[Oe List ...] A review of Charles Taylor's "The Secular Society"

Tue Jul 9 16:45:49 PDT 2013

David,

I would live your faith any day.

I don't mean to inject a negative energy into commenting on Michael Dowd.
He stands for a position, that deserves a hearing. He certainly adheres to
his creed himself. He is a personal friend though he knows we look at
things differently. He and Connie stayed with us for three days in May.

So pretending we don't know who this comes from me, let me offer some
writings from the blog post I referenced that may show a conflation of
religion and science. And then I'll following it with things he says that
hedges the matter and arguably are inconsistent with his basic stance;

First the conflation:

*A Manifesto for the New Theism*

A new breed of theist is emerging in nearly every denomination and religion
across the globe, and many of us are grateful to the New
Atheists<http://evolutionarytimes.org/?id=4062053276054322992> for
calling us out of the closet. Just as today's crop of bestselling
unbelievers are echoing what was said a hundred years ago, New Theists are
re-articulating themes that ignited liberal sensibilities of the 19th and
20th centuries <http://bootstrapmonkey.com/2012/03/21/the-god-shaped-hole/>.

New Theists are *not* believers; we're evidentialists. We value scientific,
historic and cross-cultural evidence over ancient texts, religious dogma or
ecclesiastical authority. We also value how an evidential worldview
enriches and deepens our communion with
God<http://www.thankgodforevolution.com/node/2010>
-Reality-Life-Universe-Mystery-Wholeness.

. . . .

New Theists view religion and religious language through an empirical,
evidential, evolutionary lens, rather than through a theological or
philosophical one. Indeed, an ability to distinguish subjective and
objective reality -- practical
truth<http://evolutionarychristianity.com/blog/practical-truth-vs-factual-truth/>
(that
which reliably produces personal wholeness and social coherence) from factual
truth<http://evolutionarychristianity.com/blog/practical-truth-vs-factual-truth/>
(that
which is measurably real) -- is one of the defining characteristics of New
Theists.

. . . .

*Reality is our God, evidence is our scripture, integrity is our religion,
and contributing toward a healthy future is our mission.*

By "reality is our God <http://www.thankgodforevolution.com/node/2010>" we
mean that honoring and working with what is *real*, as evidentially and
collectively discerned, and then creatively imagining what *could be*, is
our ultimate concern and commitment.

By "evidence is our
Scripture<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-michael-dowd/the-evidential-reformation-humanity-comes-of-age_b_1421966.html>"
we mean that scientific, historic and cross-cultural evidence provide a
better understanding and a more authoritative map of *how things are*
and *which
things matter* (or *what is real* and *what is important*) than do ancient
mythic writings or handed-down wisdom.

By "integrity is our
religion<http://evolutionarychristianity.com/blog/big-integrity-resources-growing-in-right-relationship-to-reality/>"
we mean that living in right relationship to reality and helping others and
our species do the same is our great responsibility and joy.

By "contributing toward a healthy future is our
mission<http://evolutionarychristianity.com/blog/big-integrity-resources-growing-in-right-relationship-to-reality/>"
we mean that working with people of all backgrounds and beliefs in service
of a vibrant future for planet Earth and all its gloriously diverse species
is our divine calling and privilege.

Now where he hedges:

New Theists are not supernaturalists; we're naturalists. We are inspired
and motivated far more by *this* world and *this* life than by promises of
a future *other*world or *after*life. This does not, however, mean that we
diss uplifting or transcendent experiences, or disvalue mystery. We don't.
But neither do we see the mystical as divorced from the natural.

New Theists differ from traditional theists in the same way that secular
Jews differ from fundamentalist Jews. Most of us do value traditional
religious language and rituals, and we certainly value community. We simply
no longer interpret literally any of the otherworldly or
supernatural-sounding language in our scriptures, creeds and doctrines.
Indeed, we interpret all mythic "night
language<http://evolutionarychristianity.com/blog/day-night-language-public-private-revelation/>"
as one would interpret a dream: metaphorically, symbolically.

