The Courtesy of God

Tags:: afterlife,; atheists,; believers,; humanism,; secularism,; sin,; the god debate

The devil you say

These days what the Epistle of James says about believing in God—that the devils believe in him too, ergo beware of taking too much credit for your credos—is often on my mind. God may or may not be in his heaven, but on any given week he is likely to be enthroned at the top of that great chain of being known as the New York Times Best Sellers List. Like James and the devil, I am not impressed.

By that I do not mean that I consider myself beyond the God debate or beyond those of my fellow mortals who find it compelling. In fact, if there is any unifying notion in what you are about to read, it is my deep distrust of any human being who fancies himself “beyond” just about anything, be it money, jealousy (of best-selling authors, for instance), using a turn signal, or putting on a tie. I would never buy a book whose title began with Beyond, though I have known a few beyond-good-and-evil types who weren’t beyond stealing one.

If I am unimpressed with the God debate it is less for wanting to seem aloof than for needing to start with easier questions. Lacking the credentials, say, that entitle any expert on a nanolayer of slime covering a pebble called earth to give us the complete skinny on absolute being, a hubris beside which the nitwit ruling of a Kansas school board seems cautiously understated, I want questions better suited to my pay grade. Never mind does God exist—does the God debate exist?

I am not sure it does, or if it does, what it signifies besides a consumer culture’s endless obsession with buying the right accessories, the insignia most favored by one’s defined target group, the Jesus-fish trunk magnet or the Darwin fish with legs, or maybe a badge betokening higher evolution in the form of a chromium squirrel. The self-appointed champions of faith and reason doth protest too much, methinks.

The God Delusion author Richard Dawkins, for instance, argues that the practice of prayer is like talking to an imaginary friend, a textbook example of “begging the question”—in this case the question Dawkins’ book is dedicated to answering—a rhetorical fallacy most of the sixteen and seventeen year olds I used to teach grasped without much trouble, though getting them to spell non sequitur was a tougher slog. If this is the best “reason” can say for itself, God help us.

On the other hand, what leap of faith matches the breathtaking courage, to say nothing of the oxymoronic splendor, of the so-called atheistic humanist? To believe not only that millions of human beings have been deluded for thousands of years (and about a point of some consequence) but also that such specimens of humanity as Bach, Montaigne, Gandhi, John Coltrane, and Martin Luther King Jr. have been supremely deluded, and then to offer as a saving alternative to this delusional nonsense—drumroll, please, if only to drown out the irreverent guffaws—humanism! What is a virgin birth to that? Credibile est, quia ineptum est, “It is believable because it is ridiculous,” said fiery old Tertullian. No atheist and no humanist either, he had what it takes to be both.

Perhaps “the God debate” is an oxymoron, too. Simone Weil, working in the tradition of the theologia negativa, which holds that God is better defined by an is not than an is, suggested that atheists and theists were merely affirming different aspects of the same ineffable truth. Believers will balk at this; atheists are rarely pleased. Camus liked Weil, true, but then I’ve never been convinced Camus was an atheist. Camus was more of a wistful agnostic, a type I tend to trust: not beyond “losing their faith” but not beyond feeling sad about it either, the sort of people who don’t need to be water boarded to tell you which movie they really want to see.

Single page /
Email

First Name Please enter a first name.

Last Name Please enter a last name.

Address Please enter an address.

Apt./Suite

City Please enter a city.

State Please select a state.

Postal/ZIP Code Please enter a valid
zip code.

Email Address Please enter a valid email address.

Country Please select a country.

Canadian subscribers add $10; All other international subscribers add $40.

More Essays

Comments Post a Comment »

I found Mr. (Fr.?) Keizer's take on his faith to be very personal and interesting. If I were to read more such testimonials, I would hope they could match the eloquent yet casual form of his.

However, I was disappointed with Keizer glib assault on atheism, primarily because it was unfair and self-contradictory, and secondarily because it was completely unnecessary for him to express his own style of faith. In fact, by firing the salvos upfront (I presume for structural reasons, i.e. 'this is what I'm not; now this is what I am'), it made it more difficult for me to continue reading the essay at all, much less with the full focus of my prefrontal cortex, as opposed to my amygdala.

Perhaps that was Keizer's intent, but for me at least, it distracted from his message.

Specifically, I take issue with the following:

Keizer insults Dawkins (and it was an insult) for opining somewhere in his book 'The God Delusion' that "practice of prayer is like talking to an imaginary friend", accusing Dawkins of begging the question. Well, that would be begging the question, if Dawkins were offering up his opinion on prayer as the evidence for the non-existence of gods. Having not read 'The God Delusion' myself, I can only speculate, but I highly doubt that was the context of Dawkins' statement. Keizer then remarks 'If this is the best “reason” can say for itself, God help us.' My reply is that if you can read a 416 page book, not to mention the many other works of Richard Dawkins, not to mention the multitudes of other books by atheists, and formulate a glib retort based on one sentence taken out of context, then perhaps your request for God's help should be more focused than all of "us".

The danger, of course, of leveling such accusations is that one must be doubly sure not to discredit oneself by using the very same tactics. I feel compelled to point out that Keizer's entire essay constitutes the very same fallacy he accuses Dawkins' one sentence of demonstrating. Garret says that he considers secularism the "courtesy of God". Is that not itself begging the question? Garret distances himself from "the question" so his words must not be held up to the same standards he applies to others, I suppose. On the one hand, he wonders if there is a debate about the existence of God, and on the other hand, he continually takes a positive position in such a debate.

I also object to Keizer's misleading characterization of atheists in general. He argues that as people tend toward atheism, they tend toward invocation of evil, and gives as an example the witch hunts of the Late Renaissance, or Bush's "Axis of Evil". It should not even need to be mentioned that most people in the Renaissance remained religious (albeit less Roman Catholic). King James I is our representative? In addition to a treatise on witchcraft, I believe he also commissioned another book, whose popularity has certainly eclipsed his thoughts on witches. Deviant from the Catholic line, perhaps, but no atheist he. A proper atheist (as opposed to, say, atheistic Buddhists) eschews unfounded belief in witchcraft and axes of evil just as much as they do the laws of Leviticus. Just because such people may not attend church so much anymore doesn't make them any more atheist. I wonder, if we lived in a society with atheist traditions, would I be justified in labeling all those who halfheartedly embraced theism Christians, and draw conclusions about Christianity from them?

Keizer's concern is more rightly directed at those who have distanced themselves from their faith, but not from faith in general, the self-described "spiritual but not religious" crowd. As someone sitting contentedly on the other side of the fence from Keizer, I share his concerns in this department. Proper faith and non-faith share this in common: both require some convictions from the individual. It is not theism or atheism that drives a person to be good or bad, it is the strength of one's convictions. At least with a person of conviction, whether it be bad or good, you know what you're dealing with.

Posted by Aaron on Mon 11 Jan 2010
Mr Keizer's essaying is terrific *beyond* all possible expectation!!! can i be at this mometoysmen (moment) more apposite and precise than that???

i purely thrilled to every sentence
and the care taken in its composition
i did! i did i did i did!

Posted by jarvitude on Tue 12 Jan 2010
In Keizer's essay, Camus is described as a "wistful agnostic." What wonderful imagery! That alone was worth the read. I think I'll steal the term to describe myself.

It seems to me that spiritual experience is mostly, if not all, emotional. This inspiration, the lifting up of the spirit, the sense of comfort, even the euphoria that comes to one under all sorts of circumstances, does not necessarily require the existence of a "god."

I'm struck that atheists as well as theists are trapped into having to define what it is that they either do or do not believe in.

My wistfulness comes about when I want the fellowship, and the spiritual experience that comes with "religion," while my intellect has matured sufficiently that the constrained Santa Claus "god" defined by the religionists and the atheists simply doesn't do the trick any more.

Posted by Timmy T on Sat 6 Feb 2010