Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God: How to give love, create beauty and find peace

A Preacher Kid's Devolution: An Escape From Reasoned Faith"To the new theology, the usefulness of a symbol is in direct proportion to its obscurity. There is connotation, as in the word god, but there is no definition." Francis Schaeffer"Neo-Orthodoxy: A God without wrath brought men wthout sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross." H. Richard Niebuhr (1)Turn On, Tune In, and Just Drop OutFranky's unconventional, neo-orthodox journey into soft atheism is yet another illustration of a preacher's kid who, though evangelically-house-trained and capable of reciting his dad's teachings, never seemed to fully embrace the gospel as divine revelation, and who regarded the Bible as only a literary work comparable to Greek mythology characterized by an invisible realm, magic, and unbridled tragedy. (2) Without surprise, then, you'll find his interjection of "fundamentalism" dispersed throughout the chapters as a derisive progressive icon used in opposition to traditional orthodoxy while slowly becoming more aware that he favors an admixture of bohemian and Darwinian political culture in this atheist treatise. Interestingly, the materialist philosophy that grounds his rejection of Protestant, Catholic and Greek Orthodox "orthodoxy" and which also best explains his embracing of Neo-Darwinism is captured by Richard Lewontin's essay entitled, "Billions and Billions of Demons".In that spirit, I'm using soft atheism to describe his departure from traditional orthodox content whether Protestant or Greek Orthodox, notwithstanding his overtures of our living as though, acting as though there may be a spiritual, nonmaterial world co-existent with the material one; and this conclusion having been drawn, so he says, because the New Atheists haven't been able to explain the origin and our appreciation of aesthetics that measure up to his progressive sensibilities which favor such; at this juncture, he conveniently doesn't quote evo-devo processes to explain his bias in purely reductionist-materialist fashion given that his epistemological preference for philosophic aesthetics is apparently off limits to Nietzschean deconstruction; and conveniently so I must say no matter his sublime appeal to dialectics and Neo-Darwinism to provide a pseudo-scientific explanation about the origins of man who is after all, in his words, only a "half-evolved primate" anyway.As his dad made plain, Franky's only making an upper storey leap of faith, particularly as he quotes from Bertrand Russell and Camille Pagalia, for these are his real spiritual gurus at this time. This, his only departure from a strictly darwinian point of view while cloaking the inevitable hierarchy of social darwinism that logically follows, has misled many into believing that just maybe, kinda sort of he's still a theist. Nay, dear reader, he's not really because he has most certainly dismissed kataphatic prayer altogether while seemingly hiding behind an appearance of apophatic meditations intertwined with his all to familiar rhetorical diversion which makes appeal to antinomies as aesthetically preferable to that of mortal attestations to the existence of absolutes. Yet, without hesitation throughout this book, he irreverently makes disparaging remarks about prayer analogous to a drug addict seeking another hit of crack or that its a symptom of Tourette's Syndrome. The dialectical inquisition of his 'negative theology' nevertheless continues with such anecdotes as referring to God, The Creator, as "it", "she", or "he". Are such attributes like these to be taken seriously as an appeal made with eudaemonological and aesthetic munificence?Neo-Orthodoxy: Never A Good Reason - Just A Feeling? (3)I firmly believe that Franky, like many other former "theists" who have left the faith, were never fully convinced and persuaded by the historicity of the Scriptures as the Parable of the Sower makes plain. His departure from the faith had little to do with hypocrisy found in his previous evangelical circles given that such is easily found in any organization and has been abundantly illustrated throughout the Word; and so, his hiding behind and using the sins of others to explain a journey into atheism has never been persuasive to me even though he has also expressed much affection for his parents and their ministry.When Franky acknowledges that he no longer knows what "truth" is, I was propelled once again to probe headlong the depths of irony found throughout his dad's many works, especially the opening line of "The God Who Is There": that there has been a change in the concept of truth. Francis Schaeffer's ministry deconstructs