Philip Harvey
The public atheist debate of
recent years is a necessary expression of individual beliefs in our free, open
society. Books, articles, blogs, and
posts are easy to find that lay out any and every atheist opinion, there seems
no end to it. Certain one-liners come back with clockwork regularity. Certain
of the secular ‘saints’ of atheism are quoted as though they were not only the
last word on the subject, but the only word. The names Christopher Hitchens and
Richard Dawkins are the most common, not Karl Marx or Voltaire, reflecting the
nowness of the internetting dispute. . For those who treat ultimate subjects
like God with the seriousness they deserve however, the debate has had some
most disappointing and unfortunate aspects.
Many of these atheists are
concerned less with God than with religion, which seems to be the real target
of their displeasure. Serious discussion about God or Not God is not common and
few contributors seem bent on going through the various Proofs of traditional
Philosophy of Religion. It is religion, it often appears, that is the actual
object of hostility. Dismissive jokes, spectacular sarcasm, and sweeping
rejections are just some of the devices employed by online atheists. Or perhaps
they are not atheists, but a vast subset of anti-religionists. We read that
some of them even attend conferences where they can continue this form of
one-way discourse, which must be entertaining for them, if no-one else.
The net result of all this
activity seems to be more heat than light. A typical human response to
hostility is to withdraw and not engage further. A typical human response to
being ridiculed is either to mount defensive counter-measures, to laugh it off
as pathetic ignorance, or again to stop engaging with people who can only be
rude and are fixed in their positions. Fundamentalist in their attitudes,
sometimes. This is probably why the atheist debate appears so one-sided,
because one side cannot be bothered engaging. But the God Side, as it were, has
also been coming out with some heavy duty demolition jobs on atheist positions
recently. All of this is unedifying really for those who take the subject
seriously; there are many people (atheists and non-atheists alike) who expect
more, who in fact demand more. What these people want is intelligent and
informed dialogue.
Which is why this book is a
welcome addition to the debate. ‘Beloved Father, Beloved Son : a Conversation about Faith between a Bishop
and his Atheist Son’ (Mosaic Press, 2013, ISBN 978-174324-019-9) is a dialogue,
a careful charting of knowledge and experience that came about when Jonathan
Rutherford, youngest son of Anglican Bishop Graeme Rutherford, found he had
lost his faith. The results are a fascinating to and fro, where each man talks
with respect and thoughtfulness to the other, bringing out their treasures of
learning and achieved ideas, but also acknowledging what they don’t know and
how much more there is to learn. No puerile putdowns here, no attempts to
assert fundamentalist finalities. Both know that deeply valued positions are
being put to the test, both have long experience inside rather than outside the
living practice of Christianity. The Rutherfords thus demonstrate how much more
is achieved through dialogue, however hard at times, than through standoffs and
odd angry shots.
It was a typical challenging
moment during Bishop Graeme Rutherford’s Easter sermon. After preaching on the
text and the matter of faith, he introduced the fact that he himself was having
to think about faith after his youngest son had declared that he was now an
atheist and had sent Graeme an 86 page letter outlining his positions. The congregation
at St Peter’s Eastern Hill, ever attentive to surprises and main arguments in a
sermon, did its best to absorb the latest news from inside the Rutherford
family. Although some may say you shouldn’t bring your family troubles into a
sermon, this was the sort of direct living-in-the-moment kind of revelation
that people expect when listening to Bishop Graeme. One parishioner was heard
to say after the service, oh dear who would have children, while others
wondered what would come next.
We didn’t have to wait long. Those
studying the Trinity College Diploma in Theology at St Peter’s were soon
hearing Bishop Graeme’s responses to Jonathan’s many arguments for an atheist
worldview. These were always appropriate to the subject of the class, and it
was as though we were in on some creative exploration of differing views. The
class itself became the testing ground for new ideas as we were drawn in to the
discussion. It only slowly dawned on us that this was more than an
intensive Socratic dialogue, it was the
groundwork for the book now under review. One was struck by the fact that
Graeme did not deny what was happening or try to hide the “awful truth” of an
atheist in the family from the congregation. Quite the opposite, it seemed
typical of him to choose to engage in discussion, to meet the newfound
challenge head on, to go the extra mile. The rewards for everyone, Jonathan and
Graeme included, are in ‘Beloved Father, Beloved Son’.
