A Dialog between Nick Bohl and Theo Warner

by Tuesday Afternoon on November 21, 2011

Nick: I went to church this morning, like you suggested.

Theo: Interesting. Did you have an urge to get closer to God or something.

Nick: I was walking around Boston. Nothing was open, which reminded me it was Sunday and I thought of your suggestion. I wouldn’t say I wanted to get closer to God, though. But when I’m in nature, I can get this strong sense of serenity from the trees and the rivers, and every once in a while I can get that same feeling from being in a church — from the architecture of an old church, a choir, and a sermon that’s not too preachy.

Theo: Yeah, that’s an urge to get closer to God.

Nick: I guess if that’s what you want to call it… I certainly don’t want to get closer to some supreme mind. I don’t even believe in one.

Theo: You know, the phrase “supreme mind” doesn’t make any sense to me, really. And I don’t think it matters that it doesn’t. Whatever someone means when they use the word “supreme” and word “mind,” I’m sure that God is far beyond those little meanings. If your experience in nature wasn’t with what you would call a supreme mind, then I wouldn’t use that phrase. But, I still think those experiences in nature are about getting closer to whatever it is that I mean when I use the word “God.”

Nick: Well if that’s all that church is — inducing serenity or thoughtfulness or community — I think I would want to go every week. I love feeling reflective with a big group. That seems wonderful to me. But, I can’t imagine any church accepting the fact that I’m an atheist. And plus, I’m not particularly moved by most dogmas.

Theo: I don’t think you are an atheist, Nick. I think that word does a lot of work for you. It announces to people that you’re outside religion — that you’re critical of religion. But, you seem to be interested in returning to certain kinds of experiences that religion… well, that religion does, so to speak. If I may, I think that part of your thinking here is that the word “atheist” implies “skepticism.” I would say that many religions treat skepticism with respect. I would think that skepticism and faith are strange allies in the sense that we must acknowledge that faith can be pretty stupid sometimes. It is, after all, blind. And skepticism can be valuable to us. If nothing else, it keeps us from getting too ahead of ourselves. So, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with entering a religion from the position of skeptic.

Nick: Skepticism, perhaps. I would be concerned that the only way to really experience something like, speaking in tongues or the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist for example, I would need to abandon my rationality.

Theo: I appreciate that. I think there are a lot experiences that we humans go through in the course of life that can’t possibly make sense to someone before they have themselves gone through it. The death of a loved one, for example. Sex. Love. German porn. You can imagine these things, you can even pretend to know something about them, but until you’ve gone through the experience, it’s almost meaningless. You can even look back on people who haven’t quite been there yet and they seem like lost puppies in a Home Depot. I suppose my point in this is to suggest that there is a sort of hiddenness about the truth of these experiences. I would suggest that the experience inside rituals is very much like that: from the outside, without having gone through it, they seem stupid and, frankly, they should seem stupid. Your skepticism should give you all the insight you need to know that most rituals are dumb. But, at the same time, you also don’t use the vocabulary of a religion, so you can’t really recognize what’s going on in a ritual. And you haven’t really begun to place God within rituals. They probably seem like empty, hollow theater to you.

Nick: Yes, they do. But, it’s not like I can’t see the profundity it has with people, and I feel like I would want to experience that too, of course, I don’t want to limit myself from any positive experience. But, I feel like I can’t be pluralistic and religious at the same time. I would have to reject entire religions in order to get the most out of one religion. I couldn’t, for example, extract the most profound lessons of Islam and Christianity and Daoism and be authentic to all three, while maintaining my allegiance to science and reason and all that crap.

Theo: I entirely agree. I don’t want to suggest that there isn’t something beautiful and true within Islam and Daoism. And there is a great deal of stupidity and ugliness to be encountered in Christianity. There are lessons and experiences to be found in most religious traditions. I would suggest to you that there are times in the religious life when, perhaps, it is appropriate to close certain doors behind you. This happens in all walks of life, when we make decisions about our career, which college we’re going to go to, and who we’re going to marry. I don’t think it’s in inappropriate or limiting. I think it’s an act of love. We want to offer up exclusivity, for example, to our spouse. We want to belong to a group and not to others on purpose. And you have even suggested that nature holds a special place in your spiritual life — not to the exclusion of other venues or experience, but because of a real love for dirt and fish or whatever

Nick: So, do you think religious plurality is compatible with religious passion?

Theo: To a certain extent, I think so. In certain ways compatible and in other ways incompatible. Certainly, at the beginning of the journey of the religious life, it would be foolish to prematurely dismiss anything. But, at the same time, I don’t think that you should have any pretensions about living the life of a perfect Christian and the life of perfect Muslim at once. I think there are going to be times when you will be asked to make commitments to a religion, commitments that you can’t make to two religions. But, that’s a long way off.

Nick: So it’s not that I should refrain from religion, it’s that I should be ultra-religious, I should absorb as much of it as possible. At least the good bits.

Theo: That’s certainly a way to start out. Religion, of course, is not as simple as the “good bits.” In order to fully participate in a religion — to get the most out of it — you have to become familiar with the vocabulary at hand, which can get pretty complicated. But, more importantly, religion is asking to become transformative in your life.

Nick: Makes me think about languages. When I first stated learning Spanish I remember that I would just translate everything into English in my head. That’s how I would communicate with Spanish speakers. Then after a while it became natural, and I would think and dream in Spanish. It even got to the point when there were Spanish words that were unable to be translated. There were some words that just made sense in Spanish, but not in English. I guess you could say I currently want to translate religious experiences into a secular language, but in order to really experience it, there might not be a secular word for it. I need to become bilingual.

Theo: It isn’t hard to imagine some snarky soul suggesting that one day, the secular sciences might come up with ways to recreate all the experiences available to us through religion. I’m not sure how likely that is or what I would think about it. But, I’m inclined to say that if there really is a way for science to bring us closer to God, then I’m all for it.

Nick: So what’s next then?

Theo: I think you should pick a church, even at random, and give it a shot. We can talk about it if you want as you go along, but take a religion out for a test drive and see what happens.

Nick: I’ll do that. And we can reconvene then.

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
  • http://12tuesday.com Spencer Daniel

    Just out of curiosity, what kind of church was it?  

    Also, though Catholicism is obviously the One True Religion, you may find non-Abrahmic religions more your non-dogmatic liking.  Judaism, Islam, and Christianity (in increasing order) are a bit atypical in the experience of world religion in emphasizing belief.  

    • Anonymous

      It was Trinity Church in downtown Boston, Copley Square. Theo tells me it wasn’t Catholic, but it would have fooled me. And yeah, I plan on experiencing all that I can, but it’s mostly synagogs and churches around here. I’d like to find some eastern practices too.

      • http://12tuesday.com Spencer Daniel

        In terms of liturgy, high episcopal churches are often indistinguishable from traditional Catholic churches.  Actually, in some ways, I think they do the liturgy better than we do, even if they are incorrigible and twice-damned schismatics and heretics.

        We started doing Yoga as a low-impact way to keep active and accidentally ended up at a place that did it as a religious practice.  Since there’s no creed or anything, I don’t feel at all weird being there and not being a part of the religion.  They also have Bhagavad Gita classes, which I might take – I’m interested in reading that text with a community that considers it a living, revelatory document.  

  • hilbertthm90

    Here’s some of what I take away from this. Theo for some reason wants to say that people who believe that humans can have transcendental experiences that have little or no scientific explanation should not call themselves atheists. I’m not sure I know a single atheist then. I’d say most atheists believe this and the fact that we keep telling theists this and they don’t hear it is something that has to do with bias.

    Along the same line, maybe I’d propose that Theo shouldn’t call himself a Christian. I mean, he seems to be admitting that “God” is something so beyond our comprehension that no words can describe it whatever it is (what seems to be a markedly Deistic claim from my standpoint). To be a Christian you must at some point make the jump and say, oh yeah, despite what I just said he had a human son that died for our sins …. Are these two positions somehow compatible?

    I’ll end with the suggestion that there are many, many secular ways to recreate those transcendental experiences in a group. I’m not sure why we must turn to religion to do it. For instance, is being a member of the Seattle Symphony Orchestra a religion? Most of the musicians there were probably drawn to be a musician for the fact that when they play beautiful music with a group they have transcendent experiences that are beyond all words. Should we call these experiences God? That seems a bit strange to me.

    My advice to Nick. If nature helps you reach a certain state consciousness and you enjoy doing this in a group, then organize a group hike weekly with like-minded people. Again, I just don’t see the need for religion in all this.

    • theowarner

      If I really do think that people who believe that humans can have transcendental experiences should not call themselves atheists, I’m not sure that I know many atheists either. But, I do know some. 

      You say: “I’d propose that Theo shouldn’t call himself a Christian. I mean, he seems to be admitting that “God” is something so beyond our comprehension that no words can describe it whatever it is.” I don’t actually use this word “Christian” very much, mostly because it requires me to be included with repugnant people. Nevertheless, it is a long standing tradition in Christian theology that God is beyond our comprehension. It is a relatively new innovation of Christian apologists that God is not only easily comprehended, but well within the purview of elementary logic. 
      You say: “Most of the musicians there were probably drawn to be a musician for the fact that when they play beautiful music with a group they have transcendent experiences that are beyond all words. Should we call these experiences God?” Yes, for the most part. Some musicians are obviously not having transcendental experiences, but many are. 

    • Anonymous

      I appreciate that, hilbertthm. I do a lot of nature stuff already, and I find fulfillment in a lot of non-religious ways, but I’m actually kind of interested in religious rituals anyways. I agree with you about the orchestra. And I also think there’s a totally secular explanation for that sensation. The harmonics and the resonation you can literally feel in your chest, the joy of collaboration, the nostalgia of certain timbres and melodies, etc. There’s a scientific or academic or let’s just say factual explanation for that profound experience, but there’s also a religious language for it. Theo would call it God. It seems strange to me too, but I’d still like to understand it I guess. It doesn’t belong in the same category as fact, it’s closer to poetry I guess, but it is a meaningful statement none the less.

      I have complete confidence that I can separate the bullshit and the harmful practices from the unique or maybe even beneficial ones. I don’t fear accidently being converted or something. I am an atheist, in the only definition which seems meaningful to me, but I think what Theo is saying (when he says I am not) is that that definition might be compatible with many religious experiences, as he understands them. Seems worth investigating to me.

      BTW, in a similar way, I don’t think Theo is a Christian as many people define it. I think he’s just as much an agnostic or atheist as I am, only he has an incredibly profound appreciation for religious experiences, especially or explicitly ones within a christian language.

      • theowarner

        I think that’s about right, Nick. 

        My only comment here is that much of the ideas that I represent in this conversation are very ancient Christian ideas. I think that much of what you might call atheism has had its place inside Christian orthodoxy for centuries. Most modern persons don’t recognize this tradition because all they hear are people like William Lane Craig. 

      • hilbertthm90

        I’ll attempt to distill my comment to one idea. This could just be me since everyone is different, but I find it almost impossible to have a “religious experience” at a church. You mentioned that you will be able to sort the BS out, but most people sitting around you will not. There is nothing to kill a transcendent experience than realizing that despite the fact that the person at the pulpit is spewing demonstrably false things at you the people around you are eating it up as truth. Not only does it kill any religious experience, but it ruins my whole day.

        Hmm…sidetracked again. Back to the point. It seems that when someone recommends that you go to church they have one of two things in mind. Either it is true (by that I mean all of its specific doctrines and not just that there “are truths within it”), which I think everyone here is in agreement that this is not the case, or it is for the experience. Since it is the latter, and the latter can be gotten without this extra having to sort out BS/watch other people be brainwashed by the BS, I just don’t see the point.

        I think the point that is trying to be made was touched upon during the discussion above about language. I find that fascinating, but would like to see it expanded upon or argued in another way that it is actually worth the BS or is actually a qualitatively different experience than the secular ones I mentioned. If this point can be convincingly made, then I might start trying this experiment as well.

