[Welcome Frank Schaeffer, and Host Peterr. As a courtesy to our guests, please keep comments to the book. Please take other conversations to a previous thread. - bev]
Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don’t Like Religion (or Atheism)
How do you follow up a book called Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of it Back? If you are Frank Schaeffer, you write Patience With God: Faith for People Who Don’t Like Religion (or Atheism).
After all, once you’ve been through a little craziness, a little patience sounds like a good idea.
If you’ve seen Frank Schaeffer interviewed on television, you know he isn’t one to sugar-coat his opinions. His take on the evangelical subculture of the GOP on Rachel Maddow last September gives you a quick sense of his style. Speaking of the “beyond crazy” folks in the religious right, he said, “Can Christianity be rescued from Christians? That’s an open question.”
Schaeffer came to FDL last June to discuss Crazy for God — an autobiographical look at his life. Now he’s back with a look at the conversations about religion taking place around him. Oh, he’s still very much a part of the conversation, but in Patience Schaeffer looks as much at the voices of others as he does at himself.
The title calls for patience with God, but it’s clear that Schaeffer has little patience for some of the people arguing about religion these days. In Part One, entitled “Where Extremes Meet,” Schaeffer looks at folks like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins in the New Atheist movement, as well as evangelical fundamentalists like Rick Warren. While many see these folks at opposite ends of the spectrum of belief, Schaeffer sees a great deal of commonality between them: showmanship, chasing a buck, and a great deal of certainty and absolutism (even in the face of evidence to the contrary).
In Part Two, entitled “Patience With Each Other, Patience With God” Schaeffer moves from critiquing the craziness of extremes to the more difficult task of putting forward his own beliefs. (It’s often easier to say what you are against rather than what you are for.) Words like “paradox” and “uncertainty” figure prominently, as does the idea of “apophatic theology” — that is, that we cannot ultimately describe God because all attempts are by definition incomplete and imperfect. It’s easier to speak of what God is not than what God is. (He also notes that this is the same kind of approach that many scientists have to their work, especially physicists. It’s easier to say what isn’t happening, ruling out false hypotheses, than it is to define what is.)
In many ways, this patience of which Schaeffer speaks boils down to knowing and accepting your own limits and imperfections. “If you have to be correct all the time, while knowing that you are wrong most of the time, you become an actor. Been there, done that.” (p. 99)
The “been there, done that” is central to this book. From his earlier years within the evangelical culture, especially its media-savvy political manifestations, he knows how that world works. Under the rubric of “it takes one to know one,” Schaeffer uses his own background to spot the actors around us.
In his own spiritual travels, Schaeffer has moved from that world into the Orthodox Church. In reading Patience, I was reminded of a conversation I had years ago with an old Russian Orthodox priest who told me that the riches of his church were found in mystery. Schaeffer has moved from a faith tradition that prizes absolute answers, and found a place more amenable to wrestling with questions. With this book, Schaeffer invites his readers who have rejected the religion of absolute answers to consider a belief system that loves discussion.
I have no idea where the conversation will go this afternoon. Much depends on who comes to chat and what questions and experiences they bring. I trust that with a bit of patience, however, the conversation will be illuminating.




187 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Frank, Welcome back to the Lake.
Peterr, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Hi, Frank Schaeffer here, thanks for having me back!
Happy for the invitation to do so, Bev.
Welcome, Frank!
Welcome to Firedoglake – glad you’re here today.
Hi me too since last being with you all I’ve been both enjoying watching and being on Grit TV great part of the Firedog family
Welcome, Mr. Schaffer. I find that I am reluctant to take a large dose of information from people who are converts. Tell me why I should read your book, please.
Hi Frank, thanks for coming. And thanks for hosting, Peterr, nice introduction.
You two make a nice pair for this conversation imo
Frank, you must get some interesting mail.
One of the interesting little elements of the book are the letters and emails that you drop into the text from time to time. There’s one on p. 185 from someone who says “. . . I don’t want to give up my faith; I just need it to make sense. . . I would love to know your opinion. Have you ever felt this way?” Your reply: “Have I ever felt this way? Only forever.”
What kind of letters have you gotten since Patience With God came out?
Hi Demi, actually I’m not a convert to anything at all. I just think the conversation between atheists and religious people should be first about the fact no one knows anything — life’s too short. So all the posturing is nonsense. So call me an un-convert. I also hope you’d like the writing. Thanks for the interest.
I consider myself to be of the New Atheist school.
And one of the things Mr Schaeffer gets wrong is in calling the new Atheists just as “fundamentalist” as the extremes of religion. It’s a common misconception of the “liberal” religions.
The truth is as long as you give credence to the concept of “faith” that being believing without evidence, you are giving an opening to the extremes of religion. “Liberal” religion quite often likes to say that their faith doesn’t take the whole book seriously, well then who are you to say that fundamentalist faith is worse than your faith? Why is one faith better than another?
That’s the problem with even allowing faith in the first place.
I very mush want to see the left and Progressive movements move away from religion. We’re far to tolerant of it. It’s no longer a concept of can’t we all just get along.
It’s the same as right and left. There are real differences between the two points, and no, we all just can’t get along. Sooner or later you have to pick a side.
Mr. Schaeffer, what do you think of the roll the Catholic bishops are playing in the healthcare debate?
I am happy to believe any religion any day any time just show me proof its real.
Hi Re letters from Patience With God… I’m amazed at the number of people who are in transition from evangelical or Catholic faith to something else. I think there is really a change going on and my book just happens to seem to tell lots of other people’s stories. I also am more aware than ever now that there are a number of people who are atheists the way I was once a Christian, really dofmatic. There’s less hate mail than I expected and lots from gay people relieved to find a friend who opens a door to faith without moralizing
I like the term “un-convert.” The other way I might describe you, based on the book, is someone who is not simply born again, but someone who is born again and again and again and again, trying to make sense of things day after day.
The chapters in Part One are pretty self contained, focused on a particular extremist, whether religious or non-religious. Was it easier to tackle the religious figures like Warren and LaHaye, or the atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens?
Hi, Frank.
Any thoughts on how it might be possible to hold accountable those on the religious right who by their teaching of intolerance and religious bigotry all but overtly endorse violence for their ends? I am speaking specifically of the murder of Dr. Tiller. Roeder (sp?) may have pulled the trigger, but the gun was loaded and cocked by the likes of Randall Terry, as well as local religious leaders.
Thanks.
A tech note: if you are replying to a specific comment, click on the “reply” button just below and to the right of that comment. This will take you down to the “leave your response” box, with a note that says “replying to XXX @ YY”. It save you having to type out who/what you are responding to, and makes it easier for the conversation to flow.
Agreed. We need to reject religion and religious thinking wherever it manifests itself. Feeling and believing are not ways of knowing.
Plus, I’m a little bit sick to death of the false equivalence between atheists and fundamentalist theists. We recognize that it is false to compare Alan Grayson to Michelle Bachmann, but people are doing the exact same thing when they compare someone like Richard Dawkins to someone like Rick Warren.
Hi re the “New Atheists” of course that’s just a media term, it’s really more about post Bush politics. If you read my book you’ll see I don’t say anything about all the so-called new atheists but have a critique of Dawkins and Hitchens in the context of a chapter on Daniel Dennett that is very favorable to him. My “beef” is with the silliness of Hitchens and the fanaticism of Hitch. I have no quarrel with atheism.
You mean to tell me Michelle BaKKKman isn’t Rick Warren in drag???
I doubt that Mr. Schaeffer is here to discuss the awesomeness of atheism.
Hi Frank, good to see you here again.
I like discussion and mystery. I grew up as a Presbyterian in a mostly Catholic town, and I longed for mystery and rituals. I remember feeling distinctly let down when it was explained to me that now, we don’t have miracles. But I wanted to believe in miracles and still want to.
IMO – Its fair game since it’s in the title of the book.
Hi yes because of course I know the evangelical territory. But the New Atheists present just as broad a target because they are as full of their certainties as the evangelicals when it comes to Hitch for instance. Others like Dennett are subtle and smart. Whereas the evangelical right is dumb across the board.
My family moved around and I was in a lot of different mainstream protestant churches. But the Catholic church was fascinating to me. One day a friend and I sneaked into the church and I remember being scared to death! Found the holy water fascinating…
I think you pretty much demonstrated the equivalence in your first line. Not much difference between your absolutism and the fundamentalist’s.
Wait I am an Atheist because I am not certain … now if there were proof of talking snakes and zombie jews then I would change my mind in a new york second.
Good point, I think the only way is to hold the “respectable” leaders on the right accountable. They need to be asked again and again why they don’t speak up against their “side” when people put out bumper stickers Psalm 109 calling for Obama’s death, or why Operation Rescue for instance didn’t turn in Tiller’s killer since they knew he was so extreme.
Oh, Loo, you’re so funny. Who could have imagined that any proselytizing would be from an atheist.
I think that they are being used by far right ideologues like Proff George at Princeton who is using his position to put together the bishops with the evangelical right with things like the Manhattan Declaration against stem cell science, women’s rights and gay rights.
Agnostic?
Speaking of people calling themselves atheists who don’t understand that there are two threads in religion, one about fundamentalist belief the other about community and the content of character. Bill Maher school of talking snakes imaginary friends is for simpletons.
In chapter 11 of the book, Frank talks about the less-than-traditional way in which he and his wife Genie began their relationship — a couple of unmarried teenagers with an unplanned pregnancy, with his parents helping her disobey her parents. Says Frank, “If my children did what we did to Genie’s parents, I’d go ballistic.”
This is *not* how lasting relationships are supposed to start. And yet, his relationship with Genie has lasted. Go figure. Or call it a paradox. Writes Frank:
Of all the chapters, this one was my favorite.
Hello, Frank. Thanks for wading in. I grew up in an evangelical home i.e. casting out of demons, speaking in tongues, et al. and managed to shake it all off of my back like a bad case of fleas. It took the better part of 30 years, but I am what most people would describe as an atheist.( Actually, I describe myself as one.) With all that being said, I would like to thank you for giving voice to the outrageousness that is the religious right, and their violent rhetoric. Doing what you’ve done must have come at great personal cost and required great personal courage. Thank you.
Now, to Peterr and part of the introduction that made me laugh out loud (albeit, not derisively) :
Wait. There’s empirical evidence of the existence of God? That’s news to me.
Hi glad you liked that, maybe that’s one reason I have a hard time with fundamentalists that are so sure they have the truth. Since I broke lots of rules and things turned out for the best in spite of everything I’m with my late pal Bob Altman the movie director who said he looked for “the truth button” in the mistakes in life.
Bill Maher didn’t invent the dogma that he mocks.
In fact rigid, doctrinaire dogmatic thinking is exactly what opens up the holder of that dogma to first, hypocrisy and then, ridicule.
I may be a simpleton but at least I don’t go around telling folks that a god that loves everyone so much he walked away and let allowed his kid to be born in a barn. A lot of us simple folks call that being a dead beat day.
Hi and thanks for the kind word. As I say in my book (or rather in this book) there are days when I’m an atheist, others when I’m an agnostic and others when I believe in God. That said I really think if people are honest they’d be less quick to embrace a label. Why? Because we change as the years go on, and also even if we decide something we wobble in our beliefs. I’d describe myself as married for instance but not in some way that means I think I’ll be married forever. People die, fall out of love, fight etc. Faith or non faith is no different. All we can say is what we think at any given moment.
The spelling and grammar police can kiss my butt :)
Hi all,
Haven’t been around hardly at all but this topic is kinda my thing.
Any religion that professes that it is the one and only way to God, salvation, perfection, etc. deserves to be challenged. There is no way to ever know what the “right” path is other than having faith that the journey we are on gives us choices to make. Will we make choices that nurture ourselves and others or will we make choices that hurt ourselves or others.
As for the religion part—it is more about binding us together in community with shared rituals, shared experiences, and shared questions. At least that’s my take on it.
Life is hard. Then the big rubber band ball we’re all part of snaps us back into Oneness. :)
I didn’t say there was empirical evidence of the existence of God. I’m talking about evidence that questions certain absolute claims and belief statements.
When fundamentalists make an absolute claim that the earth is a couple of thousand years old, they make that claim in the face of evidence from paleontologists. When Dawkins lumps all Christians into the very narrow confines of Fundamentalism, he makes that claim in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Frank,
Do you think we’re seeing battles between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists of various types across the world? Not just Islam and not just Christianity? It seems that as the world is changing in so many ways, such as through technology, we’re seeing those who cling to the past and to their own beliefs act out …
“Feeling and believing are not ways of knowing” Really? I’d hate to try and be in love with you. Speaking of absolutists who sound like they belong in the 19th C ever heard of postmodernism?
Dead beat dad not day. Sorry I had a mild stroke last year and sometimes typing now gets really hard to do.
Have you read Frank’s book?
Personally, I was impressed with how well he describes the problem of “rigid doctrinaire dogmatic thinking”
I was raised in the Christian (Disciples of Christ) Church and recall asking in Sunday School when I was 10 or 11 “what does the Christian Church believe?” Looking back on it, I was obviously asking if there was a specific dogma.
The answer I was given though has stayed with me all these years. “We believe that each person has to come to God in his/her own fashion”
Frank, as you look at politics today — something that brings you to Rachel Maddow’s show on an occasional basis — there are plenty of absolutists around. Which pose the greatest danger, in your opinion? The C Street crowd? The anti-Islam fanatics?
Good answer. You were lucky.
Behind on my reading, so I don’t have this book read yet, but I did want to stop by and say how much I look forward to reading it (probably in April). I think the general topic of religion, the problems that ‘modernity’ poses for literal readers of the Bible (or Quran) are not well analyzed in the US.
So I’ll catch up on comments, and look forward to reading this book within the next 6 weeks.
Look everyone heads up! We are an eye blink from single celled organisms, been here seconds and so all statements of cosmological certainty are plain dumb be that St. Paul or St. Dawkins. Check back in 100,000 years and we’ll see what it all was about… maybe
Following up on Peterr’s 47, if the anger and fanaticism of the teabaggers really starts getting violent‚which it has great potential to do—what role do you see the figureheads of the religious right taking?
When my father was in seminary (Episcopalian), one of the existential questions was whether one marooned by oneself on an island could be a Christian, such was the importance of community.
FWIW, I think that this is something that I’m seeing (Pacific Northwest), and I’m trying to make sense of it. I hope that your book will help.
Check out the right wing in all its forms. they have lost faith in this country. The right is now anti-American. They are arming to protect themselves against whom? Our government, and the rest of us. So to me the right across the board is the threat. I talk about their victim mentality in my book.
I’m turning the title around. I think God has got to be truly patient with us.
Frank,
Have you had any experience at all with Unitarian Universalists (the DFH’s of disorganized religion)?
Hi read my chapter on their apocalyptic expectation, they’ll be rooting for “The End.”
Thanks for being here today, Frank.
And thanks for hosting, Peterr. I think your question is excellent.
Frank, where do you see the greatest danger emanating from these days?
Good afternoon Mr Schaeffer. I was just reading how there are so many parents who homeschooled their children who are now finding out that their kids can’t take college science without taking a lot of remedial science classes because the text books they used had far too much god and far too little science. I wonder how you feel about parents homeschooling their children with emphasis on the bible and thus limiting their future options? It turns out that despite what the teevee preachers say, science isn’t an opinion at all.
No, I haven’t read the book.
edit: sorry, that was in reply to RGB @45.
Even the leadership? I find it hard to believe they actually believe it all. It always appears that the leaders are first class opportunists. I don’t see much opportunity in the rapture.
30 % of young evangelicals voted for Obama, more and more evangelicals are sick of the right and on the theology side its more and more about character and less and less about theology
Frank, you tell a great story in the book about being in a boarding school, and getting woken up and hauled in to the headmaster’s office for some bad behavior. The punishment you were given was surprising, and obviously made a great impression on you to change your behavior. I won’t retell the story, but your conclusion to it was quite powerful.
I kept coming back to these words, thinking of various public figures and the kind of leadership they offer. I though of Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. I thought of other local figures I’ve come across.
Sadly, it’s easier to come up with leaders who *don’t* lead and teach and inspire in this way.
Who might some other examples from politics be, that follow in the path of Mr. Parke?
God, as Mr. Lennon once suggested, is a concept by which we measure our pain.
And then there is this rendition from XTC:
Dear God, hope you got the letter, and…
I pray you can make it better down here.
I don’t mean a big reduction in the price of beer
But all the people that you made in your image, see
Them starving on their feet ’cause they don’t get
Enough to eat from God, I can’t believe in you
Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but… I feel that I should be heard
Loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
And all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
In the street ’cause they can’t make opinions meet about God,
I can’t believe in you
Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
Mankind after we made you? And the devil too!
Dear God, don’t know if you noticed, but… your name is on
A lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
Should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
Image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain’t, and
So do you, dear God, I can’t believe in I don’t believe in
I won’t believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
Devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You’re always
Letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
Drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it’s the same the
Whole world ’round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody’s unholy hoax,
And if you’re up there you’d perceive that my heart’s here upon
My sleeve. If there’s one thing I don’t believe in
It’s you…
Does God exists? And, of course, which one?
Certainly, given human history and the ghastly nature of natural disasters, if God does exists He certainly is not a loving, just and merciful entity. Indeed, if He is both omniniscient and omnipotent He can only be described realistically as one sadistic bastard. And the question of theodicy is, as always, the most relevant poke at God’s alleged domain.
Besides, if God exists and is omniscient then He knows everything. And if He knows everything then human autonomy must be but an inherent manifestation of that. So, no free will and what does it really mean to speak of faith in God. It’s not like we have a choice in the matter.
Belief in an actual denominational God is something only the weakest or most indoctrinated of minds could swallow. Sorry, but I can’t respect the mind of someone who would embrace Christianity or Islam or Judaism.
The only reason I have left to believe in God is that without Him all the terrible pain and suffering we know of [and don't know of] is as essentially meaningless and absurd as existence itself is.
How depressing.
The leadership is like all leadership: the very act of leading changes people, and in the case of religion leads to wanting to control other people’s lives. I’d say few evangelical leaders believe anything these days. Read about Franklin Graham’s power grab and weird behavior in my book as an example.
flat!
At the risk of being OT, long time no see and hope you’re doing well…you DFH you :)
Well at huge risk I’ll say I think that 10 years from now we’ll look back at Obama as the real deal. He has the makings of a great leader. The sad thing is that if he fails one reason is that he thought he would get a break from religious people by having rick Warren etc in the front room, no such luck! As Iay in the book they only thing the evangelical right won’t forgive is not hating enough!
Howdy Peg!
As well as you know me, you can be sure I’m formulating my next observation and question about this topic. :)
I don’t think anyone can know anything about a god if any other than that we humans are machines who strangely seek meaning. That might indicate something…
FWIW, I’ve seen a bit of this ‘up close and personal’, and it scares the daylights out of me. Very well-intentioned people whose kids are in very ‘protected’ environments of homeschooling networks. (Where I live, local school districts have tried to offer P/T classes for homeschoolers, and not all homeschoolers are evangelicals. But it’s a huge, mostly ‘under-the-media radar’ movement as near as I can tell.)
Which is another reason that I’m really looking forward to reading this book (!).
mail on the way to you.
Thanks for this; it synchs with several young evangelicals that I’ve seen. The only place that I’ve really spotted it in reading, or the ‘media’ is in Jim Wallis’s “The New Awakening”.
It’s the extreme mindsets, which blur religion with politics, that are just almost impossible to deal with (at least, in my personal experience). Any insights in your book will be much appreciated!
I was raised Catholic and went to Notre Dame in the time of Vatican II. I simply do not understand the hostility that so many atheists have to organized religion I was taught when I consider what I learned from the good Pope John XXIII. I can’t imagine any objection to the teachings and the acts that would follow from those teachings.
Mr. Shaeffer, do you regularly attend worship service?
My “REPLY” is not working. To: #68.
Thank you for your comment. Will you please describe what gives you that confidence/optimism about the President? I hope you are on the mark way more than I can say. Thanks.
I know a woman who homeschooled her children and the one who is old enough to be in college is and just made the Dean’s list. But she is as anti theist as I am and taught her children science as opposed to the pseudo science religion crap they get out of most of the home schooling texts. I have a real problem though with science museums who allow in religious homeschool groups who proceed to bash the science of evolution, geology, etc. In my opinion, they are just abetting ignorance.
I both suffered from home schooling and also helped start (sorry!) the flight to home schooling in the 70s as we told people to protect their children from the big bad World! What we have now is a fifth column in out country who have been told America is a horrible place and that their job is to change it into a theocracy. Many come from the home school movement, not surprising since the Reconstructionists like RJ Rushdoony started it and he believed that democracy was treason to God’s “sovereignty” these guys would turn us into their version of Iran and they are serious!
Indeed Kelly. Happy birthday!
I go to a Greek Orthodox church when I go. I explain my liking for liturgy and community in my book
Wise words, sir. Thank you.
There are risks, and then there are risks . . .
*grin*
I’m not saying you’re wrong about Obama, but I’m not seeing the leadership by example and “walking with” in him that Mr. Parke had for you. Could you explain that a bit more?
When I mentioned Nelson Mandela, it was because he shaped his enemies by walking out of prison with his head high and without exacting violent revenge upon them. He demonstrated that reconciliation after apartheid was possible, and then presided over making it at least somewhat actual.
It’s the children who suffer as well as the nation! They can’t go to colleges and take science now and they have fewer options and we are less as a society for it. You’ve erred and though I’m glad you came to your senses, much harm has been done by people who home school for religious reasons. Science is not opinion. It is, in fact, the opposite of opinion.
Yup. Call me crazy, but I find comfort in those things myself.
got it. thanks.
Candidly, you indeed helped create this monster that we have in the country today.
Until your “un-convert” status, you and many who still believe as you once believed are responsible for a lot of pain and suffering and even deaths of gay people.
How do you respond to that?
As someone who says I can’t know anything of course I’m going on my gut feelings. Obama is smart and patient I think, more patient than most of the people on the left, and kinder than anyone on the right. Give him time and we’ll see but unless the rubes on the right kill him I think that he’ll go down in history as far seeing. The real question is: Is America a governable country any longer?
cannot get a break , poor saps.
Why do many people believe what they believe on faith alone and then insist that all other beliefs must be wrong?
And why are many of them more concerned with preaching their faith than with practicing it in their everyday lives?
I’ve always gone out of my way to be respectful of peoples’ beliefs. Until the Christians began a campaign to impose their belief structure upon me and used it to justify denying me equal rights under the law. Now, all bets are off.
Holy cow…!
I’m so frustrated not to have read your book prior to this Book Salon opportunity (that’ll teach me!).
