I think Dr Crossan misses the boat when he harps on about how atheists don't a "positive" statement to make. He is trapped in his own theism. He needs to take a step back and realize that a theist makes no useful statement either. Okay, there is a God... now what? What does this mean? How does it affect the way you live your life? It is only when you step beyond theism and accept Christian or Muslim or Jewish or New Age teachings that something meaningful is acquired. The same is true of atheists. Many are Secular Humanists which provides a moral framework. Or they try to suss out the meaning for themselves - much as someone like Bishop Spong does as he parts ways with traditional Christian teaching.

Thanks for stopping by Scott. You might be reading more into this than Dr. Crossan intended. I think he would a agree with you. I'm sure atheists have "positive statements", but their atheism is a negative statement. His statement is about the term a-theist. To suggest you are an atheist implies that you've based your identity on a negation of a particular theistic notion of God.

I don't think these guys are theists. They state fairly clear that they don't think God is a being, but God is "isness" or "being". In other words, God is some concept bigger than the concept of "a being".

Other than that, I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. Can you expand a bit?

I like this brief interview. These are two of my favorite authors.So much is packed into this little interview. Thanks Mike!

I found that rather embarrassing, though I generally like both authors. Their critique of atheists boils down to two things, both of which fail. First, atheists don’t understand that god is not supernatural, He is what is. Second, they claim that atheists feel no sense of wonder.

What they seem to be addressing in the first critique is that atheists haven’t considered the claims of some fuzzy version of Christian pantheism. Well if that is so, the reasons why are obvious. It is meaningless to claim that God is ultimate reality or isness. That’s just an assertion with no evidence and as far as I can tell, no consequence. More importantly it is not a remotely common view of God. Ironically Crossan says that most people realized long ago that the Santa Clause version of God doesn’t exist, but in fact most religious people have come to no such conclusion yet!

Regarding the second critique, that there is no wonder in atheism, Crossan literally says there is no wonder to an atheist’s understanding of evolution. Good grief, has he ever spoken to an atheist evolutionary scientist? They virtually bubble over with wonder when discussing it. Simply because Crossan and Borg feel "wonder" and label it God does not mean that an atheist doesn’t feel wonder. The atheist is just more realistic about labeling it. Is there wonder in Carl Sagan’s Cosmos? Dawkins’ Unweaving the Rainbow? Brunowski’s Ascent of Man? Does David Attenborough come off as a man lacking in radical amazement? Wonder, awe, and passion for mystery are what drive the scientific method. Re-labeling those things as divine like Borg does is just sleight of hand.

Crossan notes that the word atheism is a warning suggesting that someone is "trapped in theism." Of course! That is the whole point of that word. It is only relevant when discussing theism! No one would use the word if theism wasn’t the default assumption, but it is. Do they want someone to label themselves an apantheist? Perhaps someday that will be necessary but not today. I’m not sure if these two are trapped in theism, or in pantheism, or in Christianism, or what. But they are the ones who clearly cannot break free from God language when discussing something as natural as the process of evolution or wonder and awe!

Borg says that if someone thinks of God as something that may or may not exist, than they are not really speaking of (Borg’s) God. Well, here he joins a long list of theologians who claim the atheist critique is all well and good, it just doesn't address my version of God. That is not addressing the atheist critique, it is avoiding it.

These concepts blend nicely with the concept of creatheism, as described by Michael Dowd:

http://www.faithprogression.com/2008/07/jesus-and-darwin.html

I've found Dowd's approach to these concepts to be more compelling, insightful, and transformative, but maybe that's just me.

Some more interesting comments by theologians who have rid themselves of Christianity and the Christian tradition.

I think I will listen to Augustine, Irenaeus, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Aquinas, Bernard of Clairvax, Luther, CAlvin, the Wesleys, Zwingli, . . . basically 95% of the Christian tradition throughout the centuries. They all reject this rubbish and so will I.