A different type of blog article ... more convoluted! Michael Bazemore has an interesting post titled "Common Problems, Uncommon Grounds- A Matter of Trust" which posits "... in this meeting of the minds between religious believers and non-believers, on any topic is going to be this trust issue". It sounded a good argument as I started to read, but I think now that this is a straw man built on the position that religion is inherently an emergent property of social structures, and hence unreal at it's core. Consequently, this allows the non-theist to group theists into one camp and begin to build an argument on generalizations about a homogeneous category of people who live by a falsehood. There are two problems here: first is the assumption that theism is a social construct, and second is the grouping of all (non-)theists into two camps of like-motivated people when it comes to trust between the groups. First, the assumption that theism is a social construct. As with any assumptions one must necessarily consider the possibility that the assumption is false. What if there is a God? What if this God is knowable in relationship? What does this do to the subsequent reasoning? For if the assumption is false, then the debate of trust with non-theists is skewed to become one where it's not my belief against yours, but where I am standing in the shadow of One who made you, and who has a definite opinion on the matter. Thus our disagreement is not between me and you, but between you and God with whom I am merely aligned. Now let me clarify, this only really works where there is relationship between me and God. I cannot claim any authority in debate unless I have relationship with God. Else, that would be like me saying as a foreigner that "I like your presidents policy, therefor I have authority to argue with you". No, in that context I can merely say "I like your presidents policy, I choose to take it up as my policy, but without any authority of association". Because the authority of association is rooted in a recognized relationship. Second, I suggest that the issue of trust between theists and non-theists is a bit of a straw man, because of the imhomogenity of the two categories. It needs a more nuanced treatment. As a Christian I trust (non-)theists not because of their stated position of (non-)theism, but by the measure of their philosophy of living as expressed in their actions. That is, they have a moral framework: it may be relativistic or not, and it may be rooted in theism or not, but it is always disclosed by their actions in a way that often confounds their spoken statement of (non-)belief. So my trust is built on, and grows through experience of a persons actions. There are many who profess a position that has no bearing on their action. I profess to believe that the great wall of China exists, and that the world is round. Neither of these facts influence my actions in anyway (unless I were planning to go see the great wall of China or venture into space). I find many "theists" whose lives belies their stated belief. Such as Christians, to be more specific, who do not really seem to be trying to live like Christ. For Christianity especially (which is the one religion where relationship with God is at the heart of the matter) I suggest that many western Christians live instead by the dogma of Christianity, not the relationship with Christ. It's like trying to live with my spouse by the law of the marriage certificate, rather than by relationship. This makes all the difference in how the faith in my spouse's love for me is translated into my marriage, and equally how my faith in God is translated into actions. Likewise I also find many non-theists whose actions reflect the opposite of their words, and who display by their actions a fundamental belief in absolute values. Especially in times of stress and threat when their non-theism seemingly goes out the window. So, yes: I do think the issue of trust between people around critical issues such as climate change is central. But for many people I do not think their (non-)theism is very influential, and is rather used more commonly as a tool, argument, or weapon in their struggle for power. Sad indeed.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|