But I think that many at FDL and on ‘leftyBlogistan’ don’t have much idea how deep the commitment is among some of these families.
On the good side, many good intentions, but… the mindset is not at all flexible for most of the people that I have encountered. There are some great kids and great families, but their life experience, and their experiences having to negotiate with anyone they don’t agree with — as most of us have had to do at one time or another on playgrounds or in work — leaves them ill-equipped to be really collaborative or creative. Or perhaps my view is too limited.
But it has definitely impacted government at the local level in my region. And when some of these folks run for office… they’re just incredibly difficult to talk with about anything involving science. They just don’t believe it, and they don’t have the background to be astute to ask good questions.
So you’re dealing with a lot of distrust, and the idea that they’re a lot like the theocrats of Iran has occurred to me on more than one occasion.
It’s darn scary.
Amen!
My response was to write my memoir Crazy For God. And I’m happy to say that there are lots of people out there who have also moved on and changed their minds. Having said that when I read Hitchens (as I explain in my new book) I seem to be meeting the same dumb angry hate we generated on the right but on the left. Maybe its no accident that he backed Bush’s wars! Maybe its time for the right and left, atheists and religious people to all call it a day on hating the “other.”
Frank Schaeffer has pointed out in interviews and writing that some of these people are having a very hard time contending with ‘modernity’. I happen to agree with him, and I think he shows integrity by rethinking his views.
You speak for me. I have personally been injured by someone who screamed religion based hatred at me while the assault was occurring. In my opinion, there hasn’t been enough push back from honestly faithful people against this kind of behavior. All we get is something like, “They don’t represent me”, but no real help and no real condemnation.
Thanks for that and I note that this problem isn’t just about America, check out how the Islamic world is doing with modernity!
Have you read Frank’s book? Cuz that’s the very question he’s trying to answer.
Okay but Hitchen’s brand of hate, to the best of my knowledge, hasn’t inspired groups of left wingers to troll church parking lots and bake sales to assault the people there. It’s a false equivalency. Hitchens is a jerk, Perkins is a bigot.
I agree and one of the things I have in the book is the push back from me and also the exposing of the “respectable” religious leaders who always find fault with the secular world while the religious world is hatching Armageddon.
If I were an atheist, I’d be seriously pissed that Hitchens and Dawkins are the faces of atheism.
I’m no defender of Hitchens, and he speaks only for himself, or others who let him. Atheists are not represented in any mass manner by anyone.
To imply that “maybe it’s no accident” is a broad brush slur against peacenik atheists like myself. And to assume I have any sort of hate at all is a huge misjudgment.
Very Good point and anyone who reads Crazy For God and Patience With God will know that I don’t say they are the same at all. The atheist left has blood on its hands (Pol Pot, Stalin etc) but in our context it is the right that poses a real danger to our democracy. And any one reading my stuff knows I say this.
First off, to claim that Frank Schaeffer or any other individual ‘created this monster’ is not conceivably accurate.
Secondly, he’s articulate and thoughtful about how the role of religion has become fused with, and confused with, politics in this nation.
IMVHO, the whole topic of how extremeists have become first controlling of, and now about to ‘take down’ legitimate government is a question of the highest important in our current era.
I’m only frustrated with myself for not being better prepared for this splendid Book Salon opportunity (I thought this book was going to be discussed in April. That’ll teach me.)
I’m late to the gathering, but I want to thank Peterr for his wonderful introduction. I admire good writing that draws one in. Now, to read the comments…..
Frank, I’d be interested in your response to comments #47 and 58:
Comment 47 & 58
Speaking for myself, I am but it’s like Madelyn Murray O’Hare, (spelling?), they are the face of atheism because THEISTS have made them so in order to discredit anti theism.
I haven’t read it, but I was hoping he might give a quick version of his answers as a teaser. The two questions I asked seem simple, but they’re not, and (I think) they can apply equally to all extremes.
Good point. But as I make clear in my book my beef is not with atheism at all but with the specific direction of the self-appointed leaders of both the New Atheist movement (is there such a thing?) as well as the religious leaders.
Great question!
Okay, I’m confused. When did I say Mr. Schaeffer “created this monster”? Because I sure as heck don’t remember saying that or anything like it. If anything, he’s complicit but like you said, the problem cannot be attributed to any single person, nor did I.
Isn’t it time to prove sixth sense scientifically, once and for all, because my gut said faith without works is dead. My gut said that way back since the primaries, and I ain’t seen no turning over of the money exchange tables in the Temple of Democracy yet.
I’m not so sure you can just blame the religious right for the prominence of Hitchens and Dawkins. Can you name a few others who have written anything that anyone’s reading and/or that are worth reading? I can’t.
I certainly intend to read it. In fact, I picked up a copy yesterday though I didn’t know we were having this little salon today.
Hi thanks for the kind note and let me note that I answer my email so if you do read my book and have a question contact me through frankschaeffer.com and we’ll talk (same for anyone reading this) F
I can’t but atheism, by it’s nature, doesn’t lend to breeding dogmatic people who write about such things.
Kelly, I certainly can’t speak for Frank Schaeffer, nor Peterr, nor anyone else. But here’s my way of phrasing what I think he’s writing about, and one reason this book is on my list:
If you think of ‘emotions’ along a spectrum (just as we see colors of light along a spectrum), we might put anger-resentment-envy at one end, and calm, serenity, forgiveness at another.
I believe, from what I’ve seen of his writings and articles, that Frank S. is focusing on that one segment of the ‘emotional spectrum’ involving very harsh, unpleasant, stultifying EMOTIONS.
He was an artist (still is?) and painter.
He understands artistic expression, which is largely about emotions.
So I think that he’s spotting a part of the ‘emotional spectrum’ and showing that it applies to people who — superficially — have very different stated beliefs, but IDENTICAL EMOTIONS.
