What Happened To All The Christians!?

[WinePusher]

Seems to me like the Christian Apologist demographic is shrinking. Many old time users, (which I realize from looking through the older threads) such as Achilles, Jester, ST_JB, scottlittlefield, olivasijo, Goose, otseng, etc......don't participate as much; while there are alot of veteran atheist/nonbeliever/agnostic users that still do.

Whats Happening!? Did I miss the rapture?

[EduChris]

...in their place we put symbolism, meaning, metaphor, poetry, hunches, inclinations, unknowing, and a thoroughgoing dialogue between theology and the other arts and sciences, with all its nealry countless insights and blessings...

This was the best part of your post. I don't know where I fit into your "system," since I try to take part in "symbolism, meaning, metaphor, poetry, hunches, inclinations, unknowing, and a thoroughgoing dialogue between theology and the other arts and sciences"--yet without assuming that modernity should have the final say about anything. I believe in a God who has acted in history, a God who still acts, and who who will yet realize the redemption humanity and the renewal of the entire cosmos.

[Slopeshoulder]

...in their place we put symbolism, meaning, metaphor, poetry, hunches, inclinations, unknowing, and a thoroughgoing dialogue between theology and the other arts and sciences, with all its nealry countless insights and blessings...

This was the best part of your post. I don't know where I fit into your "system," since I try to take part in "symbolism, meaning, metaphor, poetry, hunches, inclinations, unknowing, and a thoroughgoing dialogue between theology and the other arts and sciences"--yet without assuming that modernity should have the final say about anything. I believe in a God who has acted in history, a God who still acts, and who who will yet realize the redemption humanity and the renewal of the entire cosmos.

thanks, but I liked all of my post!

Yes, you make a good point, and I hope I made clear that modernity doesn't have the final say on everything, even in my "system." I agree. But I do think that in a general way that it sets the playing field for what can be reasonably claimed in propositional terms.

Regarding your beliefs, I would only amend that modernity would make it reasonable to "affirm" these beliefs, to affirm them as faith commitments, but not try to "claim" them as fact or knowledge or established truth (as so many findamentalists do). With that caveat, your beliefs are your own, clearly christian, and IMO a very nice set of beliefs to have. They are also broadly thematic, which I very much appreciate, rather than specifically committed to individual magical tales. In fact, I think while a modern skeptic or liberal can credibly say "balderdash" to a claim regarding miracles and other breaks with reality, they cannot credibly dismiss your beliefs, your chosen meta-narrative simply because you said "I believe," and not "look here's the fact yo; get it or leave it" as so many do. No, you can't prove it, but you shouldn't have to. You made no magical claims, you merely shared a thematic belief, a description using common sense language of a situation that is beyond our ken and our language (but we have to talk, so there it is). Your belief is a faith, not a factual claim (even if you personally choose to think of it as fact). It isn't something that can be subject to rational inquiry. In technical terms, you presented a "performative utterance," not a "propositional utterance" (see Searle and Austin, or just google the terms). In other words, you said what you believe and affirm, thematically, in absence of complete information; you did not insist upon what is true, specifically, in absence of that information. So I find nothing objectionable there. In short, well said (literally).

BTW, I was influened by a (rather conservative if very intellectual) school of thought known as post-liberalism, AKA the "Yale School" (Lindbeck, Kelsey, Frei) that sees faith affirmations and all religious thought forms and language as a "grammer." In other words, it's a spoken and lived set of meanings with a corresponding set of commonly understood definitions and rules of usage so people who speak it know what each other mean when they say religous things (usually performative utterances, also understood as giving performative or emotive assent to statements, usually doctrines).
But when speaking to people outiside the "community of discourse," like atheists, it's good to distinguish between what we "affirm" and what we "claim." And even inside the community, while we may trade in the language of faith, it's probably good to set aside anything that smacks of a pink elephant.
At least it is if one is not a fundamentalist.

BTW, if you are being misconstrued by the left and the right, you must be doing something right! The same thing happens to me. Conservatives thing I am spawn of satan, and liberals wonder why religion is the center of my life and why I like and defend much of orthodox christian theology.

[EduChris]

...a modern skeptic or liberal can credibly say "balderdash" to a claim regarding miracles and other breaks with reality, they cannot credibly dismiss your beliefs, your chosen meta-narrative...

I don't mind if someone objects to "breaks with [naturalistic] reality. What puzzles me is when they angrily reject what they know nothing about (except for the most ludicrous, lowest-common-denominator interpretations ever proposed).

Why is it that authors such as Robert Alter, Barbara Brown Taylor, Abraham Joshua Heschel, and Edward Foley don't receive a wider audience? Doesn't anyone care about well-rounded education anymore?

[Slopeshoulder]

...a modern skeptic or liberal can credibly say "balderdash" to a claim regarding miracles and other breaks with reality, they cannot credibly dismiss your beliefs, your chosen meta-narrative...

I don't mind if someone objects to "breaks with [naturalistic] reality. What puzzles me is when they angrily reject what they know nothing about (except for the most ludicrous, lowest-common-denominator interpretations ever proposed).

Why is it that authors such as Robert Alter, Barbara Brown Taylor, Abraham Joshua Heschel, and Edward Foley don't receive a wider audience? Doesn't anyone care about well-rounded education anymore?

I know of Alter from the past and like Heschel. Now I want to check out Taylor as we went to the same school and the amazon description is interesting.

To answer your question, it would appear that few do. Also, maybe this then is the real answer the the title of this thread: not "what happened to all the christians" in terms of participation in this forum, but what happened more broadly: the answer is that many of them self-ghetto-ized or self-marginalized themselves by walking away from the kind of education you (and I) advocate for, tending toward fundamentalism rather than mainstream-liberal. They became neither in or of this world. But if God is acting in history, as you say, then that kind of almost-gnostic rejection of development is neither christian nor responsible.

[EduChris]

...Now I want to check out Taylor as we went to the same school and the amazon description is interesting...

You will like her.

...many of them self-ghetto-ized or self-marginalized themselves by walking away from the kind of education you (and I) advocate for...

Yes, but it's not just Christians who have self-ghetto-ized. The so-called "new atheists," whose understanding of philosophy seems to be frozen in the 1950's or earlier, have also self-ghetto-ized to the point where both groups simply talk past one another and, failing to be understood, they resort to raising their decibel levels.

...tending toward fundamentalism rather than mainstream-liberal...

"Liberal" in the sense of classical liberalism, rather than modern-day political liberalism, I presume?

...if God is acting in history, as you say, then that kind of almost-gnostic rejection of development is neither christian nor responsible.

Good point--I hadn't seen it like that before, but I think you're right.

[Slopeshoulder]

...many of them self-ghetto-ized or self-marginalized themselves by walking away from the kind of education you (and I) advocate for...

Yes, but it's not just Christians who have self-ghetto-ized. The so-called "new atheists," whose understanding of philosophy seems to be frozen in the 1950's or earlier, have also self-ghetto-ized to the point where both groups simply talk past one another and, failing to be understood, they resort to raising their decibel levels.

Agreed. See this in todays NYT:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... -response/

...tending toward fundamentalism rather than mainstream-liberal...

"Liberal" in the sense of classical liberalism, rather than modern-day political liberalism, I presume?

Neither actually. I mean specifically theological liberalism or liberality ( not necessarily the late 19th century style, but more generally to mean that theology that takes modernity seriously) and also include post-liberalism (that takes postmodernity seriously).

...if God is acting in history, as you say, then that kind of almost-gnostic rejection of development is neither christian nor responsible.

Good point--I hadn't seen it like that before, but I think you're right.

Yeah, it just came to me. Thanks.

[Fisherking]

Seems to me like the Christian Apologist demographic is shrinking. Many old time users, (which I realize from looking through the older threads) such as Achilles, Jester, ST_JB, scottlittlefield, olivasijo, Goose, otseng, etc......don't participate as much; while there are alot of veteran atheist/nonbeliever/agnostic users that still do.

Whats Happening!?

For me, it's simply not being in the mood to debate.

You will notice many of the veteran non-believer blow-hards never really take a position in a debate (other than the strawman position they have graciously assigned to you) and spend most of their time firing questions at the opponents naive enough to accept the strawman position assigned to them. It takes very little time or thought to fire questions at one attempting to defend a position with logic and evidence (which can be very time consuming). Many Christian Apologist do not have that time to spare.

[EduChris]

...You will notice many of the veteran non-believer blow-hards never really take a position in a debate (other than the strawman position they have graciously assigned to you) and spend most of their time firing questions at the opponents naive enough to accept the strawman position assigned to them. It takes very little time or thought to fire questions at one attempting to defend a position with logic and evidence (which can be very time consuming). Many Christian Apologist do not have that time to spare.

Yes, precisely. I have often thought that debate partners here are not even paying the least bit of attention to my actual statements; often they seem to be on "auto-pilot," and their entrenched prejudices don't allow them to see that I hold views that are more nuanced than their imaginary strawmen.

It's frustrating, but how do you get the fish to see the water? I think the situation won't improve unless/until some atheist/agnostic who is philosophically sophisticated arrives and can talk some sense into his less-informed comrades. We need an Internet Incarnation of a Philosopher-Atheist.

[Slopeshoulder]

For me, it's simply not being in the mood to debate.

You will notice many of the veteran non-believer blow-hards never really take a position in a debate (other than the strawman position they have graciously assigned to you) and spend most of their time firing questions at the opponents naive enough to accept the strawman position assigned to them. It takes very little time or thought to fire questions at one attempting to defend a position with logic and evidence (which can be very time consuming). Many Christian Apologist do not have that time to spare.

And "atheists" will rightly point out that Christian(ists) often merely preach, engage in circular arguments, proffer the most retrograde arguments, relying upon biased and hack sources, and create straw men of thier own. So it cuts both ways. Both sides are guilty. Except in rare cases (real asshats IMO), the non-theists back down and get friendly when presented with reasoned arguments and reasonable positions that throw modernity a bone.

[EduChris]

...in rare cases ... the non-theists back down and get friendly when presented with reasoned arguments and reasonable positions that throw modernity a bone.

So you're saying that miracles can still happen?