(The title is a bit of an inside joke, coming from a former boss who was having a little fun when telling me what the editor’s mark “stet” meant.) In any event, I very much appreciated at recent post of Tipsy’s entitled, “The Fool, Revisited.”
He was offering some thoughts on Christopher Hitchens and the interaction of non-believers with believers of various kinds. Not to suggest I have Hitchens’ level of learning or writing chops, but I did recognize more than a little of myself in Tipsy’s description:
[Hitchens’] many Christian friends tell of how delighted he was to discuss religion with a true believer, but he rejected humbuggery.
I used to describe my particular brand of non-belief as agnosticism rather than atheism; possibly more as a reflexive aversion to the label “atheist” than anything else. These days, I’ll accept either label. I am agnostic in the sense that I don’t pretend certain knowledge that divinity does not exist. But, I suppose I’m atheist int he sense that I don’t think it’s a 50/50 proposition. In areas in which the divine seems necessary — e.g. “where did all the stuff come from” — I think the more likely explanation is some natural phenomenon we don’t yet understand. Replacing the question of “where did all the stuff come from” with “where did God come from” hardly seems like an advance in our understanding of the beginning of the universe.
As to the rest of it, most people in the world disbelieve in the legions of gods believed in at one time or another by others; I – to paraphrase Dawkins – just happen to disbelieve in one God more. That said, I sincerely enjoy discussing the matter with those who sincerely believe and through which belief they are able improve the world; either because they are inspired to be better people, create more, get up every day, raise wonderful families, or however it is their belief helps improve them. But, at the same time, I’m not above skewering the beliefs of those who use their religion as an excuse to make worse the lives of others.
Toward his close, Tipsy observes that, [a]ll fools are not equal.” Very true. I’ve often found the fool to be an interesting historical and literary figure. In my mind, the fool is a notable character when he uses his power to speak truth to power when others dare not. Hitchens sometimes played that role.
Update: Today seems to be my day to think about and discuss religion. Gary Varvel, of the Indy Star, put out a Tweet that tripped a wire with me:
It didn’t take long for the Tebow mocking to begin. He is in good company. Jesus was mocked too.
So, here is the exchange that followed:
Me: The NFL is thick with devout Christians loved by fans. @varvel should consider why Tebow is mocked, and they aren’t.
Him: Please educate me, why Tebow gets mocked, Doug.
Me: For starters, he engages in the sort of ostentatious display of piety Jesus derides in Matthew 6.
Me: It’s also backlash against favorable media attention beyond his qualities as a quarterback because of his ostentatious displays.
Me: He has also become a proxy in the culture wars – another excuse for the sides to hate on each other.
Him (in response to #1): I just thought he was letting his light shine before man as commanded in Matt 5.
Him (in response to #2): I guess Sports Center should tone down the 4 OT wins with the odds being 1 in 320,000.
Him (in response to #3): He’s not the one hating. He is kind to those who are rude to his face – like Shannon Sharpe.
Me: O.k. So what is your explanation? God cares about football games but everyone hates Tebow because he loves Jesus?
Him: I’m wise enough to know that I’m not wise enough to know.
I’m not going to go at Mr. Varvel directly. He was polite enough, and I engaged him. But, this Tebow stuff is part of why I have a hard time taking a lot of mainstream Christianity seriously. The Tebow phenomenon seems equal parts culture war and superstition from where I’m sitting.
My opinion is that Hitchens played the role of fool when he backed Bush’s foreign policy. I don’t for a second believe that he thought he was playing that role at that, though. He seemed deadly earnest, and was wholly willing to risk his secure place on the left over it. Respect for the strident manner, but so disagree with the positions he was taking.
Funny, but you mirror much of my own takes on faith. I also blanch from the term ‘atheist’. If the question revolves around ‘proof’, I find that there isn’t really any proof for or against, and that either belief or non-belief is still a matter of faith. Like you, I can get along real well with people who believe they are working to make the world a better place, even if I disagree with their politics or religious expressions.
Your position is virtually identical to mine, with one difference: as a Jew, I’m reluctant to distance myself from 7000-some years of history, much of which saw Jews suffer hatred and rejection for refusing to renounce the religion. It seems like such cowardice and abandonment; plus, I am certainly a cultural Jew, if not a believing one. (Fortunately, that’s a lot easier in Judaism, which is a works-based religion that it is for “faith-based” Christians.) I have some very dear friends who are Christian in the best sense of that word, and I honor them, but I am sick to death of the culture warriors and hypocrites who use religion to justify their own privileges and prejudices.
I guess I don’t understand your point, Doug. It looks to me that the Tebow controversy is being driven by the media, specifically the sports media, the ESPN types. I don’t see it being driven by “Christians”. There was no controversy until “sports talk” made it up.
Is anybody really a Tebow fan because of his piousness on the sideline?
But what do I know. I didn’t even know who Tebow was until he decimated the Bears secondary.
I don’t understand a worldview that would lead one to seriously compare Tebow to Jesus as Varvel seems to have done.
But, yeah, I think it was the ESPN type coverage of Mr. Tebow that has brought widespread attention to something that would have otherwise been mostly ignored. Tebow’s ostentatious displays of piety probably would have been met with little more than eye rolling if the sports media covered him in proportion to his actual skill on the field.
“Me: It’s also backlash against favorable media attention beyond his qualities as a quarterback because of his ostentatious displays.”
First, ostentatious? Really? As in Tebow tries to impress others with his displays of Christianity? Surely you jest. Virtually everyone agrees that Tebow is the same person off the field as he is on it . You may not like who that person is (but why?) but it is impossible to say he is not at a high level of genuineness not achieved by most.
Second, “beyond his abilities as a Quarterback”? Tebow is a virtual rookie QB with the #14 Quarterback rating in football Tebow also happens to have helped a struggling team go 7-2. Is Tebow the best quarterback in the NFL, or in the rarified air of Brady, Brees and Rodgers? Absolutely not. But he is a mediocre QB that has gone 7-2 as a virtual rookie. That isn’t bad and people take notice.
What is funny is that I see Tebow mocked for his Christianity at a double-digit multiplier of how often he is praised for it. He is mocked because he does it more sincerely and more frequently than other players, he has performed pro-life commercials (making himself a target for the pro-choice crows), and plays the most high profile position in the game.
We shouldn’t like Tebow because he wears his religion on his sleeve, but it is a bit appalling how often he is attacked for showing his faith.
Oops. (crowds, not crows)
Paul C., I call “Freudian Slip!” on you. lol
Say what you want about Edgerin James (sp?), but I used to admire him for his behavior in the end zone. He would score a TD and calmly hand the ball to the official. No dancing, no public declaration of faith. He scored and he knew he was coming back to the endzone again.
Here’s what I saw two days ago…
Tebow scored in the 1st, the result of a good, tone setting play. But instead of immediately starting to figure out how he was going to beat TOM BRADY, he had to take a knee and communicate with the The Supreme Being. When he later loses, it kind of makes the public prayer in the first quarter look a tad silly.
How relevant are athletes’ words and gestures off the field anyway? E. James scored a bunch of touchdowns, Tebow has now scored a few. Neither Tebow’s faith nor James’ stoicism seemed to have much of a competitive impact on Mr. Belichick, so who cares? Anything that occurs before or after a game is a public relations/media/internet creation and will always be subject to personal taste, bias and interpretation. The teams, leagues, media, blogs, fans will see in these exploits what they want to see, good and bad. Tebow’s faith and the Edge’s coolness, which I have no basis to question, are all part of the show.
Of course, Tebow’s not even a Christian anyway (he’s a Paulinist), but that’s neither here nor there.