In the introduction Graeme
Rutherford is described as “intense and introspective,” which is true, though
we also find him here humourous, discursive, interested and always listening.
His son has a similar temperament, indeed one of the characteristics of the
dialogue is the similarity of their personalities and conversation, despite the
patent differences over such essential matters as God. Both are men of ideas,
as they concede themselves, people who won’t settle for throwaway answers. The
older man draws on a lifetime of incredible credible knowledge; the younger man
is starting out, in a way, caught up in the excitement and challenge of new
directions. But in no way is one simply trying to trump the other. Arguments
are set up and put out there with forthrightness, but also care. Any
conclusions are never conclusive, but places where each individual has arrived
for now.
Chapters are dedicated to several
of the familiar atheist disputes: God’s existence, how the universe began,
suffering and evil, Scripture, the Resurrection, morality, the spiritual life,
and the search for meaning. Other areas could have been entered, but I think it
is important that the arguments are not more extensive and keep within the
frame of their personal interaction. I think this is because Jonathan is being
accommodated, it is his views that are being given focus. There is case and
rejoinder on both sides, but the focus is kept beautifully on the polemic, with
the apologetic as a counterpoint, even at times a harmony. Graeme could say
considerably more than he does, but the dialogue is built upon what he is
saying directly to Jonathan and in response to him. As some of us know from his
sermons and classes, if we let Bishop Graeme say everything he could say we
would be here until Christmas. All of this results in a book that goes against
the fractious norm that we witness in the current public debate. This is because
Graeme and Jonathan are respectful. They show that civilised debate is better
than uncivilised namecalling, that dialogue is better than just making noises
or broadcasting your own views to the exclusion or ridicule or rejection of the
other. I will address just three subjects in the book where this comes alive
for the reader.
One subject that illuminated each
personality was the discussion about the Resurrection, where Jonathan has come
to adopt a very hardline Humean position and is unhappy with the accounts in
the New Testament. Graeme maintains an open mind about both the event itself
and its meaning to humans ever since. He is impressed by Richard Bauckham’s
recent work on eyewitness testimony, but also sees the Resurrection as not only
plausible but liveable. Both men know that evidence is crucial, only how they
understand and interpret that evidence differs.
Perhaps one of the most revealing
chapters is on biblical authority, if we are looking at the evolution of their
thinking. Jonathan forwards the post-modern atheist view that the Bible is
completely a human construct, full of outdated myths and beliefs, and rife with
internal contradictions. He also wants to see the whole Bible as just One Big Thumping
Book. It becomes apparent that his disillusion with the Bible is based in part
on his exposure to modern biblical criticism that addresses the inconsistencies
and borrowings of the texts. His old certainty about undisputed revelation has
been upturned. Graeme meanwhile is not perturbed at all by the structure and
variations of the different books, having moved beyond the strict attitude that
the Bible is unquestioned authority. For him, the Bible is to be interpreted, there
to teach and guide and one of the ways of making this happen is by an
appreciation of the genres of the books. Another is via the practice of lectio divina, where engagement with the
words is about our own lived experience, as individuals and together. We seem
to be seeing parallel lives here, each with their own relationship to
Scripture.
But it is in Jonathan’s
presentation of his central philosophy of the Simple Life that we find them in
close accord. Clearly Jonathan has learned much from his Christian upbringing
about the value of simplicity. At the personal level he wants to live a simpler
existence, free of the trappings and greed of consumer society, and he also
sees simplicity as a solution to the major problems facing our world, such as
poverty, ecological crisis, conflict, and social breakdown. Graeme commends
this outlook and is quick to see it as Franciscan in spirit. For him, as for
his son, belief and conduct on this matter must be in line with attitude. Their
agreement on a holistic spirituality that is about ‘right heartedness’ is, for
me and probably other readers, the real conclusion of the book. For even though
they say that the discussion must go on, and that they have to keep each other
honest, it is the moment of common recognition amidst all of this difference
that makes one see they are being fair dinkum. People can disagree, but even
better is when they can agree about where it is they agree.
No comments:
Post a Comment