I don't think this article is all that interesting; in fact, the article exhibits what I'd consider to be a grossly distorted regression to 1880s Nietzchean philosophy. It would have been better, in my opinion, to follow him more closely.
I found it amusing, for example, that the first in-text quote comes from a guy named Dean Over(uber)man. Is that made up?
It's easy, and rightly so, for a writer to say:
"I do not claim to know infallibly that the scientific method is the only or the best route to profound truths about the universe. But let those who think they possess a better one — divine revelation, infallible intuition, secure faith? — argue for it and demonstrate its efficacy and superiority."
But you have to realize the problem with God is that the best way he communicates is through action. That is, as Soren K. would have said, the praxis would reveal the theory. It's also easy for us to point, thus, to all the terrible practices of religion, and then to say: Ah Hah! False praxis must mean false theory!
I won't argue otherwise.
As for prayer, what conception of God does it imply? Either God constantly needs to have his attention directed and needs advice or else is vain and needs to be constantly flattered and groveled to.
What if God is the person of Christ within us? Prayer-- this talking to oneself, in my opinion-- becomes a way of communicating with the Christ inside. Do you think that Jesus Christ, by any account in the Bible, needed attention or flattering?
If, instead, God has characteristics so beyond human experience as to be incomprehensible to human beings — another familiar doctrine — how can anyone know that he needs or welcomes propitiation by prayer and ceremonies?
Then why not do it? That is, if it leads to ethical life (not saying it does!), why not? Inner spiritual practice is quite necessary for a lot of people to act morally. The communication with God, or, in the case of pantheism or atheism oneself, we have to remember that the objective is not always begging for things to go our way. Simone Weil, German mystic, had written once that prayer is the highest form of attention. She meant toward God, toward the state of existence, toward being. Would God (who has been equated also with
love) not "want" this? Isn't that what Christ came to do-- liberate people from suffering, among other things? If we're referring to pantheism, it doesn't necessarily want anything except what we want for ourselves. Peace isn't "moral" in any absolute way, but as Kant would say...it makes sense.
Next comes a topic that it may be embarrassing to admit brooding about. Still, it is what religion — Christianity, anyway — is all about: salvation, getting to heaven.
...snippity...
Blaise Pascal's Wager.
That wager recommends worshiping God and trying to believe in him because nothing is lost if he does not exist, whereas disbelief in an actual God might bring eternal damnation.
I agree that Pascal's Wager convinced me just the opposite of what was intended. However, it should be remember that some people believe Jesus meant that the Kingdom of God was present now, and so we should act accordingly. A follower of Christ would see, then, no difference between his life (which was in God's hands) and life in heaven (which also is in God's hands). I think the deferred-heaven makes for nihilism. A present kingdom of God, from the vision of the Bible, is here and now-- immediacy, as I like to say, is the only way to eternity. I won't lie and say I believe that's the majority decision about Christianity, or about what it means to follow Jesus, but it does exist.
My last real nit about the piece is that it avoids Christianity's obsession with purity, the obsession with light, the obsession with dualism that their agnostic and nontheist counterparts really should be speaking out about.
Thanks for sharing, at any rate.
AMC