Franky's public description of his family's faith as being delusional. As he has dismissed the Christian faith, his upper-storey devotion to Darwinian evolution, while denying the implication of scientism, appears to remain impervious to intelligent design critique even as his many duplicitous, heartfelt remembrances are replete with "moral motions" which will ultimately return back unto the materialist, cosmic void.Given the nature of his book, he's apparently adopted a NOMAist (4) personae which helps to explain his wavering and lack of a solid ending. The backdrop to his current writings I liken to a NOMAist purgatory in which he has mostly assumed a materialist's grounding, as I mentioned before, expressed in Darwinian fundamentals yet with a profound inability to come to terms with the resultant Nietzschean nihilism just as his dad made so clear in his outreach to the lost; this helps to explain why many new atheists, per Frankly, exclaim that he's not an authentic atheist given that he still longs for and participates in Eastern Orthodox liturgy which espouses both mystery and an appeal to liturgical beauty; of course, the substance and content that grounds the liturgy he has completely dismissed even as he accuses some atheists as being fundamentalists in their own right. Even though there might be a slight chance he's adopted an idiosyncratic version of theistic evolution, I tend to doubt it as he has completely deconstructed orthodox constructs found throughout Christendom. (5) In fact, his thoughts about the teachings of Jesus remind me of the Jesus Seminar academics as he suggests that Jesus is a radical feminist and relativist. (6) In the words of Suze Orman, "Are you kidding me?" Franky's progressive political eisegesis would surely be approved of by the Beatniks like an Allen Ginsberg and Left Hegelians like David Strauss and Bruno Bauer. Why? Because socio-biologists and others of the Progressive Left who use evolutionary theory to explain culture are immanent Hegelians; that is, we believe what we believe because what we call “truth” emerges from brains shaped to promote the propagation of our DNA. For most Secular Progressives, including Liberal Christians, a critical understanding of the evolutionary process reflects a deeper truth than knowing any particular truth revealed by the Christian Scriptures.Rub Raw The Sores Of Discontent - The Line of DespairIn any case and despite his chapters which are laced throughout with a great deal of uncertainty about many areas of life, Franky comes across to me as basically a NOMAist who espouses an admixture of both NeoDarwinism along with Spinoza's god of nature; essentially, he's adopted his own version of pantheism while continuing to use spiritual sounding verbs borrowed from Protestant and Greek Orthodox communities given his portrayal of Jesus in evolutionary terms of higher consciousness i.e. in the spirit of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point. If he remains on his current "spiritual" trajectory, my guess is that in about 10 years, he'll be imbibing more deeply from a well of eastern mysticism, incorporating such into his evolutionary portend of higher consciousness and that of his Cosmic Christ. His meditations seem to be cosmic-centered rather than truly Christ-centered and are comparable to Bart Ehrman's recent adventures into higher criticism.His strict avoidance of anti-thesis, or rather his unsuccesful attempt at doing so, has resulted in a waffling, meandering Hegelian dialectic which does not provide a satisfactory explanation of his reliance upon an ethic of aesthetics whereby he supposedly has found personal peace; and he does this while plunging headlong into yet another version of a co-dependency of community love. Still, I'm glad that the Orthodox community has embraced him just as his dad and mom once embraced those who were equally Lost and in need of spiritual healing; because what became very clear to me at book's end is that Franky, yet another progressive who has also taken to writing "history from below", sadly had to cross what his dad famously described as the "Line of Despair"; and he has trepassed this line because of a lost sense for that which is "sacred" and holy, having replaced it with an artistic appeal to aesthetics and nothing more. This helps to explain some of his profane and irreverent beliefs which is why the 4 - 5 star, coddling reviews of such represent neo-pagan, antinomian, relativistic double-talk; this observation is not incidental because these reviewers and Franky have conscientiously embraced the socialist Idea(7) instead of biblical orthodoxy and have attempted to disguise their anti-Christian bigotry as hip and modern with supposedly no dogmatic inclinations in their progressive bones; in the words of Jeanine Pirro at Fox News, "R-e-a-l-l-y?".Ironically, though Franky and his amazon disciples profess an 'egalitarian' community of faith, their new found religio-political philosophy will only provide meager comfort for their lives of pain, old illusions, and self-deception; provide meager comfort for their selective diffidence shown toward inherent paradoxes found throughout the study of theodicy and its heart-felt sublimity.