And since emotions tend to precede action, destructive emotions are a bad sign for the future.
At least, that’s what I hope to try and better think through in his book.
And Frank Schaeffer can certainly correct, amend, or otherwise elaborate on my comment here.
Kelly C did. Sorry to misattribute 8-
Hi as I think I said here before I see the New Atheism as not much more than a post-9/11 old atheism with a new political twist. But I also say in my book that the New Atheists are doing us all a service: religion needs a good kicking! I just think there are better choices than between Rick Warren and Hitchens!
The two extremes certainly feed well off of one another.
This is where I think Frank’s background in the evangelical media world came to the fore in his analysis of both the fundies like Rick Warren and also Dawkins and Hitchens. Setting aside the obviously opposing content of their respective positions, they push them with the same set of manipulative tools and techniques.
The question for the rest of us, then, is how to interrupt the kind of conversation that demonizes and dehumanizes, and replace it with something else.
I did not see any sarcasm warnings.
I completely agree with your support for John XXIII. IMHO he is an oasis in between a lot of really bad popes.
The great Jesuit theologian, Karl Rahner, stated that people were not rejecting God, if they rejected false teachings about God. That was at the core of his understanding of anonymous Xtianity. The battle is between grace/salvation/forgiveness on the one hand and sin/evil/guilt on the other. For Rahner, Roman Catholics have been on both sides of the equation.
Well, I’m certainly not a part of any movement of “new atheism or anything of that nature. I was raised Catholic and became atheist over the years on my own, without influence from O’Hare, Dawkins or Hitchens. I’d like to thank Mr. Schaeffer for being here and candidly answering some of my questions and concerns.
That’s it and I wish you’d write a review expressing this. I wish I’d thought of putting it that way. Thank you. That is why in the second half of the book I tell the stories about what shaped me. I don’t make “arguments.”
Will do! And thanks – very kind.
In the end, it’s about trying to get enough psychological and intellectual insight to be a better problem solver. And your perspective appears to have been ‘dearly bought’ so to speak, on a personal level.
Nothing trumps experience.
Thoroughly agree!
No.
You mean, like treating friends the way you want to be treated?
Very nicely stated.
Not a problem, Sometimes Kelly C and I share a brain. ;-)
Speaking of which when I saw Dawkins selling literal witnessing tools on his website as I describe in the book it took me back to my 1950s childhood when my parents would carry tracts and trinkets the better to start “conversations” with and lead people “to Christ.” Nothing changes, just the brand of snake oil…
For atheists, I would think that demonizing and dehumanizing others is unethical.
And, for religious people (i.e. people who call themselves Christians, in this case), I would think that demonizing and dehumanizing others is immoral and sinful.
I have no idea how to interrupt the kind of conversation that extremists foist on us. My question is: Why does anyone listen to Warren or Hitchens, or others on the extremes, in the first place?
Exactly!!
Indeed. Or even — maybe especially — those we don’t call friends.
As readerOfTeaLeaves said @123, nothing trumps experience.
All emotions have embedded within them a cognitive structure. The structure of anger is being treated in an unfair and unreasonable manner, the intensity dependent upon the degree of perceived unfairness. Hatred adds into anger the element of extreme culpability on the part of the target of the hatred.
….they push them with the same set of manipulative tools and techniques.
Which is partly why I have no use for any of them. Still to the best of my knowledge, neither Hitchens nor Dawkins are pushing for some nations to adopt laws that would imprison or even execute people for failing to deny the natures of their birth.
I don’t disagree with a bit of that.
What I am saying though, is that dogmatic thinking is part of what identifies a person to a group/tribe. Groups/tribes emotions are manipulated through and by dogma to establish others and enemies.
So when I say I don’t believe in God or Hell, those groups that do believe so lose their ability to manipulate me, and that puts them on the envy/resent end of their spectrum, and just as you say, those negative emotions precede their destructive actions.
For the same reason that we buy those $19.95 knives on TV that never need sharpening. We’d all like an answer that works. That is what extremism is: an answer with no yes but, or I could be wrong in there someplace.
RevDeb, very late to this thread, hope you are still here. I’ve missed your voice lately.
My short answer: fear.
“You’re afraid, and have I got an answer for you. It’s an answer I am absolutely 100% certain of, and an answer that will solve all your concerns.”
Frank, the word “fear” doesn’t seem to appear in the book a great deal, but as I read it, I could see the fear creeping through so many people you describe. Could you say a bit about how you see fear playing into all of this?
I just love the tag: “Crazy for God”
It hits it right on the head! Why some people DO go crazy for their religion is just beyond me. And then they want to foist their beliefs on the rest of us. Who/what gives them the right??
Here’s one thing that I say in the book but that others might want to take farther: does anyone out there think that maybe some of the Hitchens/Dawkins books are really about Islam but that given Danish cartoons and such they have to be couched in more general terms just to keep the authors and publishers alive? In their best of all worlds Hichens I think given what he’s said about bombing Iraq would really like to lead a secular crusade against resurgent radical Islam. Thoughts?
‘Twould be an honor; looks like I’ll have to move this book up on my stack ;-))
However, in my own case it took me far too long to pay attention to the *emotions* of the people that I was trying to explain things to, because I was blinded by their espoused ideology.
But like you, I think some of the younger evangelicals care very deeply about personal integrity, and are really taking that seriously in their own searches. (Which I count as a wonderful thing.)
The only way I can understand the Love your enemy lesson is to not have any enemies. Kind of a zen like thingy.
Oh, does your brain ALSO read and write Greek?
Because I’ve noted on occasion that Kelly’s does ;-))))
I would agree with that and go further to say that my disbelief doesn’t rise to the level of “dogma” or “agenda” that I want to foist on other people. I’m not one of those people who badmouth people of faith simply because they are faithful. The problem is that when so many Christians behave badly, other Christians get defensive when I take issue with the misbehaving ones. I don’t care if somebody believes or doesn’t. What I do care about is that people should grant me the same respect I grant them. I don’t care about their belief, just how it affects me adversely.
