I'd be interested to learn how yours and Dowd's perspective differ.
-----Original Message-----
From: Herman Greene <hfgreenenc@gmail.com>
To: Order Ecumenical Community <oe@lists.wedgeblade.net>
Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 6:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] A review of Charles Taylor's "The Secular Society"
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
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-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 (that which reliably produces personal wholeness and social coherence) from 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" 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" 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" we mean that living in right relationship to reality and helping others and our species do the same is our great responsibility and joy.
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 otherworld or afterlife. 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" as one would interpret a dream: metaphorically, symbolically.
New Theists practice what might be called a "
practical spirituality." Spirituality for us means the mindset, heart-space and tools that assist one in
growing in integrity (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 of forces and realities incomprehensible in pre-scientific times.
. . . .
New Theists are
religious naturalists. Crucially, we value religion and religious heritage not only as a personal preference but also for its historic role in
fostering cooperation at scales far larger than our instincts alone could have achieved (
also here and here).
Maybe tomorrow I'll comment on his view of the centrality of evolution . . . as understood from an emergentist perspective.
Herman