COMMENTARY: Insights of these 3 religious thinkers may be antidote to ‘feel-good’ faith

[rug]

A. James Rudin | July 11, 2014

(RNS) When people utter the mantra “I’m moving on,” it usually means they are leaving behind a crisis, conflict or controversy. But “moving on” sometimes results in abandoning valuable lessons of the past.

This is especially true in religion. When spiritual leaders don’t deliver instant inner fulfillment, people quickly “move on” and embrace new teachers or gurus who promise their followers blessedness. It is a depressing and disillusioning process that creates holy burnout.

I have a modest proposal for those who constantly “move on” in their quest for authentic faith: “Move back” and explore the insights of three major religious thinkers whose once “radical” teachings are receding into the mists of forgetfulness.

During the mid-20th century, Martin Buber (Jewish), Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (Roman Catholic) and Reinhold Niebuhr (Protestant) influenced the religious scene.

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/07/11/commentary-insights-3-religious-thinkers-may-antidote-feel-good-faith/

[AtheistCrusader]

1. OR, just keep moving on till you find what works, and an ideology that holds water.

[TM99]

2. Three amazing thinkers that I am shocked

are barely even considered today as worthy of reading.

Buber's I and Thou profoundly influenced humanistic psychology for decades. Chardin shows how one can be a man of science and a man of faith if he so chooses. And Niebuhr's influence today is startling when we consider that his preaching against the Klan and non-violent political thought so heavily influenced the civil rights movement of the 1960's, and his Serenity Prayer is uttered by millions all over the world in various 12 Step Groups.

I would also add Paul Tillich to that list. His systematic theology and concept of the 'ground of being' has influenced spiritual thought in the more liberal branches of Christianity as well as modern atheism/agnosticism.

[AlbertCat]

10. Chardin shows how one can be a man of science and a man of faith if he so chooses.

Cognoscente dissonance?

[TM99]

11. Nope.

The recognition that the objective is not the subjective and the subjective is not the objective.

Could you please provide me the objective scientific proof for my subjective love of my girlfriend and my faith in the meaningfulness of our relationship?

I am a patient man and can wait a long time for that answer.

[edhopper]

16. Really,

that canard?
It is almost O"Reillian in it's inanity.
That has been slapped down so many times here, it's not worth the bother.
But you can read the answer here:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheistsbeliefs/a/AtheistBeliefs.htm


I'll ask you this, objectively, has God ever or now does have any impact on the physical world?

[TM99]

18. If you guys weren't such insulting individuals,

you might get a bit more tolerance here.

Seriously, you are going to send me a link from about.com?

Sciences is concerned with objective things. Religious beliefs are not. They are subjective. Love, faith, beauty, etc. are subjective. They are not provable. So what if they are concepts. They are more real to every day human lives than the scientific reality of the big bang.

Read Pauli & Jung's work on Synchronicity for a great discussion on objective science and subjective psychological meaning. It is a bit deeper than about.com so be warned.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Why not? Certain folks seem determined to use Urban Dictionary as a credible reference.

Why not Ask or About?

Indeed, why not 4Chan

[edhopper]

20. Seriously

it is a cogent article which explains why your analogy about love is pointless.
Written by Austin Cline.

Or don't you approve of his credentials?

Austin Cline was a Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism and a former Publicity Coordinator for the Campus Freethought Alliance. Austin has also lectured on religion, religious violence, science, and skepticism.

Austin Cline holds a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Pennsylvania and a Master of Arts from Princeton University. He also studied for one year each at the University of Zurich and the Ludwig-Maximillian University in Munich, Germany. In America, Germany, and Switzerland, Austin has studied both religion and philosophy.

But you didn't bother because it might upend your silly argument.

And then that's a no about God ever interacting with the physical Universe?

[TM99]

21. Thanks for proving my point so well.

I am not going to argue with you about such silly bullshit.

De Chardin was a well-respect & brilliant scientist who was not looked down upon by his peers for his religious beliefs as they never got in the way of him practicing good science. He was a rather radical theologian, and yet, he was well respected by others in the Catholic Church.

Only immature minds are incapable of dealing with these types of realities. I am not wasting further time on such immature thinking.

