Well said! It never ceases to amaze me that secularists swallow unproven statements about the causes of climate change and nag at us to follow their new apocalyptic but godless religion.

Or is it a case of the cultured despisers of religion creating a new one for the edification of the people they despise?

Gerry Dorrian

Hmm - I heard that program (here) - where you hear despisers - I heard curiosity - how can we provide space for questions if we shut people out by our assumptions of what they are saying? I had more questions for them after the program - how would I respond if I met them? How would I explain why I believe and what I believe?

Ann, your reading is more charitable than mine. While I would point to certain factors in the composition and ordering of the report that led me to my conclusions, I agree that the result should be an examination of how we would respond to questions like these. Just as Scheiermacher found himself in constant social contact with the educated elite to whom he addressed his work, modern-day Episcopalians often find themselves in similar company. Do we know how we would meet their objections with both clarity and charity?

(FWIW, I might have titled the piece "Answering..." or "Questioning..." rather than "Opposing..." but titling is the editor's prerogative!)

Derek,

I heard this aired and responded more like Ann - I was fascinated at data that hinted at our religiosity being somehow hard-wired, that religious belief isn't universal but that religious experience in some way is.

Re-reading, I'm intrigued to notice the scientist (whose curiosity and project I appreciate) loading his prejudice into his conclusions for example -

"Everybody experiences the illusion that God — or some type of supernatural agent — is watching them or is concerned about what they do in their sort of private everyday moral lives" - where what his experiment begins to establish would be more objectively stated as -

"Everybody experiences that some unseen agent - we have no way of saying whether real or imagined - is watching them or is concerned about what they do in their private everyday lives."

This statement of Bering's almost reads as a confession of bias -

Bering says that believing that supernatural beings are watching you is so basic to being human that even committed atheists regularly have moments where their minds turn in a supernatural direction, as his did in the wake of his mother's death.

"Bering says that believing that supernatural beings are watching you is so basic to being human that even committed atheists regularly have moments where their minds turn in a supernatural direction, as his did in the wake of his mother's death.
'They experience it but they reject it,' Bering says. 'Sort of override or stomp on their immediate intuition. But that's not to say that they don't experience it. We all have the same basic brain. And our brains have evolved to work in a particular way.'"

A more rigorous practice of his own discipline would have him acknowledge that scientific breakthroughs have happened when an experimental scientist tries something on a hunch or feeling that "reason" says is already settled. Galileo's experimented with speed different weight balls fell even though Aristotle had reasoned an answer that "everyone knew was true" for two millenna.

Reasoning from always and necessarily limited observations is as open to "illusion" as intuition or feeling. Our ways of knowing (and our remarkably resourceful ways of deluding ourselves) always synthesize reason, intuition, and feeling, always draw on experience (but what experience?), and are always open to new questions.

At their very best, theology and science are both open-ended inquiries and are both humble practices of 'not-knowing.'

I like that title Derek - more in line with what I think you are saying, too

For a nuanced view with bias's
clearly stated, see "The Neuroscience of Religious Experience" by Patrick McNamara. Lordy is it pricey, but you can read the first 6 pages on Amazon's 'look inside'.

J. A. Frazer Crocker, Jr

"Cultured despisers" misses the literary connotations of Schleiermacher's "die Gebildeten unter ihren Verächtern" and distances the author from his audience. These are speeches on religion addressed to those who are built up/pumped up as in Bildung. After all, Schleiermacher was a friend of many of the major Romantic literary figures of the day, including Friedrich Schlegel, with whom he lived for a while. Schleiermacher was one of the pumped up. He addresses them amidst their doubts/scoffing. I prefer "scoff" to "despise" because it is less emotional and more intellectual. Those who scoff don't necessarily despise.

Schleiermach's in 1799 was less than orthodox, so it makes sense that he empathizes with his audience in this text.

Gary Paul Gilbert

This article is right up Bishop John Shelby Spong's philosophy of a New Christianity. How come no one mentioned him? This scholar has written many books, some of which portray very sound ideas on how to remain a Christian while not having to park your brain outside when entering church.

Pangaio - please give your name next time you post - thanks for participating --ed.

I did hear the NPR spot however, I have always thought that one of the side effects of religion was civilized behavior which includes codes of conduct.
As a friend of mine said, I am not a Christian but I am really glad that my neighbors are.

Unless you're lesbians and your neighbors are arsonists.