Godless by Dan Barker

[Brian]

Steve loaned me this book. To be honest, I never read many atheist books previously. I read "New Skeptic's Guide to the Bible" years ago... but to be honest, they're like "preaching to the choir" to me and I've usually just avoided them.

Godless, by Dan Barker, is different. I just started reading it and so far I am really interested in his life story. I would love it if some of you could read the first three chapters and describe your thoughts on them.

[Bryan]

Yes, very interesting story. It is understandable his transition from fundamentalism to a more mainstream view of Christianity and the Bible, but I don't think his changing views on Scripture needed to lead to atheism. That is part of the danger of beginning with a narrow, rigid, literalist mindset when it comes to the Bible, because when you see that that doesn't hold with the historical context and cultural worldview that produced the text, it can lead you to throwing the whole thing out. But it certainly doesn't have to. Just because you find certain things hard to take literally (like talking snakes and donkeys), doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, though I know he has other reasons for believing that as well.

[Sam Vorhauer]

I had read Dan Barker's prior book "Losing Faith in Faith". Which rang true with me and very probable. My breakaway experience is similar to his, in that it takes a long time to become de-programmed away from Christian dogma. What helped me was reading early Christian history along with Babylonian and Egyptian religions. Legend of Gilgamesh, Noah's story similar to this legend. And of course the hell fire mythology does not help. (Frieze in London museum shows Egyption priests practicing circumcision. In effect not invented by the early Jews. Another frieze shows piles of cut off hands of the Hittites. We don't have to take the Bible's word for it.) One of the shocks for me was that my religion never told me that the dating of the book of Daniel was in contention! I was told it was created around 500 BC. Turns out Catholics and Jewish disagree with that date, and say it was created in year 167 BC. The point being, many religions not really interested in the truth, but more into propaganda. Why this dating so important? Because some Christians put heavy focus on its prophesies and as such the dating HAS to be set at 500 BC.

On another subject, on the proof of God. We seculars beleive the burden of proof is on those who make the positive statement. In effect, Atheism is the lack of belief, not the negation. (For those interested see "The Case Against God" by George Smith)

[Bryan]

Sam-
You are a great example of the point I made in the earlier comment. When our faith depends on whether or not Daniel was written in 500 or 167 BC, or whether or not the Noah flood story actually happened, or was simply a re-articulation of surrounding myths, or whether circumcision appeared first in history with the Israelites or the Egyptians - it is a shallow foundation.

These were stories that helped an ancient people understand who their God was and understand their place in the world. They didn't approach the text in the literalist, modernist, post-Enlightenment fashion most of us Westerners do today. When we put weight on the text that it is not meant (and perhaps was never meant) to bear, it will collapse.

However when we attempt to approach it from a pre-modern, more Eastern mindset (as much as that's possible); we find a poetry and a narrative that is about origins, meaning, and purpose that can still speak validly today. Biblical criticism can be used positively to help us sift what was culturally rooted and relevant then (and avoid some of the dogmatic ugliness about certain moral stances or doctrines), and what larger meanings and readings can still speak to us freshly and meaningfully today. Or we can allow Biblical criticism to ruin our faith in the text because we've held it to an improper standard and viewed it through a skewed filter.

[Sam Vorhauer]

Hi Bryan,

“When our faith depends on whether or not Daniel was written in 500 or 167 BC, or whether or not the Noah flood story actually happened, or was simply a re-articulation of surrounding myths, or whether circumcision appeared first in history with the Israelites or the Egyptians - it is a shallow foundation.”

Yes, there is much truth to what you say above. (Nice to know one can be selective about what one believes in the Bible (and still be a Christian) because we can label some parts "shallow".)

“These were stories that helped an ancient people understand who their God was and understand their place in the world.” ……. “When we put weight on the text that it is not meant (and perhaps was never meant) to bear, it will collapse.”

You seem to be implying that some of the Bible writings were in effect statements of faith and propaganda not history. It would be nice if the Bible would warn the new readers what is propaganda and what is history. And how should the new reader interpret understand “miracles”?

“…..we find a poetry and a narrative that is about origins, meaning, and purpose that can still speak validly today.”

