Imago Dei

Feed on: Posts; Comments

Jun 4th, 2007 by Amanda

Why is it that militant atheists are topping the best-seller lists, yet poll data shows that most Americans say they’re Christian?

9 Responses to “Paradox”

on 04 Jun 2007 at 6:37 pm1Terri

Because most Americans don’t know what being a “Christian” really is. They think, “Well, I am not Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim…so I must be Christian.”
on 04 Jun 2007 at 7:57 pm2Susan

I agree with Terri and I would also add that many Christians have a superficial understanding of what it means to be a Christian.

I say that with humility.

As far as the atheist thing goes,it is just a new spin on an old, defeated argument.
on 05 Jun 2007 at 9:54 am3ontheedgeofmyseat

Terri and Susan: Bingo and bingo. No one knows what a Christian is anymore.
on 06 Jun 2007 at 10:06 pm4Maureen

Touching my nose and saying “what they all said”.

Plus…for all the grief we catch for being “close-minded”, most Christians I know are open enough to read other points of view. I don’t often see it the other way around, though.
on 10 Jun 2007 at 4:06 pm5Lifewish

I’m sorry I haven’t been on for a couple of weeks - rough period at work. I’d just like to butt in with a couple of specific responses:

Susan: To which defeated argument are you referring?

Maureen: Reading along my bookshelf, I see works from Christianity, Taoism, two kinds of Buddhism, Hare Krishna, Satanism and atheism, as well as various other philosophical books such as James’ “Varieties of Religious Experience” that discuss religion in a positive light. I’ve just finished reading “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller, a Catholic.

I have no idea what your bookshelf looks like by comparison, but at least give atheists like myself credit for trying, OK?
on 11 Jun 2007 at 12:37 pm6Amanda

It’s always good to have ya back, LW.

Maureen did say often so she is acknowledging that there are people like you who do explore other options. However, I will say that you do often come across as more close-minded, especially when you say things like you come from the reality-based community, implying that Christians live in a fantasy land.

My personal bookshelf used to be much more diversified than it is now. I find that as I grow in my faith, I see little reason to purchase books that I know I disagree with and go against my faith. However, when a particular work is recommended (usually as an effort to dissuade me from my faith), I will read it (or at least try to, as I recently did with a work by Carl Sagan).
on 13 Jun 2007 at 2:40 pm7Lifewish

However, I will say that you do often come across as more close-minded, especially when you say things like you come from the reality-based community, implying that Christians live in a fantasy land.

That’s a fair point. I think the term expresses what I’m about, or at least what I like to think I’m about, but you’re right that it doesn’t sound as good as I thought it did when I started using it.

I need a label that says: “I’m interested in what you’re saying. I love playing about with imaginative concepts, and I’ll happily devote time to getting my brain round the idea you’re trying to sell me on. And, if you think I should accept it as fact, all you need to do is demonstrate its connection to reality. How cool is that?”

What I meant by “reality-based community” wasn’t that I think I’m right but that I’m open to being proved wrong. All you need is reality - consensual, testable, empirical reality - on your side and I’ll happily join you.

I have two questions that I could use your help on. First, do you think I live up to that ideal? Second, how on Earth do you summarise an ideal like that in two or three words without sounding patronising?
on 14 Jun 2007 at 9:45 am8Amanda

I’m not sure you can, in all honesty. Because no matter how you word it, you do sound patronizing. Even in your explanation up there you sounded patronizing as if you only want to humor the other party. Perhaps that’s the lot that will always fall between those like you and those like me.
on 16 Jun 2007 at 7:37 am9Lifewish

I’m trying to say that there’s an ideal here that’s worth holding to, and at the same time I’m trying to say that I think I’m holding to it fairly well. I think you’re right that that’s always going to sound at least slightly smug.

This applies with other ideals as well, though. When Christians pray that someone will turn to God, they’re presenting exactly the same points: my ideal is a good ideal, and I’m achieving it well enough that I can afford to help those lower down the ladder than me. I doubt that the Christians who say “I’ll pray for you” mean to be patronising any more than I do. So how do we restructure this to avoid pushing people’s buttons?

One common approach I see on the Christian side is the “I’m a sinner too” method - making it clear that I think the ideal is good, and that I aim for it, but also that I regularly miss. Maybe this approach can be adapted for my situation.

Does it sound less patronising if I say something like: “I think it’s good to test my beliefs against evidence and logic. If you give me hard evidence or solid logic and I ignore it, I’ll have failed myself.”

I would really really like to crack this problem because being seen as patronising makes it hard to discuss this sort of stuff courteously. I value the conversations I have with people like yourselves, and I don’t want to be poisoning that wellspring of new viewpoints.