        • theowarner

          I certainly agree that most people (maybe not most… but, many) within religion are not going to be able to sort out the bullshit from the real stuff. But, another way to say this is: there are always two ways that almost everything happens: what it is and what it isn’t. The latter is very common. And there’s nothing about religion that makes it more likely or less likely to cultivate bullshit. 95% of what goes on in a bar is bullshit.

          I do want to say that my recommendation to Nick had nothing to do with trying to convert him. I actually can’t recall the situation but I find evangelism in general to be a rather shitty pass time and almost always annoying. I think we were talking about something and it came out as my best answer to some question… but I forget exactly.

          To answer your point about the point (if religion is just about the experience, then what is the point?) I would say that it is largely because these experiences are intensely complex and require years to understand. I suppose it’s possible for a secular vocabulary to develop that might facilitate some sort of analogous experience, but it seems very unlikely to me. And certainly, if it happens, we are several hundred years from it. On the other hand, religions have been cultivating a vocabulary to help guide its practitioners for thousands of years — this is another reason to be suspicious of modern religious ideas, like those in Dr. Craig’s camp. 

          Let me give you an example that Nick and I were actually discussing the other night: prayer. Now, prayer is certainly not the stupid practice of asking for money from God. It is certainly more complicated than that. Someone might come along and start talking about meditation, like Buddhists do. Of course, this reveals that they don’t understand what Buddhists actually do or that almost all religious traditions (Dr. Craig’s camp excluded, of course) have developed meditation as part of its central practice. And meditation is not, contrary to popular opinion, about relaxation. In fact, I would say that most people seem to describe meditation in the same terms as “easy listening music.” So, what is prayer? Well, it’s like meditation, but more. And meditation is already a part of a vocabulary of religious experience that I suspect does not exist in secular tradition. 

          Could all the wisdom of religion be emptied out into secular experiences? Maybe. I’m inclined to think that it’s not possible and that there are real experiences inside religion that simply cannot be felt without religious tradition to form the experience itself. 

          Imagine a group of non-religious people meeting once a week to meditate together and conduct transformative rituals. Imagine assigning certain persons to have authority in these matters over other people… that handing over a certain amount of decision making powers to others was a necessary part of these rituals… how is this not religion?  

          • hilbertthm90

            I only ask because I was a Christian for probably about 15 years. I knew the language. Boy did I have the experiences. I used to listen to Christian music and be moved so much I’d cry. It was God touching me. To quote you, “You can even look back on people who haven’t quite been there yet and they seem like lost puppies in a Home Depot.” 

            This sword cuts both ways. Probably the most important factor for me losing my religion was when I played for the first time in a band of excellent musicians. I was moved, there were tears, the group had a moment together that transcended everything. Wait. That was the same exact experience I was having with the Christian music. I blindly attributed this to the “Christian” part because that’s what I was trained to think it was when really it was the “music” part. It wasn’t God, it was art.

            That’s the reason I brought up playing in an orchestra. So now I can look back on people who have been there and mis-attribute something to God due to their religion and they seem like lost puppies. I play in a community band and despite it being a group of amateurs that often play at the level of a mediocre high school band I still have these experiences nearly weekly. 

            It is totally possible that I never “really” was a Christian in those 15 years. I turned to many other religions immediately upon leaving Christianity, so I have a passing experience in those as well. In my personal experience, I can’t fathom church providing me with anything extra not afforded by these secular experiences. That’s why I asked. I am honestly curious if maybe a case can be made that there is something more to be had than what I get from playing in my band (or reading a great moving novel, or hiking to the top of a mountain and coming to a profound understanding of just how tiny you are, etc).

          • theowarner

            I guess that this sword cuts both ways cuts both ways because I would say that were able to have some sort of experience outside Church only speaks to the ability of all persons to discover God in all things — another very ancient teaching of most religions. So, when you say, “It wasn’t God, it was art,” I’m afraid I can’t see any reason to prefer that over “It was God, it was art.” That said… I don’t blame you for that reading. I just hope you can’t blame me for mine.

          • http://12tuesday.com Spencer Daniel

            Theo, do you think that the meaning of “God” can be reduced to religious experience?  Since “reduced to” is a dangerous and loaded phrase, let me explain.  If we defined religious language as precisely as possible, would it all come back to describing experiences that we have?  Or does religious language legitimately go beyond the experience?  

