“This may be true of millions of believers but …”

But nothing! I was only talking of the ‘commonality’. Incidentally ‘I pay’ subscription for the journal ‘Political Theology”, among others, and I respect many of the thinkers on each side of the ‘debate’ (whater that is), Rowan Williams being just one who tends to take both sides and certainly struggles with his faith.
You must recall that I vigorously defended ‘savants’ of mysticism in your last, and my critique of liberal rationalism is again implicit above.
The way you’ve heatedly responded to what was a thoroughly considered post, only tells me I’ve struck the nerve—roused your defences of your own deep-seated insecurities.
If you read my post more carefully you’ll see I agreed with your central theme about the crisis of faith/meaning of modern secularism—a world view beautifully tailored to capitalism. Unlike Protestantism, whose fetishized austerity caused a drag on economic growth. Whereas Secularism is next to liberalism.
(An uncle of mine was the bishop of Nottingham and I have fond memories of exploring is palace. He was a salaciously naughty fellow and should have been a Catholic).
Hoisted on your own petard, it is ‘your’ opinion that is, “pure prejudice and cant”. Unlike you I favour no bias, theist or atheist, but try to get outside this futile debate about God.
Protestantism kicked off individualised faith and has met its comeuppance. Broken free, we must each find our own meaning, or despair.
What we lack is moral authority, and I don’t believe the church can supply it—certainly not free of corruption.
The corporeal conditions of our existence, our aspirations, and our capacity for altruism should inform polity, so that we ‘pursue’ our destiny and follow no rubric—neither religious nor economic

.

Dear Peter,

.

I have not read Updike’s novel but judging from your brief description of it I am left with the impression that it mirrors the Waco tragedy as it might apply to an individual family without analysing the human drama it represents and attempting to identify the psychological mechanisms which made it possible. The author’s regard does not appear to make any attempt to transpierce the surface of his characters, nor to understand the intricate relationships which bound them all together so tightly as to deprive each of any possible individuality or independence of mind.

The interest of Waco to me is to try to understand the mechanisms which produced it. If, as you seem to indicate, the only explanation offered by the author is that the family patriarch and Presbyterian minister lost his faith, with repercussions for four generations, I find that rather poor and hardly credible to say the least. I cannot imagine who could be satisfied with that as the unique explanation of such a traumatic event as Waco, even, and perhaps I should say, especially as applied within the intimacy of a single family hierarchy.

The author’s attempt to emulate Waco at the family level for four generations with loss of faith of the patriarch as the unique generating event rings of the pastor thundering the fear of God as a warning to his timorous flock:

« This is what happens to a family when the father loses faith in God ! Beware ! »

As you rightly suggest, it is a narrative, not an in-depth analysis, and as such, it does not advance us one iota in our understanding of Waco and its derivatives.

The folly of mankind and his faith in God know no bounds. We have not yet found the antidote to Waco and, judging from your description, it is evident that Updike’s novel is no help.

.

Squeers,
I stick to my line, your expression "Faith is more commonly a conservative custom, abject poverty of mind, or obstinacy of intellect." is not considered, it is a universalising calumny on millions of diverse Christians.

Peter,
and I stick by my line! It is a very fair assessment of religion as a historical and contemporary phenomenon.
The vast majority have no inkling of theological complexities/sophistry. This doesn't mean simple faith isn't profoundly necessary for those who need an anchor. I agree we need an anchor! But religion is a ball and chain. Even if it weren't, religious teachings don't accord nearly enough consideration for 'this' world.
We were all moved by the testaments to simple faith put forward in your last, but simple faith these days translates as naivity, and more importantly as neglect.
Obstinacy of intellect is not restricted to religion, but for all those whose 'faith' has to be couched in pseudo-rigorous terms that Jesus and Bacon would have despised.

Sells, I wonder have you ever considered the reason why God apparently forsake Jesus as he hung dying on the cross. Jesus himself probably didn't considered it himself and neither do any of his followers. The plain and obvious truth is "There is no God". He is just a figment of the imagination of those who wish to believe, no more, no less.

David

Dear David,

<<The plain and obvious truth is "There is no God".>>

All the more reason to love and worship Him.

Had God existed, then worshipping Him would amount to idol-worship or to a business deal: expecting God to exist, to reduce Himself to some silly object, is akin to expecting a king to clean toilets.

<<He is just a figment of the imagination of those who wish to believe, no more, no less.>>

While an idea about God may well be a figment of imagination, that has nothing to do with God Himself: God is not an idea, but imagining God as something, though factually incorrect, is for some at least, a useful religious technique which helps them to purify their hearts.