Category Archives: Atheist

An atheist drug addict gets saved while he was on the verge of committing suicide. Now he is now preaching the Gospel on the streets.

A transformation testimony of a man named Adam has recently exploded on social media. Several people shared about his dark past and how God saved his life and transformed him into the man he is now.

Adam is a descendant and grandson of the well-known preacher, Charles Spurgeon. Contrary to his Christian roots, he didnt believe in God. He had been suffering from drug addiction, suicidal thoughts, and depression. Add up his struggle with demonic oppression, his life was in total darkness.

Meet AdamAtheist, demon oppressed, addicted to drugs, suicidal and depressed.and a descendant grandson of the great preacher and theologian Charles Spurgeon, Doug Pitman wrote in a Facebook post.

Photo Courtesy: Facebook | Doug Pitman

Overwhelmed with all the negative thoughts, he contemplated suicide. However, right before he was about to take his own life, the Lord sent someone to save his life.

While on the verge of suicide a lady told him about Jesus. Adam called out to Jesus and was gloriously saved and delivered instantly! 8 months ago and is free today! He told me that every molecule in his body was filled with a love he had never experienced!

Right at that very instant, the Lord transformed his life from darkness to light. He was filled with the amazing love of the Father! Today, he is now out on the streets to share with everyone how Jesus saved him.

He is so full of love and is out on the streets boldly proclaiming the good news of the gospel. Never give up on someone who needs Christ! Salvation can come to those who appear to be unreachable!

Read also: FORMER INMATE CELEBRATES WEDDING AFTER FINDING CHRIST THROUGH A PRISON MINISTRY

Grow closer to God daily by getting exclusive video teachings on God Today!

Read Gods Word For You Today directly from your phone. Download the Daily Word app now on Google Play and Appstore

Reference: Facebook | Doug Pitman

Start your day together with God and the GOD TV team. Get a daily devotional and encouraging 2-3minute video direct to your inbox.

You Might Be Interested In

View post:

Atheist Drug Addict Gets Saved While On The Verge Of Suicide, Now Preaches The Gospel On Streets | God TV News - GOD TV

Four Im an atheist and I vote billboards are going up around San Antonio in time for a major national gathering there of atheists and agnostics convening in the last weekend of October.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, whose upcoming 2022 national conventions theme is DO Mess with Texas, is partnering with Freethinkers Association of Central Texas to bring the billboard campaign to the Alamo City.

The four billboards are scheduled to run during the month of October leading up to Election Day. University of Texas-Austin student Cody Valdez is pictured on each of the billboards, three of which are going up this week at: San Pedro, south of Euclid, facing south; on South Flores, south of Lubbock, facing south and on I-37, south of I-35, facing south. The same message will be going up the week of Oct. 17 at Houston Street, south of Elm, facing west.

FFRF notes that almost a third of US adults now identify as atheists, agnostics or nothing in particular.FACT spokesperson Katie Gaines adds that the number of Nones (unaffiliated) who are Hispanic is at least 23 percent.Cody Valdez is part of FFRFs ongoing secular vote national campaign calling attention to the growing voter power of nonreligious Americans who are demanding that religion stay out of government and social policy.

Freethinkers Association of Central Texas is proud to stand with Freedom From Religion Foundation and Cody Valdez in saying that we trust in reason, science, and our secular Constitution, Gaines says.

FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor adds, Were spreading the word about the increasing power of the nonbelieving voting bloc, and what better place to do it than the city where so many of them will be gathering soon.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has 38,000 members and several chapters all over the United States, including more than 1,600 members and a chapter in Texas.

Original post:

FFRF and FACT erect four 'I'm an atheist and I vote' billboards in San Antonio - Freedom From Religion Foundation

MadameNoire Featured Video

Source: Prince Williams / Getty

Amber Roses ideal romantic partner isnt everyones cup of tea.

