My first response in reading your response, is to ask - Isn't atheism simply another "in group"? You have identified religion and its agents as outsiders, and have employed a program of addressing the opposition with the goal (I presume) of creating unity through conformity with atheist beliefs. I believe I have heard that neurologists have shown that in and out, group thinking is hardwired into the brain. The implications of this would mean that no amount of conformity can ever be enough to suppress this distinction and the potential hostility it creates. I believe the Gospel presents a different strategy of dealing with otherness that ultimately resolves the hostility through love.
LeRon Shults
Hi Mike, yes, as I mentioned atheists are human too and inherit the same biases. But neurological studies also show that once in-group biases are triggered atheists contest them faster than believers, and that - in general - they are not as prone to worry about in-groups in the first place. Again, I am not saying atheism is "the answer," and I completely agree that the goal is to deal with hostility toward otherness through love... BUT does one need shared imaginative engagement with supernatural agents to show such love? The empirical research, and my personal experience, says no. If not , then why choose a supernatural coalitional strategy for promoting such love if that strategy ALSO triggers more out-group anxiety and superstitious beliefs (again, experimental studies show this is the case regardless of what pastors tell people or what people tell pastors). Why not just skip the imaginative engagement with contingently-embodied intentional forces that only one particular in-group can detect, and go straight for showing love?
mschellman
I just don't think the characterization of "shared imaginative experience," gives enough credit to the dramatic psychic experience connected to the conversion experience, or a life of faith. The former, in many cases are not often sought after, yet dramatically change the course of a person's life. They also suggest there are ultimate concerns that go beyond (but don't necessarily contradict) the pragmatic ones you mention. How would you propose to engage such people? How would you characterize them? It would seem "psychosis" would be the only appropriate response. And then what? Ultimately the disteleological worldview while consistent with the reductionistic conclusions of science, is just as unprovable as a religious worldview.
LeRon Shults
LeRon Shults
Hi Mike, these are all good questions, and I've dealt with them in "Theology after the Birth of God," including the issues of reductionism, ultimacy and psychosis (though I'm dealing with the latter more in my current book project). I remember appreciating your questions way back at Bethel, and if you get a chance to read the book some time, please do email me again and we can push the conversation further.