So then, to get to the heart of Christianity, in twenty five words or less, what about our origins? meaning and purpose from the Bible that speak valid today? From the Christian perspective of course.

I cannot begin to evaluate Christianity if I don’t know or focus on what is important for Christians. Could it be, that I am a Christian and did not know it?

If I believe in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth but do not accept him as a God, could I still be a Christian? What do you have to say about the Jehovah Witnesses (a Christian faction 6 million strong world wide) who claim the cross, trinity and hell are not Biblical? In effect, what do you consider to be the core beliefs of “true” Christianity? (And as you know, there is much Bible analysis that invalidates parts of the “New Testament“, because it was not in the original writings, in effect, added later. Or maybe your Bible training did not cover this?)

Only recently did I find I was a Transhumanist and did not know it. (You can Google it)

[Bryan]

Sam-
Thanks for your comments - and good questions.

First off, I wasn't labeling any parts of the Bible shallow, only certain approaches to it.

What is important for Christianity is the life and person of Jesus. He is the articulation, the embodiment, the example of God in the world. Most Christians today would require that you believe in the virgin birth, in the miraculous healings and actions, and of course in the resurrection. Most would require you to subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity and other Christological understandings as articulated at Nicea and Chalcedon and other church councils.

You could argue, though, that many of the first followers of Jesus did not hold to many of these things - like the virgin birth, the Trinity, etc - yet we would still consider them Christians (indeed, the earliest and perhaps best). I think today you could still think of yourself as a Christian if, as you said, you believe in the teachings of Jesus but aren't able to believe he was God incarnate. You would be outside of the mainstream, but you wouldn't be alone.

I might have more respect for the Jehovah's Witnesses if they didn't rely on poor biblical scholarship, poor language skills (using their own translations of the Bible by people who were not that well versed in Greek), and if they didn't make crazy predictions about Jesus' return and then when it didn't happen in 1918 or whenever, say that, "Actually it did happen, it was just invisible." It also doesn't help that they use a word that doesn't exist in the Bible (Jehovah) for their name (and for God's name). But that's too be expected given their lack of focus on historical theology and proper language work. They also get all worked up over insignificant things like birthdays and having fun. A little (or a lot) too fundamentalist...

As far as biblical analysis invalidating parts of the NT, I'm not sure what you're referring to. The ending of Mark's gospel was clearly a late addition, and everyone acknowledges that. Many of Paul's letters are believed to have been written pseudonymously by some of his followers, not by Paul himself - but that's not a big deal as we don't actually know who wrote the gospels either.

----------------
Here is a post on what it means to be Christian by someone you might resonate with:

Karen Hutton from Pleasantville, California, writes:

Is there any purpose in staying a member of a traditional Christian Church if you no longer believe the things the church regards as its core beliefs? Why have you stayed with your church, given your criticisms of many of the basic aspects of Christianity?

Dear Karen,

Before answering that question, we need to identify what it is you are calling "core beliefs" or the "basic aspects of Christianity." I believe that what most people call orthodoxy in religious beliefs is little more than the imposed authority of some part of the Christian faith. The claim to be orthodox in one's belief is not to acknowledge a point of view that is true, but only the point of view that has prevailed. My studies lead me to believe that there never was a single consistent set of Christian beliefs. There were many Christianities from the dawn of Christianity itself. Various groups have tried to define true Christianity, but when they do they almost always define their own institutional, authoritarian system.

Some people, for example, assert that the historic creeds defined primitive Christianity. The Apostles' Creed, however, began as a series of baptismal formulas in local churches in the third century and these formulas differed widely until they evolved into a single form somewhere between 250 and 290 CE. I doubt if the actual apostles would have recognized much of it.

The Nicene Creed, adopted at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, was designed primarily to close the loopholes in the Apostles' Creed. The Athanasian Creed, a product of the late fourth century, was designed to close loopholes in the Nicene Creed. The earliest creed of the Church was only three words, Jesus is Messiah. The word "messiah" meant a variety of things to the Jews, so even the three-word creed had wide flexibility.

Others assert that believing in the Virgin Birth is a "core doctrine" of Christianity, but scholars can now demonstrate quite conclusively that both Paul and Mark seem never to have heard of it; and John, who was among the last writers in the New Testament, appears to have specifically rejected it since he refers to Jesus on two occasions as the "son of Joseph."

Still others suggest that the physical resurrection of Jesus is the essential core belief of Christianity, but I think I can demonstrate that Paul did not believe the resurrection was physical, and neither did Mark. Matthew is ambivalent. It is Luke and John, the last two gospels to be written, that interpret the resurrection as a physical resuscitation of a deceased body. So determining what the "core beliefs" of Christianity are is not as easy as people seem to think.

Some, usually in evangelical or in the conservative Catholic traditions, argue that doctrines like the Incarnation, the Atonement and the Trinity set the boundaries around essential Christianity, but once again these doctrines were not fully developed until the third and fourth centuries and it would be difficult to demonstrate that either Paul or Mark were Trinitarians.

My point is that Christianity has always been a movement and that most churches have simply frozen Christianity at fairly primitive levels. It is not to oppose basic Christianity that is the agenda of Christian scholars; it is to seek truth through the Christian story or through the Christian lens. That is what keeps me active in church life. Christianity is not static or doctrinal. It is a pathway we walk into the mystery of God. I grant that it is easier to walk the Christ path in some churches than in others, but true Christianity is always evolving into what it can be; its purpose is not to protect what it has been. So I would suggest that for you to see your role in your church to be that of a change agent, you are in fact being a true worshiper of Christ.

I hope this helps. I think institutional Christianity needs people like you and me in it.

– John Shelby Spong

----------------------------------

That's just an example of one person most (esp. evangelical) Christians would not consider orthodox, yet who certainly considers himself a Christian. Hope that helps.

[Sam Vorhauer]

Hi Bryan,

I can't fully respond now, given that I am still recovering from a bladder infection (please no prayers).

I liked your careful and thoughtful response. And I need time to take it all in. If its OK with you, I want to forward your response to some friends in Lansing as a good example....... Yes, I am familiar with Spong, and I see you are aware of Paul's fake writings and the ending of Mark. And thanks for the JW clarifications. Later, Best regards, Sam

[Mark Hoffmann]

Brian,

I'll bite. Not sure I want to invest money and buy it, but when you're done maybe Steve would lend this to me out of his library.

[Mark Hoffmann]

Brian,

It was an interesting read. I initially thought I'd just read the first 3 chapters but of course I had a difficult time putting it down so I read the majority of the book. I have a couple thoughts.

I agree with what Bryan said earlier. There is a real danger in Fundamentalist's thinking, which is where Dan Barker comes from. It's a paradigm that basically has God and more importantly, a system of faith boxed and defined. The i's are dotted and t's crossed. It's a very comfortable place for many. The problem with that of course is when all of a sudden one of the bricks in your foundation is pulled out, your house of faith might get a little unstable. It's ok if one or two are pulled out but if a number of your clearly defined items of faith start come under fire you can get react in one of a few ways. To me, it was somewhat predicltable that Barker went down the road he did.

The way I experienced Barker in the first chapter or two gave no drama to his exit of faith. He repeatedly demonstrated a
focus on his "allstar" status within his Christian community. As a teenager he was put in a place of authority and almost worshiped. He seemed to have a faith more in himself and his props than he ever had in God. Again, this is how I experienced what he communicated. And the props I would say would include his box or paradigm of thinking about scripture and theology.

When his house of cards began to fall, he did what was one of the natural responses one would do, create another comfortable box to live in. It worked well for him, especially with the personality that was presented throughout the book. Perhaps his initial fundemental box he created with the help of others was wrong.

Interestingly, in chapter 18 he cites many ex-believers as if that in someway supports his *belief* or stance. It sort of reminds of what some critics of Stobel said, only interviewing people of like-mind in his book "The Case for Christ". There are plenty of rational, scientific minded folk that have come from unbelief to faith but I saw none of those folk cited.

Gotta fly

[Brian]

[quote]There are plenty of rational, scientific minded folk that have come from unbelief to faith but I saw none of those folk cited.[/quote]
Totally off the subject, but I kinda wonder as to what examples you have of recognized atheists converting to a religion. Keep in mind, that Anthony Flew is a Deist, meaning that he doesn't not subscribe to a religion... but rather an impersonal god.