(8) Taken together, the 4-5 star reviewer threads provide ample evidence for those who have embraced neo-pagan, new age, and/or occult beliefs as well as Leftist politics with prejudice and antipathy directed specifically toward Biblical absolutes and authority; preferring instead vain philosophies like the socialist Idea and its vaunted autarky of excessus bonitatis along with the god of Spinoza by any other name. (9) For orthodox theists, neither appeal to aesthetic philosophies nor to Darwinian presuppositions can compare to the glory of anastasis declared by the Apostle Paul.Though I take issue with his soft atheism, he remains in my prayers, and I hope yours as well.What is a man,If his chief good and market of his timeBe but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more.Sure He that made us with such large discourse,Looking before and after, gave us notThat capability and godlike reasonTo fust in us unus'd. Hamlet, Act IV, scene ivEndnotes(1) "The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer", Volume 1, Book 3, He Is There And Is Not Silent, p. 61; "The Kingdom of God In America, Chapter V, Institutionalization and Secularization of the Kingdom", p. xv, 193.(2) "Crazy For God" by Franky Schaeffer: In this book, the reader will learn that while Franky mostly critiques his parents' ministry with passing references of endearment, he never states explicitly what he actually believed, theologically speaking. His dad, Francis Schaeffer, is portrayed as a moderate evangelical with Franky revealing his utter revulsion toward conservative "fundamentalists" whose finances and influence both he and his dad readily took advantage of in order to pursue their professional self-interests. What also becomes very clear is that while he and his dad took issue with the way in which various ministries were managed along with their shared concerns about doctrinal differences, the reader will eventually come to understand that Franky's voice and pen are that of a man of the Left.(3) CFG, p. 102.(4) See Stephen J. Gould's essay regarding NOMA which splits science and religion into lower-storey and upper-storey non-overlapping magisteria; "Total Truth" by Nancy Pearcey; and my amazon book reviews of Darwin on Trial and Darwin's Doubt.(5) CFG, pps. 34 -37: Based on Franky's recounting of his medical treatment of polio as a youth in which chimpanzee spinal fluid was used and how he teased his mom about this treatment proving evolution and atheists right after all, perhaps it was during this very difficult emotional period that Frankly came to embrace a version of theistic evolution. A recent 2012 Gallup Poll indicates that approximately 32% of the populace are creation evolutionists. And so, his departure from orthodox faith while continuing to adhere to NeoDarwinism would be consistent with his having completely transitioned into soft atheism. See also "Mapping The Origins Debate" by Gerald Rau.(6) "The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer", Volume 1, Book 2, Escape From Reason, Jesus the undefined banner: "We have come then to this fearsome place where the word Jesus has become the enemy of the Person Jesus, and the enemy of what Jesus taught. We must fear this contentless banner of the word Jesus not because we do not love Jesus, but because we do love Him." p. 259. See also Carl Trueman's First Things' essay, 'History: A Runaway Jury' about the LGBTQ movement at http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/11/against-the-odds.(7) "Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the 60s" by David Horowitz and Peter Collier, p. 17-18: "Epiphanes - They made the world worthy of us. We searched for them like stargazers. This was part of the decade's transcendental conviction that there was something apocalyptic lurking behind the veil of the ordinary, and that just a little more pressure was needed to pierce the last remaining membrane--of civility, bourgeois consciousness, corporate liberalism, sexual uptighteness, or whatever else prevented us all from breaking through to the other side." See also "Main Currents of Marxism" by Leszek Kolakowski.(8) "The Psychology of Atheism" by Paul C. Vitz.(9) "The Two Eyes of Spinoza" by Leszek Kolakowski.

I wanted to write a formal "review" of this book, but initially couldn't think of anything to say other than, "Fabulous book! Everybody should read it." On second thought, while I absolutely LOVE the book, I predict that most atheists and Christians will probably hate it, and I'm not here to try to convince anybody. The book is not a theological treatise and presents neither an argument nor an apology. Rather, it is a personal, candid and heartfelt discussion of the author's journey of faith, seeking to "give love, create beauty and find peace" in the face of limiting and dehumanizing dogmas. The intimate writing style, as if we were sitting and having a conversation with the author, invites honest reflection on our own journey, and in response to that invitation, the words came pouring out! I refer the interested reader to the "long version," http://metalnun.blogspot.com/2014/11/letting-god-out-of-box-reflections-on.htmlAlthough I am no longer an atheist and I find the word "believe" problematic, Mr. Schaeffer's book resonated with me on many levels. It is probably a "niche" book, but perhaps a niche whose population is growing as more and more people begin to question their childhood faith and search for deeper meaning. If you love Jesus but hate religion; if you believe in a God Who is bigger than the Bible; if you are confused about the difference between science and religion and/or you've been told you must choose between them, this book is for you!Be honest, my Christian friends: Do you ever feel embarrassed for the God of the Old Testament? What do you do with the "unpleasant" bits of scripture, like (just to mention a few), the several occasions where God tells his people to kill their neighbors, including pregnant women and little babies, but keep the virgin girls as booty? Or the incident when God sent bears to maul 42 children for making fun of the prophet Elisha's bald head? Likewise, perhaps you find dubious the doctrine of hell, whereby God would condemn mortal beings to eternal torment even for merely having incorrect beliefs. On a recent episode of "The Simpsons," Bart and Lisa use an iRunes app to open a portal into a school in hell, where they see a young man writing something over and over on the blackboard; Bart asks, "Hey, pal, what are you in here for?" "The heresy of Docetism, the belief that Jesus' body was just an illusion."Frank poses the question, "Can you imagine me consigning Lucy [his granddaughter] to oblivion because she had wrong ideas about me? Can you imagine me burning her forever because she didn't believe in me, forgot my name, called me the wrong name, thought I had six arms... or brought me fruit when I asked for a lamb?... I am not a good man and yet can you imagine ANYTHING that would cut [his grandchildren] off from my love?"Faced with such issues, we have a choice. We can do mental contortions in attempt to invent clever explanations and apologies for God, as Frank's evangelist mother did in the previous book ("Sex, Mom and God"), but the results are unlikely to be satisfactory. Alternatively, we can let go of dogma and trust God to be God. Let God out of the box! As we are told in the "Chronicles of Narnia," "He's wild, you know. Not like a tame lion."Some of my other progressive Christian friends try to modify the religion to be more in line with scientific and historical "reality," which involves eliminating doctrines about miracles, the virgin birth, the Trinity, even throwing out the entire book of John (my favorite gospel!), and/or re-defining the "historical Jesus" as a mere man, which IMO is kind of like neutering the lion. Mr. Schaeffer takes a different approach. He is not very concerned about doctrines per se. Rather, he comes from the Orthodox apophatic tradition, which says that God is beyond doctrine and cannot be defined by the intellect, but only experienced.The title of the book, "Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God" is, as my husband and many other people have pointed out, contradictory per the definition of "atheist." From the apophatic standpoint, "believes" could perhaps better be replaced by "experiences," but I am sure the author was very aware of the contradiction and purposely chose the ironic and thought-provoking title. Frank is an "atheist" in the sense that he believes in the scientific explanation of the material universe which, I think it is safe to say, most educated people do. As I have explained previously in my blog [http://bodysoulblissyoga.blogspot.com/2014/06/another-look-at-religion.html], there is no contradiction once we understand that science and religion are two separate spheres or dimensions of human existence which serve completely different functions. This brings us to the central premise of the book, which is that we humans are multidimensional creatures who experience reality on different levels.One of my very educated and intelligent friends told me, "Religion is silly! I choose science." But, the question is, "Choose it for WHAT?" The purpose of science is to objectively explain the nature and workings of the physical universe, which it does quite well, as far as it goes. Now, my friend would say, "Science fully describes reality, because the physical universe is all there is!" The problem with this assertion, of course, is that any such statements about Ultimate Reality are necessarily metaphysical in nature and therefore can neither be confirmed nor denied by physical science. It would be a