I recently attended a lecture, "The New Atheism and the Old Church: A failing apologetics" by Peter Erb, which is the first in a three-lecture mini-course offered by Saint Jerome's University (an on-campus religious university affiliated with the University of Waterloo). From the description, I was expecting a moderate religious look at the "new" atheism, our increasingly secular world, and what moderate religious folks could learn from these.
I was very disapointed.
The use of the term "new atheism" seemed to just be a buzz word used to draw interest and make the lecture seem relevant. The lecture spent all of about 5 minutes talking about the new atheism. In this time, all that was said was that the "four horsemen" (Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett) are - without any explanation of why this was judged to be the case - arrogant, shallow and not worth reading.
The lecture's thesis was as follows: The new atheism isn't anything new, and actually comes directly out of Christianity. However, this thesis seemed more like a pretense set up in order to talk about the real meat of the lecture: old Catholic art.
The basic structure of the lecture was showing how, throughout the years, various revolutions occurred within theology and the arts which showed a growing gap in people's minds between the natural and the supernatural. People (well, European Christians) became more focused on the natural world, the subjective, and on the human sphere. This led, naturally, to people questioning whether the natural world could stand alone - perhaps God just set the world in motion (deism). But then we've seperated God out even more, and we could ask why believe that it was even God that set things in motion.
The historical analysis was, I think, very shoddy. The focus was narrow (on Christian developments in the medieval period). This misses the many atheists and deists that predate Christianity, and whose philosophy greatly influenced Christianity. The historical arguments were incredibly weak - at one point Erb claimed that Galileo was a big factor in the subjective revolution, since by looking through the telescope and seeing what was "out there", he was subjectively observing the universe, turning the focus on subjectivity (if this sounds nonsensical, don't be worried that you aren't getting it - it didn't make any more sense in the context of the lecture).
I found it rather silly that Erb seemed to think that the fact that the new atheism isn't new is a way of criticizing the new atheism - those who are identified as the "new atheists" are well aware that there is nothing new about what they are saying.
So, I left the lecture quite disapointed. I had received a lecture about some old art, a tiny bit of theology, and some bad historical analysis. Other then disapointment, I felt another emotion. I was actually a little bit sad for the attendees and the lecturer. The audience was overwhelmingly older, Catholic people (when I arrived for the lecture, I initially thought I must be in the wrong place. There was a sea of gray hair, and - I don't say this as a jest - I thought I had mistakenly walked into a room running an event for seniors). I got the general feel throughout the lecture and during some of the questions that Erb and his audience were really trying to make sense out of a world that was no longer as traditional as the one they are comfortable with, a world to which their Catholicism seems increasingly irrelevant. Perhaps I was reading more into the situation than was actually there, but I still couldn't help feeling a bit bad for them.
Needless to say, I did not find the lecture particularly insightful or illuminating, and I don't plan on attending the next one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Strange that you say that the questioners seemed to be unsure of their place in the world. I - a non-grey-haired person, and a student - asked a question at both lectures and they were on points of clarification only, so I think you quite exaggerate your account of the questioners at least.
I suppose you are responding to this sentence:
"I got the general feel throughout the lecture and during some of the questions that Erb and his audience were really trying to make sense out of a world that was no longer as traditional as the one they are comfortable with, a world to which their Catholicism seems increasingly irrelevant."
Of course, no where is it implied that every questioner "seemed to be unsure of their place in the world", just that the general sense that was given throughout the entire presentation (questions included) was that this was an attempt to come to grips with the modern world. The only exaggeration that may have taken place is that I say "Erb and his audience", instead of "Erb and much of his audience", a pedantic point at best.
You could call it pedantic, but you were referring to "some of the questions," and in both the first two lectures I asked a question...and there were in fact very few questions (I did not attend the third lecture). Therefore, as a major contributor to the questioning, I thought it would be important to ask for clarity with respect to what you meant by mentioning the questioners. Thank-you for agreeing that you were indeed exaggerating your point.
Anonymous - I am uncertain of why you continue to refer to the second lecture. It is clear that this blog post was up before the second lecture was given, and I explicitly state that "I don't plan on attending the next one."
I never claimed that every single question gave me this impression, just that this was the overall impression I got from the presentation and question period. I don't care that you asked a question and you don't think you contributed to my impression - that is completely irrelevant.
"Thank-you for agreeing that you were indeed exaggerating your point."
All I said is that "Erb and his audience", if taken to mean "Erb and every member of the audience", is not literally true. This is trivial - I was a member of the audience, as were several of my friends, who I don't consider a part of this impression that I got. This is why I said it was a pedantic point - of course it is trivially true that there were some audience members who are not a part of this, and in that sense it is an exaggeration.
Tommy, I want to commend you for attending a lecture that is clearly coming from a completely different perspective than your own. Just a few comments and questions for you.
I agree with you that the historical analysis left a lot to be desired. You referred to it as “shallow,” though I would describe it as “extremely truncated.” However, the website does say that these lectures are “intended for a popular audience” and so in that sense I wasn’t expecting History of Modernity in the West 101.
