Spotlight on Atheism and Humanism V: Interview of Greg Epstein

       

       To my knowledge, religious criticism, as a comparison with art criticism, is a project of my own creation (if anyone knows differently please let me know). With that caveat, I would encourage any critic to practice self-criticism; not practicing self-criticism is a discredit to your project, doubly so if you are starting from scratch. I have had the good fortune to interview and learn from Greg Epstein, a humanist chaplain and leader of the Humanist Hub (featured in my previous post).

         

        One important lesson I learned from the following interview is always re-read someone’s book directly before interviewing them. Reading a book with the purpose of asking the author questions will help you immensely, regardless of your perceived familiarity with it.

        Epstein was polite and expanded on points he made in his book and due to his patience this interview is of great value to those wishing to better understand this version of humanism.

  

Q: Is the Humanist Hub religious?

A: No. Anthropologically speaking, if you are a follower of Clifford Geertz, sure it’s religious. So it depends on your definition, but we have to make a decision and to avoid confusion we are not religious.

Q: I’m generally a Durkheimian, is the Humanist Hub religious in this respect?

A: In many ways it is a religion, if using other theorists, Weber Rappaport and others.

Q: I noticed in your service and on your website you emphasize ‘reason’. What do you mean by ‘reason’?

A: We do use reason, but we use it less than other humanistic organizations. For instance, there is the United Coalition of Reason. But we are less enthusiastic about it being primary and we don’t have a monopoly on the term.

Reason corresponds to thinking about reality and connotes using all faculties of investigation. It is not wishing that reality is something else. Steven Pinker, the cognitive scientist, says reason is the ability to use our highest intellectual functions that have evolved to solve problems.

Q: I generally like to ask a question or two about the organization. What was it like recently switching from solely serving Harvard students to serving the broader community? For instance, did it go smoothly?

A: I don’t think smoothly is descriptive, because human communities hardly ever go smoothly. But it has gone well. There is a huge demand for this type of organization and a huge non-religious population that really does want community in a professionally facilitated way.

It is becoming increasingly well facilitated. The Humanist Hub is not funded by Harvard. But to be affiliated we have to spend a significant percentage serving Harvard students. We have broadened the scope to serve dozens more.

Q: In your book you state that a better question about God is “what do you believe about God.” So what do you believe about God?

A: Like I say in my book, I believe that God is the most influential literary character created. More is explained about the world, more about ourselves through this concept. It’s empowering to have all of these things fall into place with greater clarity of the universe and ourselves.       

Q: Is humanism a logical conclusion of the Protestant Reformation?

A: Organized humanism is not a natural product of the Protestant Reformation, but more accurately a product of human experience. There are humanist ideas in both Eastern and Western traditions. It’s global and the way you presented the question presents humanism as being Eurocentric, as if it’s THE experience of humanism.

Different cultures have just as much to say about humanism. There is more said in the ancient Indian traditions about atheism and agnosticism then in the entire ancient Greek cannon.

Q: What is the inherent nature of humankind? Are we inherently good or inherently bad?

A: There is no simplistic answer. Evolution has no moral design. We evolved both to cooperate and to be selfish. Humans continue expanding the circle of human concern, as argued by Peter Singer and Martha Nussbaum. We are trying to become conscious of our own evolution. And we are imperfect in this attempt.

Humanism isn’t about human perfection or human perfectibility; it is recognizing that we are only human.  

Bottom Line:

       

            After the interview, I unexpectedly spent a lot of time thinking about the question: “How Western is humanism?” And I am very grateful to Epstein for bringing this question to my attention. My view on this question has evolved and is still evolving. I currently believe that humanist-like ideas are extremely widespread (historically and globally), but that humanism as a belief system and as a way of life is primarily contemporary and Western.

     

        My primary concern is the applicability of translation; Eastern religions often have different metaphysical systems (underlying assumptions about the universe) than Western ones. For instance, Confucianism’s cosmology/metaphysics starts with the individual and addresses their participation in the cosmos. In Confucianism, there is no God, and perhaps not even a static order to the universe. Epstein’s Humanist Hub is a ‘godless congregation,’ in the context of a God-filled society.

        What would such an organization look like inside a context that stresses God/gods less (i.e. many Eastern societies)? Would one call less theistic traditions ‘humanistic religions’? How would/does humanism change these less theistic religious cosmologies? How would/do less theistic religious cosmologies change humanism?

        All of these questions point to the difficulty of translating abstract concepts, like humanism, from one context to another. These questions are potentially answerable and likely someone has already written on these questions. (If you know of someone working on the translation of humanist concepts and worldviews between Eastern and Western traditions, please comment).

        These difficult questions are the beginning of a conversation, not the end; I welcome responses.   

Spotlight on Evangelical Christianity V: An interview with Walter Kim, Associate Pastor at Park Street Church

Walter Kim is the associate pastor of Park Street Church, a historical evangelical church in the epicenter of downtown Boston. The church has over 2000 weekly attendance and about 1000 members and is the second largest church in Boston.

Before answering my questions Walter wanted to know more about my project. So first, we had a conversation about my methods and my experiences with religion. I told him about my evangelical upbringing, my ‘conversion’ to New Atheism in my late teens and early 20s, and my current position that the New Atheists are being unhelpful in the conversation about religion. I told him that I think their main problem (though not the only problem) is that they define religion strictly in terms of belief and adherence to sacred texts, instead of a more nuanced conception of religion like Emile Durkheim’s, that religion is about communities that share beliefs and rituals. Collective experiences are important to reinforce community in Durkheim’s view, in contrast to William James conception that emphasizes individual mystical experiences. I also let him know that my current methodology is simply to listen to and observe examples of particular religions and assess these examples of religion based on merits and follies, and that religion is not an entity that is capable of being all good or all bad.  

(As always the opinions expressed by Walter are his and his alone, and is not necessarily representative of Christianity, evangelicalism, or even Park Street Church. I have tried to reproduce his opinions as exactly as possible, where I have failed in doing so I ask forgiveness. My questions and comments are denoted by ‘RC’ for Religion Critic and Walter’s responses are denoted by ‘WK’)

RC: Perhaps I've spoiled the pot, but the first question I start with is what do you think religion is?

WK: No you haven’t spoiled the pot at all, religion encompasses collective and individual experiences, and we mostly agree with your conception of religion. But, I would add belief in some type of transcendence or a concern with ultimacy. This Durkheimian conception of religion does fit my particular Christian faith. We may argue about where to split the pie, but we both seem to have similar conceptions. The human component also cannot be denied.   

RC: What is Christianity?

WK: Belief that God revealed himself in Christ to reconcile the human with God. I stand in a long line of Christians that include St. Augustine and the billions of Christians living today. As a Christian, I affirm the belief in God, including the Trinity, but there has to be an experiential aspect to it. It has a transformative effect that was both unexpected and unavoidable after the fact. Finally, it means being incorporated into a family of believers. When I read Plato or Aristotle, as wise as they are, I am not transformed by them. And there was a large transformation, I saw it in my father and then I saw it in myself. Philosophers have great things to say but I don’t feel the same way about Socrates as I do Jesus.

(This was unsurprising given his sermon talking about how he hopes that every Christian will have a tree stump experience. Historically, this is similar to the Calvinist position that converts need to have a definite conversion experience).  

RC: Would you be surprised that many people I talk to claim that Christianity isn't a religion?

WK: What do they say it is?

RC: Typically they say it’s a relationship with God.  

WK: (Laughs) I understand why they say that, and in different circumstances I might say the same thing. But even though Christianity is a relationship with God, it still fits the criteria we were discussing earlier to count as a religion. As a religion I think Christianity should be studied psychologically or sociologically. If Christianity doesn't have positive psychological benefits then there is something awry, either in its application or in its essence. So IF Christianity is true then there should be these effects and why wouldn't we want them investigated.

RC: One question that came up when I told people I was meeting with you was how as such a large church how do you meet the spiritual needs of your individual congregants?

WK: That’s an excellent question, because here it is the perennial question. People choose churches based on the experience they want. A small church experience is much different than a large church experience. Here we are able to offer a wide variety of excellent resources. For instance, we have an excellent children’s program that puts on a concert and they could compete with other great children’s choirs, it really is an excellent show. But, I cannot meet with everyone that walks through the door. People are sometimes surprised when I say ‘hey, do you want to grab a cup of coffee.’ They ask ‘do you have the time,’ and frankly I don’t have time to do this with everyone all the time, but I like doing this sort of thing. At a small church you could do this sort of thing more often.  So the main challenge for a larger church is solving the intimacy problem. We do have a large number of small groups that meet in people’s homes to provide some of this intimacy. We have several international students and small groups can cater to this need. We have groups that meet to discuss the Bible in Arabic, Chinese, and other languages. They share a great meal have great conversations. There is no presumption that you have to be Christian to join and no question is off-limits.

RC: Technically Park Street is a megachurch, what do you think of the megachurch phenomenon?

WK: Speaking strictly sociologically I think it is caused by the urbanization of America as well as a change in people’s affinity groups. There are less rural areas to be churched and the growth of megachurches is, in part, a result of Americans leaving rural areas for cities. A place like Park Street is just not possible in rural Oklahoma. Also, there has been a change in affinity groups. People no longer will necessarily know who their neighbors are, but will walk 20 minutes to meet their friends at a bar or restaurant. This is a change in how things were in a past. Boston is a slight exception to this since there are still many who identify as a Southie or with another neighborhood in Boston, but largely, even in Boston this is what happens. You aren't necessarily going to go to the same restaurant that your parents went to because it was your restaurant, you’re going to yelp the best Chinese food or best fondue in Boston and meet your friends there. Likewise you are not necessarily going to go to the closest church that was a part of your neighborhood, but rather find a church that has the experience you want. Whether this be a small church or a larger church.

At this point Walter thanked me for the conversation and let me know that he had another appointment and invited me to have another conversation with him at a later date. When I asked him if anything about the conversation was off limits, he said no, but he felt as if he did not focus on the spiritual enough given the emphasis on the psychological and sociological. In particular he thought that God was, in some fashion, involved in the rise of the urban megachurches. I did obtain permission to ask one last question.

RC: What or who is God?

WK: Stated simply, God has revealed himself through Christ and the Holy Spirit. When we say God is love, there needs to be a beloved. And even before us, God was a trinity and gave and experienced this love with Himself. The trinity is a mystery, but God is infinitely complex and I am a finite person. It makes sense that I would not be able to fully understand this complexity. Steven Pinker (the famous psychologist) admits to not being able to understand consciousness, the simple ability to consciously raise my arm, he admits is not yet understood. If we can’t understand consciousness, something we live with every day, how can we understand God?

RC: Yeah, I always thought that if you were going to be a Trinitarian you should just be a fideist about it, that is simply take it on faith.

WK: There are analogies.

RC: Yes, but they don’t work, they are usually part/whole relations.

WK: True, and Christians shouldn't be afraid of faith. All faith is, is admitting that you are a fallible human being who can’t understand the infinite. There is a mystery here. I have faith that there are stars past what I can visibly see with my eyes. I have faith that the Hubble telescope isn’t lying to me about this, and I think that the New Atheists should be more honest about the role faith plays in their own conceptions of the world. 

RC: They really are staunch empiricists.

WK: They are, and empiricism cannot be proved by the methods of empiricism.  

RC: Yeah, there is a part in God is Not Great, where Hitchens says he isn’t doing metaphysics, then cites a Buddhist verse about the ‘nature of things’

(laughs) It’s ironic how unself aware they are about their own beliefs. Whether it be science for Dawkins or philosophy with Hitchens they never seem to realize they are being this unreflective. But there are unreflective Christians as well. This isn't unique to atheism, it’s a human thing.

Bottom line:

Like many good conversations, this almost seemed like we were scratching the surface. At this point, I usually offer up some critique or interesting interpretation, but in honesty the positions were nuanced enough that I would be nitpicking or stating obvious differences between our positions. A brief reminder to my readers, criticism requires understanding and even compassion. The idea is not to bash every believer for little or no reason, but to engage them and criticize when necessary and only after you understand.

However, there are a few common threads I would like to point out. Tim Keller, in his book, The Reason for God, stated that God was in a perpetual dance of love. That God is primarily relational and in this loving relationship with Himself, such that it makes sense to say that God is love. This is almost identical to the aspect of God that Walter has described. I also have no doubt that both Tim Keller and Walter Kim have experienced this love personally. However, we will of course differ on the interpretation of these experiences. I believe that these experiences are a result of humans getting together and experiencing the same thing, similar to how a teenager can go to a rock concert and get a similar sort of experience or a sports fan watching his sports team play in the championship live. When religious experiences are solitary, I believe that people are remembering how they induced this feeling with a group and replicating it in their solitude. But I have to admit this is difficult problem for a strict follower of Durkheim. Some experiences are more difficult than others to describe in this fashion and this should not be taken as a working theory, but my informed opinion about religious experience. My primary current goal is NOT to work on this theory from the biology or from the sociology, but rather describe, attempt to make some sense of what I observe, and criticize when necessary.