            Another way of putting it…  Here are two ways of conceiving of religious language:
            1: Religious language is a complex way of describing certain experiences that people have 
            2: Religious language is a complex way of describing certain realities (“God”) that are experienced in limited ways by people

            #1 is agnostic about the existence of anything beyond the feelings themselves.  

            Would you accept either of these ways of understanding religious language?  Or perhaps some third road?  

          • theowarner

            This is precisely the intersection of ideas that Nick and I are exploring.

            I think that Nick would suggest that religious language is a complex way of describing certain experiences. I would say that those experiences are of something. And yes, I think this places me squarely beyond, at least, one connotation of the word ‘agnostic,’ the connotation you suggest: that one does not know whether religious experience is of an Unknown apart from experience itself. The other connotation of agnostic which I sometimes find useful is that I do not know what it is that I am experiencing — I am happy to call it ‘God’ in some contexts, but if my interlocutor connotes too much in their understanding of God, I find myself drawing away and word ‘God’ is less useful, at least, in that conversational instance. The point behind my conversation with Nick, however, is that those experiences (or some of them) are universally available to us all and that they are more easily understood and experienced within religious frameworks. Once we begin to accept that, we begin to discover ourselves more intimately related to that Unknown and more readily able to identify the Unknown as apart from one’s experience and that is the religious life as I see it and experience it. Simplified version: I am not God.

          • hilbertthm90

            Ah. This allows me to articulate my point a lot more clearly. Everything hinges on this one sentence of yours, “The point behind my conversation with Nick, however, is that those experiences (or some of them) are universally available to us all and that they are more easily understood and experienced within religious frameworks.”

            This is just an assertion I see no argument nor evidence for. My claim is the exact opposite. These experiences can all be had outside of religion, and moreover once you realize that you can un-entwine these two one can start to more readily understand and experience them since the “religion” part merely adds unnecessary complexity and confusion to the mix.

          • theowarner

            There is, indeed, no argument for it. At least, not the sort of argument you might expect. The argument would be experience itself and you’d have to delve into religion for that. I recognize the circularity of that, btw. But, I think a lot of things exist that way. I can’t really offer you an argument for the transformative power of sex other than to tell you to go have sex and then you’ll know what I mean. I disagree that all these experiences can be had outside religion. I would say relatively few of them can be — but some of them certainly can be. And more to the point, more of them are more easily understood within a religious context. So, this isn’t adding unnecessary complexity or confusion. It’s probably adding necessary complexity and confusion, and it’s not really that confusion once you are religious and using the framework of religion to investigate and understand these experiences. 

            So — to recap — there is no argument. Please understand: I can tell you some of the stuff that I believe but I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I won’t and shouldn’t be able to. And secondly, I’m not suggesting that religion is just some method of delivery that is just as good as a weekend in the Shenandoah Mountains. 

            Okay. I’ll leave that there for the moment.

          • http://12tuesday.com Spencer Daniel

            Well put, sir.  

  • Asadullah Ali

    Wonderful dialogue. 

    God is beyond what we make of him, but we need some sort of way to refer to the Divine, even though our language is limited. The feeling we get, the perception we have that goes “beyond” the experience of the senses drives us to these conclusions. We cannot escape that which is part of who we are. 

    That is why I don’t think a lot of these arguments for the existence of God are necessary or even productive. They simply speak to draw out what we already feel and understand in a meaningful way. 

    God is known.

    • Rahn127

      Let’s say that someone KNOWS that god exists and that’s all you have. You have that knowledge. You feel it with every breath you take. That knowledge of the existence of a god fills your life with joy. It’s not the actions or inactions of the god per se that brings joy to you, but the simple knowledge of the existence of such a being. If this is the case, then couldn’t one be just as joyful in knowing that a rock exists. The knowledge of the existence of the rock fills every breath you take with joy and fulfillment. The mere existence of something you see as being divine or something divine that you merely think exists is a state of anthropomorphism, assigning characteristics to something that it doesn’t really have. Mentally painting a flower to have a brighter shade of red or imagining that a rose smells as sweet as honey. These things that one does are lies we tell ourselves and the knowledge that a god exists is useless when compared to the knowledge that a rock exists. Existence alone is meaningless when a thrown rock can do more than a god.

