Introduction
Liberal atheists point out the elusive nature of reality and the appeal to empiricism (or lack of it) to talk about what reasonably could be argued and in the process reject all the usual arguments of atheists against a belief in GOD,
They dispel the usual atheistic arguments against theism, such as what is evident in religious history involving the unspeakable abominations, evident in the horror of the holy wars as forces of evil and how religion via ecclesiastical institutions blocked progress and so on. The same arguments they concludes apply equally to secular societies and their institutions.
Their conclusions are that it is awareness of the limitations of knowledge and understanding that makes them much happier to remain as atheists rather than entertain any ideas about becoming a theist or agnostic. One such philosopher commented “I am not obliged to imprison a thrilling institution of transcendent possibility, arising out of my knowledge of the unknown, inside a ragbag of stale, confused, contradictory and often, but not always, malign beliefs, culminating in inconceivable logical impossibilities".
I assumed such ire is directed principally to dogma and the Creed. This was confirmed by the reply to me. I suspect we agree – or at least converge – as to how we might express and attempt to capture our sense of the transcendent. I often find it difficult to differentiate between some religions with a non-dogmatic sense of the deity and the open-mindedness of a secular humanist. This is particularly so in the case of Quakerism, which I find an admirable religion.
Notwithstanding, a growing number of people today identify themselves with his style of thinking who might also be described as liberal humanists, embracing an atheistic attitude to life to find how people can live a good life together.
That means they are atheists in the positive sense since they do not accuse theists for their belief, although they might imply a certain hostility to dogmatic beliefs.
Defining a Liberal Humanist and the good life
Liberal Humanists differentiate themselves from the Humanists of European cultural history such as Erasmus and Thomas Moor. They also refuse to align themselves to the various religious or literary humanist groups. Dr John Stuyfbergen.
So simply put liberal humanism, for the purpose of this paper, is an atheistic attitude to life to find out how people can live a good life together.
So the question is ``How are the practical aspects of a Christian to live a good life different from that of a Humanist “?
This may sound an irrelevant question, but it is an important one, as humanism becomes more widespread. The question arises what Christ told us which stands out from all other philosophies, i.e. humanism. Of course, faith and the belief in an afterlife are dominant themes but then we can ask how that affects “living a good life” and how this is different to the philosophy of the humanist.
The problem in answering such a question is that all the emphasis in Christianity centres on belief, which is assumed will lead to better outcomes. But what I propose to do is to examine the early roots of Christianity and their application in modernity to ascertain significant differences to that of the liberal Humanist.
Christ behind the whitewashing of the first Council of Nicaea in 325 AD
Christ’s intentions, as the way to live the good life, possibly met it’s nemesis during negotiations with over 200 bishops to arrive at a political consensus at the behest of Constantine.
Controversy was flourishing at the time over heretical views such as the divinity of Christ, amongst other things.
But it was finally put to bed with the adoption of certain beliefs and the Creed, so a uniform approach to Christianity was established as the official religion of the Roman Empire.
This was a considerably advantageous outcome for Constantine's Roman Empire but at what price for Christianity?
For up until that point there was evidence of flourishing and warring communities as Christianity spread out into the world. Not much is known specifically about how Christ’s teaching applied to everyday living. The end result is the Nicean Creed, still recited today. Later on in 380 AD it was decided which books would make up the New Testament.
Hence our view today of what Jesus said remains hidden in the political and consensus view that adopted certain texts to be made available in the New Testament.
Even so in the much earlier writings of the apostle St Paul (only about 20 years after his death) and those attributed to his followers, (which make up nearly half of the New Testament) we have a good idea of how the first early fledgling communities interpreted and applied Christ's teaching to living the good life.
Freedom to live life to the fullest
Paul remains an enigmatic character virtually unknown in history other than to be remembered in Jewish disagreements amongst his followers. He teaches to be willing to understand all things and become ‘as one’ to all mankind to further his cause of being ‘in Christ’.
Bearing in mind his previous life involving persecution of Christians abruptly ended as a consequence of his mystical experience on the road to Damascus. This conversation and subsequent revelations has led many to interpret his work in a more complicated manner than is needed. Prior to his conversion Paul held prominent positions in the Jewish Temple emanating from his education under one of the most highly regarded scholars of those times. He was very well educated, belonged to a prominent wealthy family, a roman citizen who just about financed all of his massive missionary journeys from his own resources. Paul was fluent in the philosophies of those sites he visited so we have to be careful in interpretation of his letters written to be in tune with those differing audiences.
The rules for Jews at that time and their responsibilities were very extensive and complex, so Paul saw his role, amongst other things, as revealing a new found freedom from the Jewish law.
Although much has been made of the abstract nature of Pauline theology as a bridge from the more individualistic Judaism into Christianity (with the idea of justification by faith) I rather think the stronger case is to champion the new found freedom from the Jewish law.
In that respect (e.g. as one who has gained universal freedom )one might say he has something in common with liberal humanism except that freedom to live the good life is rooted in surrender to a mystical master, as in “being in Christ” whereas to the humanist such freedom is already assumed.
Even so this surrender is never fully articulated by Paul who introduces the idea of grace, i.e. one acknowledges no person is perfect so that one exercises the gift of life manifest in turn by best using certain gifts he calls charismas.
A charisma is the natural ability in one sphere, so as to shine in different ways (wise, hospitable, teacher healer etc.) or what we might call attributes. Paul championed that ideal in society under the new found freedom from the law
Hence St Paul is of significant interest to secular philosophers because his ideas carry with them the idea of a universal unencumbered system of unity which presupposes through grace existential philosophical aspects to life; to hold our life existence as sacred, to ascertain and acknowledge ones gifts for the benefit of the whole community, to joyfully exist in a state of grace without fear of death, to be free and remain free from guilt, to share in all things and to place love and affection ahead of all other known things.
These rather lofty ideals may be seen also as the province of the humanist, who might argue that existential philosophy does not require any of Paul’s preoccupation with the idea of “being in Christ” as being implied by rules to be fulfilled.
The problem, of course, is that in Paul’s communities, it is evident that many fell well short of achieving such lofty ideas. But Paul also acknowledges our humanity and the imperfect cradle of existence which will continue to see communities struggle to straddle the idealism that is encapsulated in their new understanding and freedom from their law only to fall prey to the usual earthly failings.
Paul sends his letters of encouragement and hope in the expectation that the experience of freedom from the law will bring joy to existential living to transcend earthly suffering and sorrow. This possibly is the key difference to humanism in that the spark of Christ's teaching as interpreted by Paul as in the “resurrected Christ” enables one to live to the fullest regardless of circumstance compared to just rational reasoning selected by the liberal humanists. It is hard to see how, being chained to just rational thought can sustain one during the more difficult periods of one life or ensure one continues to find meaning.
That might mean a form of surrender of one’s reliance on the rational to a contemplative state of trust in something bigger- the mystical union in Christ that is of comfort to many which makes the good life more amenable.
The Gospels and parables as an example of good living.
In the synoptic gospels (Mathew, Mark & Luke all written long after Paul' letters circa 40- 50 years after Christ's death) exhibit similarities in the narrative, we find predominantly the use of parables covering his short public ministry. Christ is portrayed as a charismatic apocalyptic preacher entailing an ongoing theme of a new ethically based kingdom. The imagery and language of this messianic kingdom can be traced back to the Old Testament book of Daniel. The point being that there was an anticipated end of one world to usher in a new messianic kingdom was very much part of the Jewish expectations at that time. As integral to that new kingdom Jesus leaves us with the idea of a universal ethic of love, some definite ideas on living as described in the Sermon on the Mount and food for thought in regard to the parables, which continue to offer many different interpretations. In the much later John's Gospel this idea of a new kingdom became modified as it was more symbolic as a lasting legacy of Christ.
The key point of difference to liberal humanism then is more to do with functionality as Christianity places more emphasis on contemplation of the parables and how best to be a server in the vineyard. In this respect one might say, these aspects have punctuated western societies as in the story of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son to be of use in both secular and religious communities alike.
A personal perspective.
From my personal perspective the validation of a faith based existence has also been reinforced by the spark of experiences. Introspection and contemplation don't have to slavishly follow any particular doctrine. There are day to day odd experiences I like to think about as being more than mere coincidences.
Like the time of a premonition of an intending disaster that could be avoided driving to Coffs Harbour when I had slowed to a crawl. Sure enough, a split second before I was on the point of speeding up and abandoning the warning I encountered an oil spill just around the corner. That caused the car to fishtail but the slow speed avoided what might otherwise have been a serious accident.
But of course such instances could be aspects of wonderment to the liberal humanist, who sees no reason other than to accept unusual coincidences attributed to such events.
But where the events of life can be more challenging it is hard to see how a humanist rational philosophy can offer the same level of encouragement. What I refer to is those warm hearted feelings that stayed with me to allow me to be amazed at the series of coincidences that got me through many challenging times. The idea of deriving your own meaning to life can be reinforced by small sparks of encouragement from others and events that seem more than mere coincidences.
One such experience comes to mind.
Suffering from a perennial crook back I nevertheless had come to manage it reasonably well with a daily exercise plan and ensuring I kept reasonably fit. So, when the request came to share in the joy and excitement to attend the inauguration of the new Church in Malawi, funded by the Malawi Support Group I belonged to, it seemed natural enough to accept their invitation. All was well until just a few days prior I encountered a severe back attack which only worsened on the night before I was due to depart. Going to bed early with severe nerve pain signals shooting down my legs, which ignored strong pain killers, I tossed and turned in a state of extreme anxiety wondering how I could possibly now undertake such a journey.
Somehow in the early morning hours I must have finally dozed off only to be awakened with what felt like a sudden jolt so that all that was present in my mind was an unexplainable warm hearted feeling. It didn’t last for long as the alarm intruded onto what must have been only a few seconds. The back continued as a problem but remarkably thereafter everything turned out very well as the warm heart of Africa carried me along in its wake.
It arose, effortlessly as if a gentle breeze that knows what’s up and isn’t going to allow any unforeseen circumstances to pose any problems. That positive train of events persisted, from the cheery check in desk guy who enquired how I was that morning, to promptly upgrading my seat allocation to the best possible one in the very front of the plane with superior service. Very fortuitous sir, almost as we speak, there has just been a cancellation that appeared before me on my screen and I am delighted to be able to upgrade you.
I was able to put my feet up and what a relief that was.
That warm hearted feeling extended to my accommodation and the priest apologising for having to take his afternoon siesta - to allow me time to recover. There were other aspects, such as the insistence for another parishioner to look after me very well with all possible accommodative support such as laundry and so forth that continued to add the much needed spark to keep me in such a positive frame of mind. I was able to accomplish far more than I could have ever anticipated.
After visiting all of the local communities and attending the opening of the new church I had intended meeting up with my wife for a holiday. She had not wanted to accompany me to Malawi, but we planned on a holiday afterwards as I would fly on to Heathrow and she would meet me there after flying from Australia.
So, our plan was to rendezvous at Heathrow, hopefully at around the same time, but presuming Anne was very likely to have at least quite a few hours wait. I was rather anxious about it all considering the distances, inevitable delays and the fact we were flying on different airlines and coming into different terminals
Flying from Australia, my wife, who has one crooked leg and was a bit nervous flying on her own, was to encounter a series of kind acts. Firstly from a young man who helped her with her luggage on to the transfer bus to my terminal, to another who gave up his seat and then in unloading her luggage at my terminal where we were to meet up.
Concurrently on arriving from South Africa, I had to catch a driverless train (a bit unnerving) at Heathrow, to collect my luggage from the pick-up terminal.
As planned I had reached into my pocket to make the call to find Anne’s location when a jolt went through my head- an unmistakable clear message not to bother with the phone call.
I looked up and there she was walking towards me- maybe only 20 feet away amongst that sea of faces in one of the busiest airports in the world. I had flown from Lilongwe in Malawi, experienced several delays, then to South Africa, been held up through customs before undertaking the last leg to Heathrow. I imagined some considerable difficulty in meeting up or even being able to find one another without a lot of trouble.
But having recently experienced the warm heart of Africa maybe there was a need to be surprised.
But of course this is not sufficient reason to sustain a faith for I hasten to add I am not one to believe in ghosts or to downplay the importance of rationality. How we determine that which is real or imagined and its relevance or benefits is a matter of discernment and introspection. In that respect when one feels energized and positive are what I have found reliable guides.
That invariably comes from other people which rubs off on to ourselves.
I recall preparing a paper on my long admired philosopher Albert Schweitzer and wondering if indeed that was to do justice to his life and thought. The energy and feedback seemed to provide positive affirmation. I felt as if a warm hand of approval had, as if, passed over me from another sphere to give me such assurances they seemed entirely undeserving.
On the other hand one might argue from the opposite end of the spectrum that in turn was just an expression of the ego. Such exchanges invariably involve other people which in turn influences our own sense of faith or otherwise as we discern what they mean for us.
I can say I have much in common with the liberal humanists to agree we can live the good life in wonderment, except for me one can do that even more so retaining the principles of Christianity.That doesn't stop me from learning good stuff from those positive atheists, to whom I admire in respect to their humanism and the transcendent sense of wonderment that governs their lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment