Spotlight on Humanism and Atheism I: good without God book review

Sloppiness without Godliness

          

           Why should I cover atheism or humanism when they are not generally considered religions? Because there are some atheists and humanists that have developed communities that resemble evangelical churches. In the Boston area there is the Sunday Assembly and the Humanist Hub. Greg Epstein, humanist chaplain, lives in the Boston area and is the author of good without God, the subject of this book review. He argues that humanists should develop community (or a religion alternative) otherwise humanists risk sending them back to religion. He is probably right, but the execution of the book was annoyingly sloppy in a few key places.  What follows is the typical 140 word summary and then The Critique. Enjoy!

140 word summary of good without God:           

          

           Humanism is goodness without God and realizing that womb to tomb is the totality of human existence. Why and how we can be good without God are better questions than whether we can be good without God. Sociologically humanism resembles religion, but humanism differs from religion because it lacks supernaturalism. Humanists believe in subjective values that require argument. Humanism has a proud lineage from Epicurus to Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, and Darwin, to the unknown number of humanists today. Practically, the humanist message is to be passionate about preserving and advancing dignity. Dignity is an awareness that all human beings are human. This requires no God, just an awareness of other’s sufferings and celebrations. Humanism melds a comprehensive philosophy with a deeply practical and ethical social commitment. It is necessary for humanists to act together for the greater good. 

The Critique:       

           The sloppiness with Epstein’s book starts with the subtitle “What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe.” For Epstein, being ‘good without God’ is humanism and for this subtitle to be accurate one out of seven people in the world have to be nonreligious, think about their nonreligiosity, and think about what it means to be good without God. This type of humanism, with its emphasis on ‘good without God,’ is mostly restricted to the Western world. Thus, it’s unlikely that there are a billion or so humanists of this type in the world. Thus, to consistently maintain that you are adequately representing one billion nonreligious is arrogance. Luckily, he does not maintain this position consistently; he tacitly admits that ‘strivers’ those who just worry about getting more things, may be members of the world’s largest religion. Given these problems a different subtitle should have been chosen, perhaps: ‘good without God: What Everyone Needs to Know.’ Though, even this does not capture his call to action in later chapters.

           He is also sloppy in his discussion of science. He uses the phrase ‘the scientific method’ (emphasis added) as he complains that some people do not understand science. It is right and proper to hold science in high esteem, but any good introduction to the philosophy of science should convince anyone that there are multiple methodologies that scientists use, and there is no definitive definition of science. Giving Epstein the benefit of the doubt, his statement may just be poorly phrased. 

           My last example of sloppiness is a logical error. Epstein complains that people believe that you can’t be good without God because you can be evil and believe in God (e.g. Nazis and Bin Laden). This is not baffling. Essentially the first claim implies that all good people are with God, but it does not say that all people who are with God are good people. Thus, even logically, it’s possible for people to believe that you can’t be good without God and admit there are evil people who do their evil in the name of God. This is not baffling and something that many religious people will likely admit.

            So far I have just been talking about sloppiness. But there is some clear content that I find problematic, though not fatal to his project. He states that there are some people (both atheist and religious) who reject pluralism, the usual foundation for interfaith work. Pluralism is the position that diversity in religion is good and that other religious ideas have merit. While the sentiment behind interfaith is great and I would not dismiss the possibility of employment in interfaith work, excluding non-pluralists from the conversation is problematic, though perhaps necessary. But this means that interfaith organizations can devolve into liberal or moderate religious people talking only to each other about their liberalness and moderation. That being said, Epstein’s goal in this section to argue for the inclusion of atheists into these interfaith movements, not to discuss the merits or demerits of pluralistic interfaith dialogue.  

           One excellent point in the book is the observation that we should ask people what they believe about God, not if they believe in God. Asking if someone believes in God is insufficient because there are so many conceptions of God it should make your head spin. Is god omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? Is God the ‘ground of being’? Is God love? Is God a person? And there are many many more. Also, some argue that none of these conceptions do justice to a God that is supposed to be wholly other. Epstein concludes this section by stating that the further removed you are from the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent conception of God the more someone like Rick Warren, famous evangelist, will consider you closer to humanism. And if he thinks you are a humanist, why not at least ally yourself with humanism and some of the nonreligious.  

Bottom line:

                

            Because of the sloppiness, this was a mediocre book. I agree with the sentiment that people should understand science and that people should acknowledge that people can be good without God. One thing that did annoy me greatly was the subtitle. It is arrogance to claim to speak for one billion people. If there was a book about Christianity titled ‘what 2 billion Christians do believe’, I would make similar comments, because the book would end up being filled with exceptions rather than common ground. But Epstein’s book did not really even focus on commonalities, rather it was almost a call for what humanists should believe and do (i.e. create community), rather than what they do believe.   

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.