      • Asadullah Ali

        That’s quite funny to say given that it would take the experience of said knowledge to affirm whether there was any practical benefit anyways. Im sure people who have claimed to experience God or know of His existence would tell you there are many practicalities of said knowledge for their own spiritual and moral development. 

        But that’s not even the main issue. The main issue is why you believe somehow knowledge is only valuable if it has some sort of “use”. 

  • Rahn127

    When it comes to a religion that believes in an all powerful god that is not self evident, it forces you to abandon your sense of reason, rationality and any moral or ethical ground that you once had in order to accept the precepts of that religion. To accept the idea that it is ok to be aware that a murder is about to take place and do nothing, because that murder is a part of your divine plan, I find immoral and in fact harmful to a society. When you have two worlds, in which one contains a god and the other does not. but they are identical in every other way, then any god that exists is impotent and useless. And in specific reference to the Christian god, any god that is the creator of evil cannot be good. Any god that creates torture for all eternity as a way to gain followers is evil. If you can find peace and serenity from worshiping an evil being, what does that say about your own sense of clarity about the world when you delude yourself into thinking that evil actions are in fact good actions. This abandonment of reason and rationality can in turn cause great atrocities. If you wish to find serenity within a religion, I suggest a frontal lobotomy. After all ignorance is bliss.

    • Asadullah Ali

      You’re one of these narrow minded anti-theists, aren’t you?

  • Rahn127

    As I was reading other comments, someone mentioned the idea about comparing the experience of church as learning a new language and that some words couldn’t be translated very well because sometimes a single word is attached to a much larger story or has a context that doesn’t offer itself to translation. Imagine a language that doesn’t have the words (what, why, where, when and who) A language in which you cannot ask any questions. A language that doesn’t promote discovery or curiosity or education. A language that only allows you to describe something unknown to you as “this is the will of god”. If you should become sick or injured, and someone from outside your language asks you what happened, you can’t even understand the question, because there are no questions in your language, so you reply with “this is the will of god”. You accept all statements from a central person in your community as true. Your language doesn’t contain concepts that allow for the free thinking of any new ideas, only the acceptance of that which is written in a holy book. There are other creatures in the world that have such a language. Ants. Ants have a queen. Ants have a society that is built upon every ant doing as they are told without question. A worker ant, a soldier ant and other specialized laborers. The word ant comes from the West Germanic *amaitjo, and the original meaning of the word was “the biter”. And like a vampire, if you let religion get it’s fangs into, it will drain you dry.

  • Alexander M.

    Theowarner, 

    I’ve been a long-time subscriber to your YouTube account; which has featured a number of interesting videos. Your logical critiques of William Lane Craig were some of the most well-thought out videos I have seen thus far on Youtube. 

    Given your record, then, I was quite surprised by the absence of critical evaluation here. Here you are, encouraging someone to pick up a new religion which is fine; but you lack the usual philosophical and logical punch I expect to see. 

    I have two issues with this post, 

    1) Epistemological problems with spiritual experience are never discussed

    Spiritual experience and rituals, you are correct, will seem empty to outsiders; yes. I would argue, however, that there is very good reason for this beyond a lack of participation in the religion itself. Note: I’m not stating that religious experience is false; merely that it is not useful for coming any closer to the truth about various matters. 

    This is because, for adherents of different religions, spiritual experiences confirm, individually and totally, contradictory truths. Just like any other methodology which leads to wildly different and contradictory conclusions; spiritual experience should be discarded as a reliable method for coming to sound conclusions. 

    How would you address this problem?

    2) And if this problem is admitted, then how is religion useful at all?

    -Alex

  • Paul Prescod

    I’m surprised that you said: “I can’t imagine any church accepting the fact that I’m an atheist. And plus, I’m not particularly moved by most dogmas.” and nobody mentioned Unitarian Universalism, a church that is home to thousands of atheists and which explicitly avoids all dogmas. 

Previous post:

Next post: