Michael Ruse is an author and philosopher of biology at Florida State University. He says something in a guest post at Science and the Sacred which struck me as odd coming from an self-described agnostic (atheists in respect to Christian doctrine), but serves as a rebuke to those who claim to be Christ-followers and yet deny essential truths. In his mind you have more intellectual integrity as an atheist or agnostic than you would as a theologically liberal “Christian.”
I think of myself as an agnostic on deities and ultimate meanings and that sort of thing. With respect to the main claims of Christianity – loving god, fallen nature, Jesus and atonement and salvation – I am pretty atheistic, although some doctrines like original sin seem to me to be accurate psychologically. I often refer to myself as a very conservative non-believer, meaning that I take seriously my non-belief and I think others should do (and often don’t). If someone goes to the Episcopal Church for social or family reasons, or because they love the music or ceremonies, I have no trouble with that. Had I married a fellow Quaker, I might still be going to Quaker meetings. But I have little time for someone who denies the central dogmas of Christianity and still claims to be a Christian, except in a social sense. No God, no Jesus as His son, no resurrection, no eternal life – no Christianity.
HT: Erik Raymond
