|
|
Rector's Reflection—Easter 4 C
April 25, 2010
A lot of you know the book Lesser Feasts and Fasts that chronicles a wide variety of saints,
martyrs, and other men and women throughout the centuries whose lives have represented "heroic
commitment to Christ and have borne witness to their faith even at the cost of their lives." LFF is
a frequent reference for the Wednesday evening service... as it was last Wednesday, April 21st, when
we remembered St. Anselm. Anselm, an archbishop of Canterbury, is as important to the Church
(in my humble opinion) as Augustine and Aquinas. For those who missed it, here's a brief recap of
his LFF biography:
"As a pioneer in the scholastic method, Anselm remains the great exponent of the so-called"ontological argument" for the existence of God: God is 'that than which nothing greater can be
thought.' Even the fool, who (in Psalm 14) says in his heart "There is no God," must have an idea
of God in his mind, the concept of an unconditional being (ontos) than which nothing greater can
be conceived; otherwise he would not be able to speak of 'God' at all. And so this something,
'God,' must exist outside the mind as well; because, if he did not, he would not in fact be 'that than
which nothing greater can be thought.' Since the greatest thing that can be thought must have
existence as one of its properties, Anselm asserts, 'God' can be said to exist in reality as well as in
the intellect, but is not dependent upon the material world for verification."
We studied Anselm quite a bit in seminary. Once we got past some awkward grammatical
and philosophical constructs from the 11th and 12th centuries, Anselm became surprisingly at home
in modern times. Outside the Church and the realm of philosophy, folks don't talk much about"ontological arguments." Preaching them is pretty much out of the question, unless I stationed
ushers at the exits to prevent people from fleeing. But what makes Anselm contemporary is his
motto: "faith seeking understanding," or (and they said my Latin degree wouldn't come in handy)
"Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam. Nam et hoc credo, quia, nisi
credidero, non intelligam." ("I do not seek to understand so that I may believe, but I believe so that
I may understand. For this, too, I believe, that, unless I first believe, I shall not understand.") Anselm held that faith precedes reason, but that reason can expand upon faith, and the same faith
vs. reason arguments he was addressing are still alive and well. Anselm asserts that faith and reason
are not enemies. They are not mutually exclusive. They are both gifts from God and, therefore, can
readily co-exist.
Arguments about the existence of God have been around since, well, people have been
around. Arguments against the existence of God make for today's best sellers. I have read some
of Christopher Hitchens (why he hasn't changed his first name, I'll never know) and Richard
Dawkins, probably the two best known proponents of the New Atheism.
The mission statement of one New Atheism website is: "Intolerance of ignorance, myth and
superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion. Indoctrination of logic, reason and the
advancement of a naturalistic worldview." If Anselm believes so that he can understand, New
Atheism believes that religion should be criticized, exposed and deposed.
"We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and
the Flying Spaghetti Monster," says Dawkins. "But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove,
we can say that God is very, very improbable." Sam Harris, another spokesman, envisions "exerting
so much pressure that it becomes 'too embarrassing' to believe in God."
I have to be honest; I don't know if I would be capable of arguing with any of these people.
They seem to enjoy confrontation and they make no bones about their intolerance. For me, their
passion teems with a zeal that is frightening, and I have to wonder what horrible religion-related
events must have transpired in their lives to make them not just non-believers, but enemies of those
who do believe. At the end of the day, I'll leave debate up to the N.T. Wright's of this world, and
I'll keep remembering and praying for all those folks in LFF who loved God and who couldn't all
have been ignorant and superstitious.
And I think I'll pray for Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris—if for no other reason than to annoy
them.
Susan+
|