You have a good morning.

[edhopper]

23. Where did I critique

De Chardin.

This is what I said in my first post:
"Three worthy authors
Too bad the writer is so dismissive and condescending of people who left traditional religions.
Maybe they are more thoughtful than he gives them credit and rationally realize they can embrace the more humanistic ethics of these authors while rejecting the theology. "

Where do you see me criticizing the authors who I call worthy. I was criticizing the pretense of the writer.

And then I was pointing out your love/God analogy was inane and backed it up with a well written link.

[edhopper]

3. Three worthy authors

Too bad the writer is so dismissive and condescending of people who left traditional religions.
Maybe they are more thoughtful than he gives them credit and rationally realize they can embrace the more humanistic ethics of these authors while rejecting the theology.
Maybe they aren't rejecting the lack of any "instant fulfillment" but instead rejecting the illogical foundations of the faiths,

[Htom Sirveaux]

4. How would you feel about a hypothetical person

who became an atheist because it was getting more popular and they wanted to be cutting edge, and also because they felt that being an atheist by itself would qualify them as a smart person?

I think that's the kind of person the author is talking about. Someone who treats their spiritual outlook as a fashion accessory. Someone whose true faith is consumerism.

[edhopper]

5. Some one might claim that

But they either believe or not. If they claim it but still believe in something they are simply posing.
I think the author is talking more about people who leave religions for new agey thingies.

[TM99]

6. It isn't always about 'atheism'.

The site is Religious News. The author is a Rabbi and Professor. He is speaking to people of faith who are looking forward or side-ways after spiritual burnout. He is hardly dismissive nor is he condescending. For persons of faith, looking backwards at some 'radical' religious thinkers of the 20th century might help them to move forward in their own personal expression of faith.

Science often looks backwards in its attempt to move forward. The entire field of psychology is built on the premise that in order to move forward happily in life, we must look backwards with a critical and realistic eye.

Maybe there are some who are 'rejecting the illogical foundations of the faith' but this article and this site are not speaking directly to them.

[edhopper]

7. He's dismissive of people who have gone onto other

Spiritual ideas. Whether thast is atheism, budism or something else.
Saying they are looking for an instant fulfillment is patronizing.

[TM99]

8. I disagree.

And I do not consider it patronizing. An entire new age guru market of big money and little depth has made millions off of Americans seeking 'instant fulfillment' - Mc-Enlightenment through Mc-Dojo's, Mc-Yoga, etc.

Facts are hardly patronizing if true. They may be painful. And if you want to go off a be radical, he is merely suggesting looking at some of the radicals of the past. These men are hardly mainstream and accepted by most Christians or Jews. I know plenty of ignostic & atheist Buddhist who have read and received great value from these works.

Are you so hung-up on imagined 'dismissiveness' that perhaps you are missing the real value of his suggestions?

[edhopper]

9. He is suggesting that that is the reason people are leaving

It may be a small part, but it insults those who leave for other reasons. And I would put forth that those interested in these authors are not the people who are following some new age guru.
This is patronizing and belittling to people seeking spiritual answers and suggest they are close minded to writers who belong to the traditional faiths.

"This is especially true in religion. When spiritual leaders don’t deliver instant inner fulfillment, people quickly “move on” and embrace new teachers or gurus who promise their followers blessedness. It is a depressing and disillusioning process that creates holy burnout.

I have a modest proposal for those who constantly “move on” in their quest for authentic faith:"


If you can't appreciate that many leave these faiths for thoughtful reasons, that is your hang up.
And if you re-read my post, you'll see I was reacting to the writer of the articles premise about these fickle believers and agreeing with the three authors being worthwhile.

[TM99]

12. Here's the rub.

Nothing that you are commenting on is objective. You are projecting your own imaginings of what you believe he means or who he is talking to and draw conclusions not based on the actual words he wrote speaking to those he was writing to.

You saw a critique of a very real behavior, assumed he meant 'fickle believers' and rejected much of the point of the recommendation of those particular authors. Bravo that you can see the value in their writings, however, you are not discussing that. You started a sub-thread to tilt at windmills.

[edhopper]

13. Nothing the writer of the article

or the authors he mentioned are objective. Nor are opinions about any of it.
I made a comment about how his comments about believers who have left these faiths in condescending and insulting.
My opinion.
If you don't find this statement:
"When spiritual leaders don’t deliver instant inner fulfillment, people quickly “move on” and embrace new teachers or gurus"
a bit demeaning, that would be your opinion. I don't know of anyone who would be happy if they were described this way.

And please, do not try to arbitrate what can and cannot be discussed on a thread.
If I choose to comment on the writer of the article as well as the authors he talks about, I will do so.
It only became a sub-thread because you chose to keep responding instead of ignoring what I said and talk about what you choose important.

[TM99]

14. Sadly, I remember a time

when it was OK to actually describe negative behaviors for what they are and not have every one get upset that 'feelings' were hurt. Not every correction is bad thing. Feelings are not reality.

And if you post it, why imagine others won't reply to you on a forum?

[edhopper]

15. I have no problem with you replying

you seem to be troubled by it becoming a "sub-thread".

And there you have it, you agree that what he describes as negative behavior. I say that it is complete bullshit that that the search for instant fulfillment is driving so many away from the traditional faiths. His characterization is pure strawman.
It is beyond insulting to suggest that people looking for things beyond these churches haven't read writers from the faiths who might have something to say.
I also don't see the logic behind the idea that just because these writers have important things to say, the churches and temples they go to provide any more meaning to people who leave.
I like a lot of what Aristotle said, doesn't mean I will consider worshiping Zeus.

[TM99]

17. You stated an opinion, so did I.

I wasn't troubled, I simply commented.

I am more interested given the actual topic what you might think of the three authors than your criticism, which I disagree with, of the author of the article. Who cares if you don't like the churches or the temples. That is not the topic of the thread.

I was going to post this elsewhere but here is as good a place as any. I rarely enjoy discussing philosophy, religion, or psychology with atheists. Why?

1) We are already in agreement on a lack of belief in deities. I may take it a step further in my ignosticism, but in general we are already are in alignment. We really don't need to convince each other or try hard to learn about the others perspective. I have learned more in the last forty years discussing, arguing, and exploring religious traditions that I don't believe in than in circular agreement fests with those I already do.

2) Most atheists that I meet today, at least online, are hurt and angry at bad childhood experiences with oppressive and fundamentalist forms of religious expression. It is hard to talk to some one who is still trying to work through those traumas by displacing the rage and hurt on others who didn't actually cause the pain. I can empathize with the pain only so much when the individuals in question become toxic and wrathful towards all.

3) Most atheists seem really insecure. By that, I mean this. Do you think it is OK to actually discuss the ideas of Buber, De Chardin, and Niebuhr without needing to mention something critical about religion in general or the writer who is a Rabbi? Because you and others demonstrate that all the time here. Why must you wear your atheism on your sleeve? Are you uncertain? The more some talk about 'privilege' and 'oppression' the more I hear a victim instead of an adult who can recognize problems with some religious people and not all. Therefore dialog with many here which could be rather enjoyable and enlightening devolves like this subthread with you into 'religion is bad/religion is not all bad'.

So if I ask you about Aristotle's Poetics, are you going to discuss your thoughts and ideas about the work, or are you going to spend all of your time telling me why we should not worship Zeus, how bad it is that people worship Zeus, and that people who decide not worship Zeus are being disrespected because I am a philosophy professor who does worship Zeus and encouraged you to read Poetics?

[edhopper]

22. My experience with atheist

doesn't match yours in any way. Most I've met had a normal religious (and sometimes non-religious) childhood and came by atheism in a logical and rational way. Not because they were mad at their church or God.

It seems the thrust of the post and the article was for people who have left the faiths and to read these writers to give their faith a second chance. I responded to that. If someone posted a thread that started, "Don't worship Zeus anymore? try reading Aristotle." I would problem respond to that.

In case it missed your notice, this is a religion forum and I responded to the reli9gious content off the OP. There is a Philosophy forum where I am sure you can find people to discuss philosophy with, if you so choose.

At no time did i say the authors were not worth reading or discussing.
I probably wouldn't get into too deep a discussion here because I am not inclined to writing long posts.