TheRationalGod.com is going to be used for posts which are religious in nature or which deal with religion as a historical subject. Any scientific or metaphysical or philosophical issues will now appear on the new blog site, SpaceTimeInfinity.com Though the two strands of thinking are both seeking to explain existence, they do so in two very different ways. The search engines can now make sense of what typr of blog they are dealing with. This one is religious in nature, the other is scientific or philosophical. The book, The Rational God, is a scientific or philosophical book with important consequences for theological thinking.

I look forward to your company over the coming months.

During my surfing hours the other day I came across what to me is a little known organisation called Christian Science which was founded by Mary Baker Eddy towards the end of the 19th century. She wrote an article called Christian Science and Pantheism which was aimed at damning pantheism and promoting Christian Science.

What is Christian Science? Well it has a sufficient following to warrant an entry in Webster’s. I am not fond of definitions from dictionaries. The definition of a word is always dependent on the context of the sentence in which it is used, and it is this context and usage which leads to the definition in a dictionary. Too many people run to the dictionary for the definition as if it is somehow the
dictionary compilers who have invented the words and thus is how any word must be used. Dictionary definitions change as the usage of a word changes, not the other way round. To understand the meaning of a word we need to know how it was intended to be used by the speaker or writer of that word. However, in this article, I shall use the Webster’s definition because it is the first entry on the Christian Science webpage. In this case the context is perfect.

Christian Science is ”a religion and a system of healing founded by Mary Baker Eddy c. 1866, based on an interpretation of the Scriptures asserting that disease, sin, and death may be overcome by understanding and applying the divine principles of Christian teachings.”

Now clearly, even on Mary Bakers own terms her religious beliefs have proved to be a failure. I may be wrong. Maybe Mary Baker is alive and well and has managed to overcome death by the application of Christian teaching. However, I am sure that I would be aware of her continued existence if it were the case that she is still alive. Having not heard to the contrary I can only assume that her teachings proved false.

The second point of interest in the quote concerning the Webster definition is the one which references “interpretation.” Mary’s beliefs were based on an “interpretation” of the scriptures. This admission is particularly fascinating to me because I am forever complaining about biblical literalists. They are the real problem in the theism atheism debate. The literalists are clearly a bunch of fruitcakes so eating them for breakfast or with afternoon tea never interferes with my hunger to consume more serious philosophical debate. Yet literalists are often held to be hardcore believers, the true upholders of scripture and the real defenders of faith. But someone like Mary, who “interprets” the scripture to suit her own beliefs is still accepted as “one of us.” She may be frowned upon a little by the staunch literalist, but she is accepted into the fold of the Christian church because she uses the scripture as the source of her beliefs.

Now I ask, what would have been Mary’s fate and standing in the community if she had promoted the same doctrine and belief system, yet proclaimed that her beliefs were based on something other than the bible. What if she had said that she had come to realise, from rational reflection that the universe was a self healing entity; if only we could learn how to harness the universal energy that is all around us? If she had promoted the same beliefs based on universal consciousness she would have faced life living as a heretic. If she had expressed those beliefs, and further added that she thought that scripture was a nonsense she would have been run out of town and maybe even lynched.

The point that I am getting to is that the belief system that you profess is not the arbiter of your goodness or badness according to the religious. Rather it is what you identify as the ultimate source of your professed belief. Try it. The next time you find yourself in conversation with a member of the devout, give them a long, made up fictional account of your “beliefs” and then identify your interpretation of scripture as your source for that belief. You will probably be invited for tea and may even end up being offered the daughters hand in marriage. On another occasion that you find yourself among the devout, tell the exact same story again, but at the end merely mention that your beliefs have come to you through the heart or through rational enquiry and that you reject all that is written in scripture as false. The response will be very different. The source of your belief system is far more important than the belief itself.

Now as you may have noticed I tend to favour a pantheist account of existence. This article is not the place to go too deeply into the nature of pantheism but there are a few points which are relevant to this piece. First of all, much of scripture can be interpreted in a pantheist way. It is very easy; pantheism can be substituted for all that is written in the bible claiming to be a reflection of theism. I do not think that this is a coincidence. Pantheism is older than theism. I would make the claim that much of what we know as scripture was written about a pantheist god. It was only later; with the advent of Christianity that the god of theism was invoked and then used as a tool of oppression. A pantheist god is benign and harmless. It is only the god of theism that can punish for all eternity and who can strike you down at any moment. The pantheist god has no such power. If you were a political power, charged with the task of rewriting and reinterpreting scripture, which god would you use to help maintain public discipline and hence your own power?