New Theists practice what might be called a "practical
spirituality<http://evolutionarychristianity.com/blog/big-integrity-resources-growing-in-right-relationship-to-reality/>."
Spirituality for us means the mindset, heart-space and tools that assist
one in growing in integrity <http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/2012> (i.e.,
in right relationship to reality) and supporting others and our species in
doing the same. It also means an interpretive stance that can be counted on
to deliver hope in times of confusion, solace in times of sorrow and
support for handling life's inevitable challenges.

New Theists don't *believe *in God. We *know* that throughout human history
the word "God" has always and everywhere been a meaning-filled
interpretation, a mythic and inspiring
personification<http://www.thankgodforevolution.com/node/2010> of
forces and realities incomprehensible in pre-scientific times.

. . . .

New Theists are religious
naturalists<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_naturalism>.
Crucially, we value religion and religious heritage not only as a personal
preference but also for its historic role in fostering
cooperation<http://www.metanexus.net/blog/evolutionary-significance-religion-multi-level-selection>
at
scales far larger than our instincts alone could have achieved (*also
here<http://thegreatstory.org/macneill.pdf>
 and here <http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/2075>*).

Maybe tomorrow I'll comment on his view of the centrality of evolution . .
. as understood from an *emergentist* perspective.

Herman

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 6:19 PM, David Dunn <dmdunn1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 9, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Herman Greene <hfgreenenc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Now this is an incomplete response and there is much more to be said,
> including some positive things about Michael's approach. By the way, in
> some senses I am a religious naturalist, but along the lines of process
> theology. See
> Reenchantment without Supernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion
> (Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of...<http://www.amazon.com/Reenchantment-without-Supernaturalism-Philosophy-Religion/dp/0801486572/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1373406412&sr=8-10&keywords=David+Ray+Griffin>
>  by David Ray Griffin<http://www.amazon.com/David-Ray-Griffin/e/B000APTCK4/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_10?qid=1373406412&sr=8-10> (Nov
> 16, 2000). In the process approach there's plenty of transcendence as well
> as immanence, and religious knowledge is not only what can be known through
> the five senses and logic. There are other ways of knowing.
>
>
>
> I think of myself as an avid scientist. What I believe is secondary and
> derivative of what I experience, with gratitude to the RS-I and Frank, Amy,
> Lyn, et al. I find myself thinking these days, "I don't believe in God, I
> have a God Hypothesis."
>
> I observe in more ways than I can name a mystery, depth, and greatness in
> the world (and dozens of et ceteras that I'll lump under the category
> gracious and holy mystery) that come at me in the form of relationships and
> events, inside me and outside me. It's all sustaining and energizing, etc.,
> etc.
>
> My God hypothesis (for which read: narrative of what to expect) gives me
> eyes to see. My hypothesis is a narrative about trinitarian dynamics
> (limits, possibilities, freedom) and it has been uniformly and reliably
> predictive for over 40 years now. It's saved my life, one might say.
>
> Rather than "do you believe in God?" I prefer to ask, "What are our images
> of God? Are they predictive of life experience? Do they give us eyes to
> see?"
>
> I toy with images of myself as contemplative or mystic or inveterate
> listener or ceaseless questioner. All of them, really, are about
> constantly, unobtrusively observing, testing my hypothesis, refining my
> images of the way life is, and looking again, to see if I can see more of
> what is there and what is real.
>
> I think I'd better read Dowd, Griffin, and Brooks, to see what all the
> energy is about.
>
> I go a bit berserk at the endless, mindless contraversy about conflict
> between religious belief and scientific knowledge.
>
> David
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> David Dunn
> 740 S Alton Way 9B
> Denver, CO 80247
> 720-314-5991
> dmdunn1 at gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OE mailing list
> OE at lists.wedgeblade.net
> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
>
>

-- 
__________________________________________________
Herman F. Greene
2516 Winningham Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
919-942-4358 (ph & fax)
hfgreenenc at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe-wedgeblade.net/attachments/20130709/2f9403ce/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DMD sm-sqr-Nov12.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 19325 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe-wedgeblade.net/attachments/20130709/2f9403ce/attachment.jpg>