I think it is very interesting you mention your feelings a lot; for example, you were “disappointed,” you were “a little bit sad,” you “got the general feel” and “couldn’t help feeling a bit sad for the attendees and the lecturer.” My question: so what if you felt this way? I didn’t feel this way. I also didn’t “feel” that Erb or the audience were “trying to make sense out of a world that was no longer as traditional as the one they are comfortable with.” Do our “feelings” negate each other? In fact, I was surprised that there were so many people there on a Friday night. Additionally, I thought it was a fair testament to Erb’s appeal as an academic and a lecturer that quite a number of people outside the Roman Catholic tradition (that I knew by face and name) did attend.
You say “there was a sea of gray hair…” and that you thought you “walked into a room running an event for seniors,” and that the “the audience was overwhelmingly older, Catholic people.” The implication was that this was a sad thing for you. What you didn’t say is that the room was actually full, which greatly surprised me. I remember making a remark prior to the lecture to my friend with whom I attended that I would be surprised if there were more than 20 people there. By my estimate there were roughly 200 people there. I think that is pretty good for a Friday night. I thought that was quite a positive thing.
Also, regarding the point you made that “the audience was overwhelmingly older, Catholic people.” Well, they are the “St. Jerome’s lectures in Catholic Experience” so I guess that shouldn’t surprise, right? On the other hand, do you know they were overwhelmingly Catholic? I am not, nor were my two friends that I attended, nor were the faculty members I recognized from other institutions, both from UW and Laurier.
Additionally, is a “sea of gray hair” a negative thing? You couldn’t help but feeling sad for them? Did you really expect to see a huge hoard of twenty-somethings out on a Friday night to a series of lectures on the “Catholic Experience.” Would you expect to see a sea of “young” heads on a Friday night had the lecture been on the “Atheist” or “Deist” or “Pantheist” experience – really?
I attended the second and third lectures, and I saw quite a few “twentysomethings” in attendance. I am a “fortysomething” myself, fwiw.
Criticisms notwithstanding, kudos to you for attending.
Too:
Thanks for your comment.
About how I talk about my feelings a lot: This is my blog, this is where I get to say my opinions. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it (I don't mean this as a "If you don't agree with me, get out", but as "This is the content here, and it is just a reflection of whatever I feel like writing"). This was not meant simply as a review of the lecture I attended, but about the thoughts it brought up for me, hence not sticking to a critique of the lecture.
"Additionally, is a “sea of gray hair” a negative thing?"
Of course not. The reason I mention it is because it added to my general feeling. What was sad was not that most of the audience was older people, or anything like that - I just felt a bit sad that it seemed like Erb seemed out of place in the modern world, and that I got the impression that he and (much of) his audience seemed to be trying to come to grips with it.
I did not poll the audience to see how many were Catholic, but as you say, it was part of a Catholic lecture series at a Catholic institution, so it would be a surprise if they were not. Judging by most of the questions asked, and the reception by the audience, I don't think it is a big leap to say that the majority was Catholic. I only said this for the benefit of the reader who did not attend and does not know much about the situation - the comment that it was an attempt to make sense of the modern world is meaningless if the reader does not understand that much of the audience was Catholic.
Since you say "Judging by most of the questions asked...I don't think it is a big leap to say that the majority was Catholic" I am going to once again harp on my original point (I am the first anonymous person.) I asked a question and I think there were at most two others. *I* am not catholic, sow hat is it specifically about the question period that gave you this impression? I did not realize my question (asking him to more clearly define how Cherbury was a "liberal" and not a "deist") someone exuded Romist tendencies.
Anonymous too, you make a good point about the grey hairs. I mean, perhaps the fact that "young heads" were not there could say more for the fact that young people may simply not have the attention span to attend a lecture. Perhaps this can be seen as a negative statement (and a reason to feel "sad" for) today's generation (of which I am a part.)
Tommy, thanks for clarifying re. your feelings on the lecture, and your blog.
Yes, your blog is your blog, though the statement "If you don't like it, you don't have to read it" is nonsensical, since I do have to read it to determine if I don't like it (or just "not like it" by default without reading it, and thereby be rightly accused of "invincible ignorance" --Hey, thanks P. Erb; I learned something!).
Anonymous - I would agree with the general gist of your comments (back to the "impressions" we all had of this event). I can't say I'm surprised that there were not more "youngheads" there. Perhaps the only sure fire way to get young people to attend anything on a Friday night is to advertise "FREE BEER."
But - Tommy, you are clearly not one of those "sad" younger folk of which Anonymous is referring to, since you were there. I hope this doesn't sound too pejorative, but when I see twentysomethings at an event like this on a Friday night, I'm surprised. And somewhat hopeful.
"I mean, perhaps the fact that "young heads" were not there could say more for the fact that young people may simply not have the attention span to attend a lecture."
Seriously? This event was held at a university.
Post a Comment