| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Tooling Up: I'm Special, Aren't You? | Main | Friday Poem »

March 19, 2010

Skeptical clergy a silent majority?

Daniel C. Dennett in the Washington Post:

Daniel_c_dennett Here are some questions that have haunted me for years. How many preachers actually believe what they say from the pulpit? We know that every year some clergy abandon their calling, no longer able to execute their duties with conviction. This can never be a decision taken lightly, and many of them labored on for years before taking the leap. Are they the tip of an iceberg? Is there a problem of deep hypocrisy separating many pastors from their flocks? What is it like to be a non-believing preacher? How do they reconcile their private skepticism with the obligations of their position? And how did they get into their predicament?

Several years ago I set out to get some answers, in collaboration with Linda LaScola, a clinical social worker with years of experience as a qualitative researcher. I had told her of my interviews with deeply religious people while writing my book, "Breaking the Spell" (2006), and of my surprise at how many of them were eager to tell me, in confidence, that they didn't believe a word of the doctrines of the faith to which they were devoting their lives. Was this also true of ordained clergy? With some help from me and a network of advisers, LaScola identified some brave informants, all currently Protestant pastors with congregations, and interviewed them at length and in depth--and of course in deep confidence.

More here.  Also read "Preachers who are not Believers," a study by Daniel C. Dennett and Linda LaScola of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University.

Posted by Abbas Raza at 06:21 AM | Permalink

Comments

This isn't such a new concept... Sinclair Lewis' Elmer Gantry dealt with this in a scathing critique. I think the problem lies in the fact that we attempt to make God a concept that we really, as a people cannot understand or comprehend; in fact, the subject matter demands it. So the more we learn and are aware of our a priori knowledge seeking ability, the harder it is to grasp something than cannot be believed with critical proof. I think it requires a deep contemplation of why the concept of God is the way it is today. Most of the clergy that I have met have been extraordinarily intelligent people, and have the ability to see the contradictions and lack of proof for the high concepts they preach; and when I hear them, it is with an almost desperate plea that others not seek so hard into their faith that they lose it, a kind of self-sacrifice that is very poignant.

Posted by: Matthew Jeffery | Mar 19, 2010 7:03:27 AM

One wonders how this affects pastors in the military whose flocks are killing innocent civilians in wars the public loathes.

How can they handle it if they are "sacrificing humanity on an iron cross" as General / President Eisenhower explained?

Posted by: Dredd | Mar 19, 2010 8:16:37 AM

Fascinating. It's become commonplace to mock Dennett and others for focusing on something so insignificant as belief. These interviews reveal that attitude as the graveyard whistling it is.

It's telling that not one of the interviewees mentioned service to youth or how they counsel others struggling with belief.

Posted by: Ken Pidcock | Mar 19, 2010 9:04:07 AM

Religion and hypocrisy are identical twins.

Posted by: J. Hawkins | Mar 19, 2010 10:35:46 AM

Why this obsession with fighting religion on the part of Ditchkins, Dennett et al? Is it a substitute for engaging with politics? I'm not a religious believer, but I'm just a bit puzzled at all the energy devoted to this, rather than, say, social justice.

Posted by: chris | Mar 19, 2010 11:57:30 AM

I don't think that it's a substitute for engaging with politics; it is a political conversation in the wake of the collapse of one of the foundational myths of politics since the European Wars of Religion. It's increasingly apparent that the attempted confinement of religion to the private sphere was always something of a false solution, insofar as it's often not the case that motivations can be so neatly divided. The commitment to atheism is, at least in part, an attempt to save (the fiction of) an Enlightenment politics grounded in secularism by rooting out the religion that could not be contained. I myself am not convinced, but I do think that someone like Hitchens would argue that religion is one of if not the obstacle to social justice.

There's actually something inherently conservative about the new atheism, though not in the capital C sense of American politics - it's matter of entrenchment in an increasingly less tenable view of how the public sphere should be constituted rather than any new attempt to innovate with regards to the political.

Posted by: markst7 | Mar 19, 2010 12:48:29 PM

@chris, Have you read the linked report? There's actually quite a bit of stress associated with belief in belief. No, it's nothing like hunger or pestilence, but it's still a problem we should be working to relieve.

Posted by: Ken Pidcock | Mar 19, 2010 12:49:22 PM

Why this obsession with fighting religion on the part of Ditchkins, Dennett et al? Is it a substitute for engaging with politics? I'm not a religious believer, but I'm just a bit puzzled at all the energy devoted to this, rather than, say, social justice.

No offense, but have you taken a look around lately?
We are in a mass extinction, and superstition and myth are a liability in dealing with the dire consequences unfolding on planet earth.
I attended a lecture at Stanford last year in which Dennett discussed this upcoming study.
This reaction is expected from such a meme infected population.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Mar 19, 2010 1:51:50 PM

No offence, but have YOU looked around lately, Mr Ranning?

The mass extinction point you make is just bizarre: aren't secular philosophies as problematic as religious ones when it comes to mass extinction/global warming or whatever?

"This reaction is expected from such a meme infected population".
What does the meme point prove? aren't you open to a tu quoque response? Aren't your ideas about Dennett 'meme infected'?(whatever that is supposed to mean)

Oh, what nonsense this meme stuff is: meme: a concept without any content.

Posted by: Chris Horner | Mar 19, 2010 2:05:42 PM

What we need is a lot more clear thinking and clear seeing of reality. (What reality is is an exasperating philosophical problem, frequently attacked by philosophers like Dennett.)

Religions generally distort reality, and so do non-religious world views. Reality is a problem for everyone.

Posted by: JonJ | Mar 19, 2010 4:31:29 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

Nominations Now Open

3QD ADVERTISING

Find the best prices on Las Vegas Show Tickets at Best of Vegas and Orlando Theme Parks at Best of Orlando!

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Gordon on Jonathan Haidt Decodes the Tribal Psychology of Politics

fa on Gish Jen to Judge 3rd Annual 3QD Arts & Literature Prize

Elatia Harris on Smells (and the people who write about them)

rjm on Gish Jen to Judge 3rd Annual 3QD Arts & Literature Prize

Rohan Maitzen on Gish Jen to Judge 3rd Annual 3QD Arts & Literature Prize

ray Butlers on Tax Justice: The Next Great American Movement

Pepito on Becoming Condoleezza Rice

Jaya Aninda Chatterjee on Gish Jen to Judge 3rd Annual 3QD Arts & Literature Prize

Steve on Becoming Condoleezza Rice

ed rackley on That's not music – that's just noise!

Philosopher's Beard on Gish Jen to Judge 3rd Annual 3QD Arts & Literature Prize

DS on Gish Jen to Judge 3rd Annual 3QD Arts & Literature Prize

Michael Cunningham on Suicide as Scene and Spectacle: Notes on The Bridge and Aokigahara - Suicide Forest

Bilal Tanweer on Gish Jen to Judge 3rd Annual 3QD Arts & Literature Prize

Nithin on Gish Jen to Judge 3rd Annual 3QD Arts & Literature Prize

omar on Learning Urdu

Ankur on Learning Urdu

hairlessOrphan on That's not music – that's just noise!

Namit on Gish Jen to Judge 3rd Annual 3QD Arts & Literature Prize

hairlessOrphan on That's not music – that's just noise!

Ankur on Learning Urdu

Frank on Smells (and the people who write about them)

Nick Smyth on That's not music – that's just noise!

Jeff Strabone on Tax Justice: The Next Great American Movement

panopticonopolis on Tax Justice: The Next Great American Movement

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed