dan - theists, atheists and friendship
after a series of posts on beauty, i'm going to shift topics and also format. my friend dan and i have talked in the past about trying to write something together. we're now going to use this site for that purpose, authoring a series of posts in response to one another. part of our hope is that putting our responses online will allow others to join the conversation by posting comments. the topic: friendship.
the first post is dan's:
Some time ago, Micah and I had an interesting conversation about friendship generally and, more specifically, the possibility of friendship between atheists and theists. The question, of course, was not whether such a thing could ever happen, but given that it does it happen, how is it possible? This is not just an abstract question or, if it is, it is not just motivated by abstract concerns. Instead, the question flows out my friendship with Micah, since I am a staunch atheist, though not a dogmatic one. While I don’t believe in God, I don’t think that it is irrational to do so, or a sign of stupidity, lack of thought etc. I also don’t claim to understand what it is to believe in God, since belief in God strikes me as the kind of thing that cannot be understood independently of belief. But for all that, at the end of the day, I do think that people who believe in God have a false picture of the world in virtue of having a set of false beliefs. And, of course, the same is true for Micah, who believes that I’m wrong.
The question isn’t simply, “How can people with conflicting views get along?” since Micah and I might have all kinds of conflicting views which don’t really bear importantly on our lives (Micah might think that the American league system of using a designated hitter results in better baseball, whereas I might think that the National league has it right). What is puzzling is how two people with conflicting views that are absolutely central to their lives can get along. And not just get along, but be good friends. For at the end of the day, I think that Micah’s view of the world is importantly distorted and he thinks not only that but also that my soul is in peril. In ordinary circumstances when I see someone I care about in serious trouble, I intervene. If someone I care about it seriously messing with their life, I will step in and do what I can to help her on her way. And yet, I have not tried to persuade Micah that his view of the world is essentially wrong and, more importantly, he has not tried to persuade me that I’m in mortal danger. But why? The question seems especially pressing on Micah’s side – what could be more important than ensuring that a friend’s soul be saved? Given the miniscule length of this life in comparison to the vast stretches of eternity, it seems perfectly reasonable that Micah should devote a good portion of his time with me to trying to help me. And yet he doesn’t.
“Now that’s not fair,” someone might say. “Simply because he doesn’t explicitly try to convert you doesn’t mean that he’s not both concerned for the state of your soul and, simply in being friends with you, subtly trying to bring you around. In fact, it seems undeniable that if he did sit you down and tell you that your soul is in mortal peril if you don’t embrace Christ you would probably run screaming.” I can’t deny the last point, but very little follows from that. First, it seems like a very large gamble to hope that by simply being friends with me, Micah will be bring me around, especially given that there is every indication that such a tactic has utterly failed to this point. The more relevant point, however, and this gets us deeper into the puzzle, is that even though we do talk about our beliefs, it seems not only inaccurate but patronizing to suggest that either one of us is subtly trying to persuade the other person of anything. Instead, we both seem perfectly happy with the fact that we fundamentally disagree and that, chances are, nothing is going to change. And we still get along like a house on fire.
the first post is dan's:
Some time ago, Micah and I had an interesting conversation about friendship generally and, more specifically, the possibility of friendship between atheists and theists. The question, of course, was not whether such a thing could ever happen, but given that it does it happen, how is it possible? This is not just an abstract question or, if it is, it is not just motivated by abstract concerns. Instead, the question flows out my friendship with Micah, since I am a staunch atheist, though not a dogmatic one. While I don’t believe in God, I don’t think that it is irrational to do so, or a sign of stupidity, lack of thought etc. I also don’t claim to understand what it is to believe in God, since belief in God strikes me as the kind of thing that cannot be understood independently of belief. But for all that, at the end of the day, I do think that people who believe in God have a false picture of the world in virtue of having a set of false beliefs. And, of course, the same is true for Micah, who believes that I’m wrong.
The question isn’t simply, “How can people with conflicting views get along?” since Micah and I might have all kinds of conflicting views which don’t really bear importantly on our lives (Micah might think that the American league system of using a designated hitter results in better baseball, whereas I might think that the National league has it right). What is puzzling is how two people with conflicting views that are absolutely central to their lives can get along. And not just get along, but be good friends. For at the end of the day, I think that Micah’s view of the world is importantly distorted and he thinks not only that but also that my soul is in peril. In ordinary circumstances when I see someone I care about in serious trouble, I intervene. If someone I care about it seriously messing with their life, I will step in and do what I can to help her on her way. And yet, I have not tried to persuade Micah that his view of the world is essentially wrong and, more importantly, he has not tried to persuade me that I’m in mortal danger. But why? The question seems especially pressing on Micah’s side – what could be more important than ensuring that a friend’s soul be saved? Given the miniscule length of this life in comparison to the vast stretches of eternity, it seems perfectly reasonable that Micah should devote a good portion of his time with me to trying to help me. And yet he doesn’t.
“Now that’s not fair,” someone might say. “Simply because he doesn’t explicitly try to convert you doesn’t mean that he’s not both concerned for the state of your soul and, simply in being friends with you, subtly trying to bring you around. In fact, it seems undeniable that if he did sit you down and tell you that your soul is in mortal peril if you don’t embrace Christ you would probably run screaming.” I can’t deny the last point, but very little follows from that. First, it seems like a very large gamble to hope that by simply being friends with me, Micah will be bring me around, especially given that there is every indication that such a tactic has utterly failed to this point. The more relevant point, however, and this gets us deeper into the puzzle, is that even though we do talk about our beliefs, it seems not only inaccurate but patronizing to suggest that either one of us is subtly trying to persuade the other person of anything. Instead, we both seem perfectly happy with the fact that we fundamentally disagree and that, chances are, nothing is going to change. And we still get along like a house on fire.
posted by micah at 6:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home