The bible has been written in many different styles and literary genres. The symbolic, legendary, confessional, mythic, poetic, devotional and the historic are all examples of biblical genre. None of it was ever intended to be taken literally and none of it was ever written as a scientific document. Yet all of it can be expressed as a pantheist doctrine. Science and pantheism make very good bedfellows. Pantheism can be developed quite readily from an ‘interpretation’ of scripture. Einstein was forever invoking the pantheist god; there are very good reasons to do so.

The overthrow of theism will not come about by opposing theists head on. The reduction of theism to the history of ideas will come about by replacing it with something that is compatible with peoples need for spiritual sustenance. Pantheism fills that need, both from a rational and scientific perspective and by an appeal to an interpretation of scripture.

I had intended to move on from atheism and theism and look at pantheism but I came across an article about atheism symbols and became intrigued.

I touched upon the definition of religion in an earlier post. Religion is not just having a belief in God but extends to include purpose and worship of artefacts, places or even symbols. Proudly displaying a symbol is a basic sign of religious behaviour and it seems the atheist community are scrambling around in an attempt to come to some agreement as to what that symbol might be.

An atheism symbol certainly takes atheists one step closer to becoming a religion. Whatever next? Soon we will see organised groups of atheists taking a pilgrimage to the Galapagos Islands in tribute to their founder. Will Galapagos become the New Jerusalem? An atheist location as a place of ultimate worship, hmm, another criterion ticked for what it is that defines a religious group.

The point I wish to make is the one concerning the candidates for the new atheism symbol. One serious candidate, and a symbol which I think has become popular as a bumper sticker in North America, is the Darwinian fish. For those who haven’t seen the Darwinian fish it is the same as the Christian fish, also popular on cars but the Darwinian fish has legs attached. Now I actually think that the Darwinian fish is funny on one level, but philosophically it is not very well thought out.

A second symbol I have noticed as a candidate for the symbol of atheism is a line diagram of an atom; three long ellipses, representing the paths of electrons, orbiting a central dot which is the nucleus. This is yet another poorly thought out symbol.

It is true that some theists deny evolution and in its place they promote creationism or something else which is equally unscientific. But you do not have to promote creationism in order to be a theist. It is quite possible to be a theist and accept evolution. Evolution has no bearing on the question of whether or not there is a God of theism. Only scientific ideas which are wrapped up in philosophical materialism can oppose theism. Some scientists have all too frequently been happy to peddle the notion that evolution is necessarily materialistic, but that assumption is false. Evolution can survive on its own without any requirement of a doctrine of materialism being attached. Materialism, for the record is a philosophical position which has no foundation in science and which should not and cannot be assumed to be true. If you assert materialism as a truth then you are in effect stating a belief. I am sure that peddling beliefs as fact was another candidate for what is required for an organisation to be considered a religious group!

The atomic symbol, as should be clear already, is expressing a symbol of matter or of materialism. It is not representative of any factual representation of the world. Rather it is more representative of a materialist doctrine which has no solid grounds to be believed over any other philosophical position. Both the Darwinian fish and the atomic symbol are not an expression of disbelief but expressions of belief in materialism.

The conclusion I am working to then is; if an atheist asserts that evolution demonstrates non-theism then he is misrepresenting the facts. Evolution does not necessarily deny theism. Evolution only denies those whacko theists who believe in creationism. Creationism is not a prerequisite, or a consequence of theistic belief. If the Darwinian fish is representing evolution as an idea that is wrapped in materialism, then the atheist is no longer someone who is merely negating a belief. The atheist has now become someone who is peddling a belief in a specific and non-provable philosophy. The atheism symbol therefore takes on the role of being an assertion of a belief, rather than the negation of a belief.

The adoption of a symbol may not in itself make any statement about the religious nature or otherwise of atheist groups. Adopting the Darwinian fish or the atomic diagram in the role of atheism symbol however probably does take the position of atheism one step closer to being a religious stance.

There are a number of ways that we can compare theism and atheism. In a debate that is increasingly politicised, in the USA at least, it is important to understand the objective or emotion of any person who is engaged in such a debate. This post is a brief look at the charge levelled against atheists that they too are expressing religiousness.

The simple view would be that to compare theism and atheism is trivial as one side (theism) offers a position of belief, whilst the other (atheism) counters with the negation or rejection of that belief. However, there are a number of different ways we can make a comparison particularly when we see either side stray from the real notion of what they are in fact supporting or denying.

Emphasised in earlier posts has been the point that theism is the assertion that there is a God who exists separately from the universe that he has created. Atheism is the denial of this claim. This is the “in a nutshell” definition of what theism and atheism entails.

Many theists and atheists assume that a belief in the theistic God also necessitates a belief in the literal interpretation of the bible. It does not. Other add-ons to the basic idea of theism could include the existence of miracles, the power of intervention, and a punishment regime in the afterlife or a requirement of selfless devotion. None of these things are a requirement for a belief in theism. They are only a requirement of some particular brands of theism. You can be a theist and still not adhere to any of the principles just outlined.

Atheism has its own set of baggage which some atheists and some theists assume is a part of the denial of theism. Again, they are not.

Two of the most oft claimed notions for atheism are materialism and a particular bunch of ethical (or lack of) ethical principles. Materialism is no more a requirement of atheism than literally interpreting the bible is a requirement of theism. Atheists can have any number of beliefs concerning the underlying structure of the universe. The only thing an atheist needs to assert is that there is no theistic God. The make up of the universe from there is a subject that has no bearing on atheism. If an atheist supports the concept of an immaterial mental realm then that is quite consistent with a lack of a belief in a theistic God. So is the negation of a realm of mental phenomena.

Similarly a denial of theism no more commits an atheist to any form of moral code, nor does an atheist need to be told that he lacks a moral code. A disbelief in the god of theism does not commit an atheist to anything; other than the denial of a god who exists as a separate entity to the universe that he has created.

We can further investigate and thus compare theism and atheism from the perspective of religion. Religion is often defined by our view of God or our belief system concerning God. If we attend closely to the detail of a definition of religion however we find that it is a very difficult idea to pin down.

For example, a mere belief in God can hardly be said to make one religious. If I state that I believe in God, yet take my belief no further, neither acting on that belief nor behaving in any manner different to an atheist say, can it be said that I am religious? I would say not. A mere belief is not enough to class a person as a religious person, even if we clarify the term ‘belief’ with the caveat that we mean belief in God. Beliefs in themselves are not enough to make a person religious, if they were then we would all be religious because we all have beliefs, and that would make the term vacuous.

There are other definitions of religion which are more interesting and revealing. One such idea of religion is embraced not by a set of beliefs concerning our worldview, but with regard to our commitment to such a view, measured in terms of our devotion, the time that it consumes and our insistence in what we express being correct above all else. Further the religious have a propensity to display symbols of their belief and to engage in artefact worship.

A football supporter might be said to follow his team religiously. He will display his teams’ colours or badge and perhaps view a special programme of a previous big game as a priceless artefact. The home ground of his favourite team becomes a place of worship. The attributes we expect to be displayed by the god worshipper can often be found expressed in a person who is devoted to any number of different things. The nature of religion is very difficult to define so that it applies only to theists.

So can an atheist ever be considered to be religious? If the definition of religion is given this broad feel then I think that it can; for example, the atheist who devotes a lot of time to promoting his view, or lack thereof. Who wears a spaghetti monster badge or bumper sticker and who dreams of making a pilgrimage to the Jerusalem of atheism, Galapagos. Finally the atheist who insists that science will at some future time explain everything or who insists that at some future time it will be proven that mental phenomena are fully reducible to matter. All of these things indicate a religiosity or blind purpose which is a manifestation of belief.

So when we compare theism and atheism, it is not just a comparison of the bare facts of each we should investigate. Theists who believe in a god who created the universe and who is a separate entity to that universe can be benign and not particularly religious. An atheist who denies theism but attaches a string of irrelevant ideas to his atheism whilst promoting his world view with zeal can manifest as more religious than the god believer. The dealing of the notions involved can be dealt with in a calm and rational way. It is those who become emotionally involved who tend to become religiously involved, and that kind of person can surface on both sides of the debate.

When we compare theism and atheism, the religious nature of the combatants is of interest. It is not merely the system of belief which dictates a person’s religiousness, but also the determination and emotional commitment which a person invests in to that belief. To that end, it is clear that some atheists can quite readily be classed as religious just as some theists could be viewed as irreligious.