Wonderful response Mike! I can't blame you for steering clear of the people over at jesuscreed.org. They want to pretend to be "postmodern" but they are little more than warmed over fundamentalism. Postmodern philosophy is not a return to pre-modern superstition. It involves a reconciliation with modern thought and a respect for ancient stories. You hit the nail on the head with your notion of faith in the abscence of certainty.

Steve G.

I honestly don't see the appeal in a magician God who can wave a magic wand and solve all our problems in one fell swoop. Yes, there is something tragic about the idea that we all might die and not live on in eternity (although I find some comfort in the idea of objective immortality that process theology posits, which is that we "live on" in a sense by being incorporated into God's eternal memory). But in a sense, I think it has the power of making each moment in our lives matter, because each moment is precious. And if God can just wave a magic wand and end all our problems, why should we even try to engage the world ourselves? I'd rather live in a world where each moment meant something, and everything we did made a difference, even if a small one, and each good thing we did helped the world along in some way.

"Warmed over fundamentalism"? Really Steve? Come on now... where's that 'generous orthodoxy' postmoderns are supposed to love?

Mike--I'm largely sympathetic to apophatic approaches to God. It's not so much the 'personal' bit that's tough for me--the 'God' chunk is sizeable enough by my lights. But of course, I do believe in a personal God. And I do believe that Jesus is God's face towards us. And I do believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, in a vindication of his faithfulness.

The danger of the denial of the resurrection, as far as I can tell, is that it tempts us to try and be 'effective'. Or rather, it tempts us to view 'effectiveness' as the highest goal.
And from an orthodox Christian's perspective, resurrection can only be the work of God--which is why we are freed to be faithful.
Now, faithfulness is sometimes effective as well, but when effectiveness is the metric... trouble lies ahead.

I share your frustration about Travis' bit on not 'giving a hoot' about justice in the absence of an afterlife. At least we can agree there.

Peace,
-Daniel-

M S,

Thanks for adding your thoughts. I think you said it better than I did!

Daniel,

I hope you'll consider retracting the term "denial of the resurrection". I don't think I ever "deny" it. I do suggest there is no evidence it could have happened as written. Mostly I suggest there is no reason to make certainty a prerequisite for Christianity. I agree that something happened in the Christian community around that time (probably not the condensed 2/3 days written in for dramatic and allegorical effects). But, it seems improbable (even impossible?) that this "something" was the exact event written into the liturgical drama (the gospels).

Can you unwrap your statement about "effectiveness"? I didn't exactly grasp your meaning.

I appreciate your thoughts and really agree with your conclusions about peace and justice even if you get there by another set of metaphysical views.

Steve G,

Yes, they do share fundamentalist beliefs and wall off the conversation . They probably even misunderstand the real tensions between modern and postmodern thought. But, they could certainly charge that you (and I) might be "warmed over secular humanism". I guess the difference is I'd own up to the similarities and wouldn't get bent out of shape about the label. I fully recognize there are common attributes and comparison is reasonable, but not exhaustive.

Hi there. :D My name is JT Eberhard. I run my own blog, and I contribute to Teh Juggernauts blog.

I'm commenting to invite you to a blogalogue with me about either the existence of god or the truth of Christianity. As my writings will show, I am not a believer. I am willing to have my mind changed, I've just never encountered a good argument for why I should. It is my hope that you and I could reach a meeting of the minds on the subject.

Here are my rules for blogalogues:

1. Stay courteous. We're in this together, searching for what is true, and we should treat each other as such.

2. All posts are posted on each participants blog.

3. Either party may end the blogalogue at any point.

If you are interested, please leave a comment on Teh Juggernauts and we can work out details.

Best,

JT

Mike,

Thanks for the response! I'm up for pretty much anything, honestly. I'm mostly trying to generate conversation and push myself to learn more, so I'm sure we can hammer something out.

The existence of god would be a being that consciously created us - not a god by definition (everything that exists is god, etc).

The "truth of Christianity" is what I think you inferred, whether or not the claims of the bible are true.

I think dogma is always bad, which is part of my problem with faith, so I doubt we'd have much to disagree on with dogmatic atheism (as rarely as it is encountered).

Where I think we might have some room to discuss is the value of any kind of faith. This would exclude faith that is a positive attitude in the face of uncertainty, and instead focus on the type of faith that religions lean on. I would be all for that discussion.

Let me know.

Best,

JT

Thanks JT.

I have a suspicion that we will agree on most issues, but we might use some different terminology. I think we could have a fruitful debate, but maybe the place to start is to make a few comments and get to know one another.

I'll start by making a post tomorrow about what I mean by "faith" and why I feel it is useful in the form I advocate but destructive in the more common form found in fundamentalist religions. I look forward to your comments, objections, and insight.