circular argument akin to the fundie dogma, "The Bible is the only and complete word of God. How do we know? Because the Bible says so!"In any case, the purely physical approach is inadequate to express the entirety of our human experience. For example, according to science, "love" is simply evolution using your hormones to trick you into breeding, passing on your DNA and caring for your offspring so that they, too, can pass on their DNA. The magical feeling you share with your spouse that makes you believe he or she is the most beautiful, wonderful person on earth can be objectively explained by chemicals in your brain; however, it can only be enjoyed subjectively. Love, like Beauty, belongs to another dimension of human existence: the subjective realm of art, music, poetry, mythology and religion, the purpose of which is not explanation, but inspiration. There are different kinds of "truth." It's not either-or. To choose science "instead of" religion is like choosing dinner instead of dessert when you could have both; you will certainly survive although you may become bored. Choosing religion instead of science may seem delicious, but it's not a balanced diet in terms of your physical health.When challenged by his atheist friends, "Frank, God's only in your head!" he answers, "Yeah, whatever. What isn't?" This is very true because, as Frank points out, ultimately the "physical world" as such is a perceptual construct of the human mind and senses, whereas we know from physics that what we perceive as solid objects actually consist of mostly empty space. He says towards the end of the book, "My hope is that a trillionth of a second before the Big Bang the energy animating the mystery of matter being created out of nothing was love." I believe that, and it's the same Love that holds the universe together, which I experience in the center of my being.So, we are multidimensional creatures and in at least one of those dimensions, we can experience God. Religion is merely the sociocultural context which frames that personal experience. Being freed from dogma, what happens to our faith? It is a huge relief to realize that God does not need to be defined, defended or explained. We can enjoy religious mythology when we stop trying to pretend it is something that it isn't. If there is a God, He cannot be confined to the man-made box that is religion.Frank makes the case that following Jesus is not about believing certain doctrines, but rather, how does our experience of the sacred affect our life? It should move us to express divine Love through our actions. He discusses at some length the humanism of Jesus, and even suggests that the Enlightenment was a Christian heresy, the results of which can be seen in "godless" countries like Denmark today where most of the population is atheist, and yet their social policies are more consistent with Jesus' teachings than our own "Christian" nation. They take care of their widows and orphans, provide universal healthcare and education, and enforce laws preventing the powerful from preying on the weak. On a personal level, letting God out of the box has made our faith stronger, our joy deeper, enabling us to give love and create beauty, and in so doing, to find peace.

A shambling mess of a book with some interesting insights but too much half-digested second-hand philosophy/theology/science. He makes a virtue of self publishing allowing him to avoid mainstream pigeonholing but he could have done with the help of a good editor. He may have disavowed his father's fundamentalism, but he shares his father's desire to apply his (confused) worldview to all areas of life, some of which he is qualified to comment on, many which I doubt he is. Ironically he has probably encouraged me to re-visit his father's books that influenced me so greatly as a youth.

A very thoughtful and heartfelt work by a post-evangelical artist. Shaeffer's comments rang true when he states that he experiences both belief and disbelief at virtually tbe same time. This book is a welcome relief for those of us wearied by the vitriol of the more militant New Atheist writers. Overall a beautiful book grounded in Shaeffer's personal experience of faith transition and illuminated by moving vignettes of interaction with the people he loves, particularly his grandchildren, whom he so obviously adores.

A self-indulgent book, but readable all the same. I don't see how you can actually be an atheist and still go to church and observe the sacraments as Schaeffer says he does; there must still be a "still small voice" telling him there is something in this. So Schaeffer doesn't quite persuade the reader as to why he still goes to church (albeit a very different one than he was brought up in).

I just bought this book and love it. Frank Scheaffer's deals with an inner contradiction many of us struggle with, a lack of religious 'faith' and a stubborn instinct to believe in God anyway.Gently, through a real life view of his grandchildren children, the death of his mom, and an opera singer met on an airplane, Frank works through his own human dilemma with honesty, insight and humor. It mace for a great read. And allowed me to think things through without getting pushed away by cold intellectual argumentation

Disarmingly honest - & 'Frank' account of high profile Evangelical and his journey out of the tradition he was raised in - and championed - and his determination to make sense of this world and hold on to truth, beauty and love.