I think people listen to Laura Schlessinger (Dr. Laura) for the same reason. They tell her the basic outlines of their problems, and she gives them absolute judgments based on a ridiculously simplistic either/or morality system. People seem to want answers, no matter how bad.
I met her once when I lived in Santa Barbara. She was nice enough in person, but I don’t think much of her advice to others.
does anyone out there think that maybe some of the Hitchens/Dawkins books are really about Islam but that given Danish cartoons and such they have to be couched in more general terms just to keep the authors and publishers alive? In their best of all worlds Hichens I think given what he’s said about bombing Iraq would really like to lead a secular crusade against resurgent radical Islam. Thoughts?
I can’t answer that intelligently. I don’t read their crap. Again, for me atheism is MY belief, not theirs.
Frank I am really impressed with your journey on this. It sounds to me as though you are selling an authentic view of the Xtian tradition. An itinerant healer, Jesus, who pissed off his family, because he took his healing on the road. Instead of charging for it, at the family home, he gave it away for whatever people could afford. He partied with the unsavory and got in fights with the religious establishment in the Temple. Probably during one of those fights, during Passover, some centurion had standing orders from Pilate to crucify whomever got in a fight. After his death, those who cared about him did not know where the body was (or were too scared to take it down). Those who knew where the body was did not care. The Easter experience was that the horrible death did not kill his message about Judaism. Then Paul comes along and pays Jesus’ relatives to franchise the message to the Greeks. It is that sanitized Greek version which survives after the Romans raze Jerusalem in 75ce and 125ce.
IMHO, Xtianity has profited from hopes and beliefs about some kind of an afterlife. I think Religion loses a lot of its leverage, when it backs off those claims as well as wider claims about its knowledge of an infinite being, who if s/he exists, we could not possibly recognize or know. That is why symbols are so important to any religion. That is why the whores in the hierarchy of places such as the Roman Catholic Church are so unwilling to admit the limits of human knowledge and faith. They do not want to give up the leverage.
Adults, however, need a community of faith in which to discuss adult issues. IMHO that is the proper scope of faith, religion, and rituals. The embodied part of our self consciousness really needs rituals. IMHO, FDL achieves a portion of that in some ways, but there is nothing religious about what is done here and there are no rituals.
Heh. This is my problem with the dogma of it all. I’m fluent in Latin, Greek, have a good chunk of Hebrew and Aramaic down and I’ve read tons of the Bible in those tongues.
The story of ancient people struggling for understanding is really only relevant to us today in that it’s still a struggle. The parts and pieces of it, like shellfish and mixed threads and stone-the-prostitute stuff are just ridiculous on the face of it, yet STILL DOGMA FOR LOTS OF PEOPLE!
Wow, this is not the first time that I have been **amazed** by commenters and comments at FDL. But this is really helpful for my thinking. Thank you so much.
You funny!
Hi you are right about this. I think a lot of the tone of the religion debate is set in two moments: Roe v Wade and 9/11. There is a huge group of people who are so afraid of a future that they can no longer picture that they are latching on to simple “explanations” to give them (us) something to hold on to. And i don’t think that fear is only in the right wing. Everyone wants a plan. I do so I latch on to spiritual comfort. Hitchens does because he has “the answer.” The Islamic radicals are killing people and each other because modernity snapped them. That’s why so many of the Muslim extremists turn out to be educated and wealthy. It is their confrontation with modernity that sent them into retreat to the 13th C! And that’s where the American Religious Right is headed now. If we’re not careful we’ll all be a mirror image of the Israelis and the Palestinians. And that’s one reason I wrote Patience with God. I’m sure I have lots wrong but I’d like to restart the conversation about meaning.
Oh, does your brain ALSO read and write Greek?
Iie. Nihongo wa dekimasu
As we come to the end of this Book Salon,
Frank, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and discussing your new book with us.
Peterr, Thank you very much for Hosting this lively Book Salon.
Everyone, if you haven’t bought Frank’s book yet, here is a link.
Thanks all.
Yup.
Your linguistic gifts really are wonderful, Kelly.
And your interpretations of nuance, and pointing to mistranslations that have become stilted dogma is really important. I suspect some of the more dogmatic religious people must drive you just bonkers.
You have nuance and context; they have verbal cudgels.
It’s not a good situation.
Again, for the healthier emotions, one needs nuance and context I suspect.
Frank, I want to thank you for coming to FDL and chatting today about your book(s). You raise more than a few challenging questions, and I appreciate your willingness to wrestle with them in public.
Thanks Mr. Schaeffer and all the koinu.
The Crazy For God title did express what that book is about, a fundamentalist home made me nuts, makes people crazy and is an itch that won’t heal. So some of us returned the favor and more or less took the whole country down with us!
I think that is a question for Hitchens. Questioning the motives of another but not asking them directly has always seemed to be a setup for conflict.
And I thank you so very much for your kind guidance through this session and interest in the book!
This was an interesting discussion. I appreciate all the participants.
Misery loves company eh?
That’s what happens when people believe that revelation trumps reason. One thing I like about the Catholic Church is that its leaders and thinkers use reason to interpret revelation. (I don’t mean to get the conversation sidetracked on the merits of Catholicism and/or on bishop bashing.)
Something you obviously understand is that pluralism is built right into the Judaeo-Xtian tradition. It is a true disservice to those traditions when the hierarchy ignores that pluralism.
Thank you, Mr. Schaeffer! I’m sure I’ll see your book at Borders. I look forward to reading it.
That is the point I was getting at in my question in #42. With the world changing so dramatically in a variety ways, including technology & climate change, those who feel at a disadvantage or afraid for whatever reason are so afraid now that they are acting out in dangerous ways. It’s not just Muslim extremists. You can see it on a variety of levels in many parts of the world.
Personally, I think politicians as well as many religious leaders take advantage of this fear. I believe the DC politicians on the Left and especially the Right use social issues of “morality” to divide and distract the public and to win power so they can benefit their own wealthy friends and themselves when in office.
Thanks to Frank and Peter for this conversation.
Group hug? I just said that to be funny.
Thank you.
Absolutely.
And a special thanks to my friend flat who I’ve been missing. Porch?
Thank you both/all for the great discussion
and as always, thanks Bev.
emptywheel is upstairs!
“We all benefited” from Margolis’ tenure
Wakarimasen deshita.
(Japanese for “Understanding did not occur.”)
===================
Peterr and Frank Schaeffer (and all) thank you so much for a really enriching online discussion. Really wonderful.
Porch, baby!
I think that one thing we didn’t get to in this thread was that in my observation (local level personal; federal level, via the media) many of these politicians share the fears.
Because they are fearful of their own futures, they really are not ‘leading’; they’re cowering, denying, obstructing, and venting. (Both parties, but far moreso the GOP.)
But your point, and also FS@151 are pretty close to the heart of the danger, in my view.
=============
Thanks again everyone. This was a treat.
New Atheists??? LOL – Perhaps loud arrogant proselytizing Atheists that need a scapegoat so they bang on religious beliefs – but not “new” – all said with love and a desire to give direction to the progressive cause, of course.
Giving credence to the concept of “faith” that being believing without evidence, is indeed “giving an opening to the extremes of religion” – as in that ““faith” that being believing without evidence” defines atheism – a belief is what they can not prove – they can not prove that their is no God – and indeed of late must take on science and fact of a creation 14 billion years ago that requires a “creator” – however you wish to define that word so as to avoid the word “God”.
“Why is one faith better than another?” is indeed a good question – it is just that one must include that faith called atheism in the soup of faiths that you question.
I very much want the left and Progressive movements move away from atheism and atheists because such beliefs are not central to humanism and we would move to a majority that would be able to pass more progressive legislation – but I also have a bedrock belief in tolerance of all the profess a progressive/liberal bent. If the “New Atheists” profess a belief that “we can’t all just get along”, they become the enemy of the progressive/liberal movement.
I agree each person is their own priest – and will pick a side, a faith, that fits them – but if that means to the atheists in the left “we all just can’t get along”, the rest of us in the progressive movement will note we have “fundi’s” tagging along, and will work to make sure the public knows the “fundi’s” of the left do not define us. With luck the atheist fundi’s of the left will not destroy the progressive movement.
“Wait. There’s empirical evidence of the existence of God? That’s news to me.”
Wait. There’s empirical evidence of the NON_existence of God? That’s news to me.
Indeed creation 14 billion years ago as per “SCIENCE” implies a creator – by the name “God” or whatever word – or by a physics theory like a “creation quantum foam” that tries to hide the obvious problem in denying “God the creator”.
I liked your post even as it notes those that question the existence of God because of the suffering of his creation – it is a question that Job really gives no answer to. It is no more of an answer that the free will concept of the modern miracle being God’s hand on a probability field (as in quantum mechanics). Why bad things happen to good people is a good book, but again gives no definitive answer.
Indeed I will die praising my God and thanking him for life, but not knowing the answer.
I like that.
Yep, and beware the false prophets who claim to know the answers.
Wasn’t the whole Job answer that It’s cause we’re human?
“Science is not opinion. It is, in fact, the opposite of opinion.”
Well, repeatable result from scientific experiment is indeed not opinion. And Math is not opinion. But the rest – the reasoned guess at the how and the often wild ass guess at the why – is most assuredly opinion, with the laws being suggested being best seen as today’s best approximation.
The Greeks really had it correctly understood – to “know” something is really not an absolute concept – Plato’s cave repeats and repeats.
Thanks for the comment – and yes, Job came down to we are human – and God is not – and what reflects his interference, or not, is not for us to know. Not very clear if you want a formula for getting miracles and avoiding suffering.
Now we see through a glass darkly….but then…..it shall be understood even as we are understood. Something like that.
huggies back demi… nothing wrong with hugs.. Besides ya have give one to get one… Human nature at it’s best! No gods involved.. it is just natural, not made up like the subject of religion IS! For power thats all folks power.
Jim White’s diary is front-paged!
More Shell Games: Command Structure for US Prisons and Special Operations in Afghanistan
“fluent in Latin, Greek, have a good chunk of Hebrew and Aramaic down and I’ve read tons of the Bible in those tongues.” – that deserves a WOW – and a :-)
Tried to move from modern Greek to biblical but my old brain is not up to it – and my modern Greek is rapidly become non-existent in me as the grandkids with only a few years study are eons ahead of immigrant “Greeklish” that I once stumbled through before age 6 (after age 6 one was forbidden from speaking in Greek – in school and at home – lest the school kids thought you wierd). Heck my German from 45 years ago is 10 times better. So I read the ancient texts in translation only.
In any case, I am really happy to have your abilities on this thread!
It strikes me as amusing that an author would profess “I have no quarrel with atheism” (Frank Schaeffer @18) in a chat to promote his own sales (for money!) of a book apparently critical of atheist Richard Dawkins for 1) self-promotion, 2) selling his books (for money!), and 3) being too certain of his claims.
Since the first two, chasing a buck and tooting your own horn, seem to be demonstrated herein as an obvious commonality, the obvious question to Mr. Schaeffer is the third: Are you absolutely certain of your criticism of Mr. Dawkins?
interesting to how many people here god is “he”. another reason to stay away from religion.
Thanks Frank for all you do and for the brave stand you have taken against the vitriol and and venom of the new Christian right.