan to turn the following into an entry of its own, though when I will do this remains to be seen as I am writing an awful "world is doomed" essay right now that is sucking the life out of me. Anyway, let me first reproduce the section of my entry that I would like your thoughts, then give you a specific ... well, a question, but in statement form.

I have never accepted that "spirituality" is a separate entity from "religion". Rather, I see religion as the institutional framework that socialises spirituality, and formalises spirituality both internally and externally. Thus, I find claims such as "I am spiritual but not religious" to be specious. Any manner of formalised belief - i.e. a belief that is affirmed, articulated, and practiced - is both spirituality and religion.As I went on to say, I pulled that out of my arse in the process of writing the entry, as I

[augustine]

As for the spiritual/religious distinction, my own thoughts were basically what yours were (though obviously my conclusions as to the other points in your post were quite different). However, I would not consider myself competent to give the Catholic position. But I remembered a post I saw on Mark Shea's blog (who, by the way, is still Holy Roman Emperor, and the only obstacle to your complete conquest of the world :-)). Anyway, the post gives a few Catholics perspective on it (mainly, in the comments box, that is). So take it for what its worth:

Here it isBTW, just in case you are interested, I recently made a post on my LJ concerning Hilaire Belloc, a writer I need to read, since he was a very good friend of, and so close to, Chesterton (in views, though not personality) that George Bernard Shaw coined the term Chesterbelloc to describe the phenomenon of the two. In any case, the reason that you might be interested in reading the post is because I noticed in your profile one of your interests was "Pink Floyd", and a fact that I

[augustine]

from conservative and old-fashioned religious types or militant fundamentalists

You mean people like myself, in other words. lol. :-)

OK, granted, even when I was a fundamentalist I perhaps would not have been a militant fundamentalist.

As it is, from my own experience of fundamentalism, "militant" fundamentalists are very much the exception rather than the rule. Perhaps I was simply particularly blessed at the fundamentalist churches I attended, and it doesn't correspond to reality elsewhere, but that was my experience, such as it was.

True, there are such people as "militant" fundamentalists, as anyone can see from the Internet. They are a very loud and very vocal minority among fundamentalists. But, as far as my experience is, they are exactly that: a minority. The vast majority of fundamentalists I have met are nothing like that. I may now disagree with fundamentalism on quite a few theological issues, and no doubt many fundamentalists probably think I'm on my way to hell now that I am a Catholic. But I will never fail to

[augustine]

(continued from previous comment)

Speaking of Chesterton the Christian apologist, let's now discuss Chesterton the novelist. Have you gotten a chance to read The Man Who Was Thursday yet? If I remember correctly, you liked Good Omens by Terry Pratchet and Neil Gaiman, right? Well, I found an interview in which Gaiman states that the reason they dedicated Good Omens to Chesterton was:

"....because we felt that on a very fundamental level, we were doing The Man Who Was Thursday"

(The interview can be found here, but NOTE: I did not provide the full quote because unfortunately Gaiman reveals a very big spoiler for The Man Who Was Thursday.

You can, of course, read The Man Who Was Thursday for free online, such as here. At least read the first chapter (and hopefully you'll then read the rest of the book). The first chapter even has a long discussion on trains! (er, more a discussion about anarchy, using trains as an example

[tinandcopper]

The Man Who Was Thursday is a wildly hilarious novel. While reading it, I spewed out water not once, not twice, but thrice.

[augustine]

Hi tinandcopper

By any chance are you a fellow Chestertonian?

Anyway, I absoultely agree with you. The Man Who Was Thursday is typical Chesterton: utterly hilarious, and yet very serious at the same time. I also found it funny that, according to Joseph Pearce:

"...it is perhaps apposite that Chesterton admitted, albeit whimsically, that in the case of The Man Who Was Thursday, he needed a psychiatrist." [Wisdom and Innocence, Joseph Pearce, p.107]

[augustine]

BTW Andre, since I have no contribution which I can make to the theological conversation you proposed (alas!), let me take this opportunity to attempt to persuade you (even more than I have already tried before) to read The Man Who Was Thursday (assuming, of course, that you have not read it already).

I have already given you the reason why Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman dedicated their novel Good Omens to Chesterton. Now let me give you some more reviews of The Man Who Was Thursday, (most found on my webpage citing Chesterton's influence).

Terry Pratchett:

"It's worth pointing out that in The Man Who was Thursday and The Napoleon of Notting Hill he gave us two of the most emotionally charged plots in the twentieth century..." [Source- cited in Wisdom and Innocence, p. 90]

Orson Welles:

Welles (whose favorite author was Chesterton) made a radio dramatization of The Man Who Was Thursday with his Mercury Radio Theater on the Air in 1938, just a few weeks before his infamous War of the Worlds broadcast which created such a