Why is it so hard to find an intelligent, sexy, rich, successful, tatted gentleman, she posted on her Instagram Stories on Oct. 10. That also has kids, but is NOT an abusive narcissist.

And hes definitely an atheist but also a feminist.. Im not asking for much, she added.

Social media shared its two cents on Ambers ideal requirements in The Shade Rooms repost.

Many online users pointed out that the stars list was fairly understandable in their eyes until Rose said she wants a man whos definitely an atheist.

I know everybody not religious but to say atheist???? Thats a side eye, one user wrote.

Lord Help Her and Couldve left out Atheist two others chimed in.

Another commenter said Roses ideal partner is probably in hell while another wrote, Lost me at Atheist love. He gotta believe in SOMETHING. Aint just pop up on Earth cuz it was Tuesday .

Rose responded to the shady remarks by doubling down on her list.

Her reply simply read: I said what I said .

Rose was last romantically linked to AE Edwards, the father of her youngest son.

The couple had a very public split in August 2021 after the Sl*t Walk founder aired out Edwards for cheating on her with 12 women.

Im tired of getting cheated on and being embarrassed behind the scenes. All 12 of yall bums (the ones that I know of theres probably more) can have him, Rose penned on Instagram.

I cant be the only one fighting for my family anymore, she wrote. Ive been loyal and transparent but I havent gotten the same energy in return.

RELATED CONTENT:Amber Rose Explains Why She Stayed With AE Edwards Even Though Hes A Narcissist'

Read more:

Amber Roses Ideal Man Is An Atheist, And This Is What Social Media Has To Say About It - MadameNoire

What do you believe about the afterlife?

According to the Pew Research Center, most adults in the United States believe in heaven or hell. Specifically, 73% believe in heaven and a few less, 62%, believe in hell.

Three religious categories were considered: Christians, Catholics, and the Unaffiliated (those who identify as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular). Christians show a greater percentage of belief in the afterlife, with 92% believing in heaven and 79% believing in hell. Catholics follow close behind with 90% believing in heaven and 74% believing in hell.

Those who identify as unaffiliated, although not reporting themselves as members of organized religion, have some belief in the afterlife. Of the unaffiliated, 37% believe in heaven and 28% believe in hell. This belief is disproportionately held by the nothing in particular subgroup, of which 50% believe in heaven and 39% believe in hell. Half as many agnostics believe in the afterlife, and less than 5% of atheists do.

The survey also considered gender, age, political affiliation, race and region.

As shown by these statistics, not all Americans believe in both heaven and hell. In fact, only 61% of U.S. adults believe in both, while 13% believe only in heaven, and 1% believe only in hell.

Those who do believe in heaven have specific beliefs about what it will be like when they get there.

Those who do believe in heaven have specific beliefs about what it will be like when they get there. The most popular belief about heaven is that it will be a place free from suffering. Other common beliefs include believers being able to meet God, having healthy bodies, being reunited or maintaining relationships with loved ones, or becoming angels.

In contrast, people who believe in hell view it as a place of torture or pain. They believe they will experience things like psychological and physical suffering and become aware of the suffering they created while alive. Believers think they will not be able to have a relationship with God once they go to hell, but they will be able to meet Satan.

Other beliefs about the afterlife fall beyond the binary concept of heaven and hell. While 26% of U.S adults believe in neither heaven nor hell, 7% of those still believe in an afterlife.

Of these 7% who believe in an afterlife but do not believe in heaven or hell, they describe the afterlife in various ways: 21% believe a persons spirit or energy continues living on, 17% believe in some form of reincarnation, 11% believe their spirit will cease suffering and be at peace, 8% believe their spirit will rejoin the universe, and 4% believe an afterlife is a form of spiritual learning or growth.

So, where do all these beliefs come from?

There are plenty of different religions with differing perspectives on the afterlife, but from a Christian perspective, the biblical text is a bit ambiguous about it. When we survey the Bible, although we may talk about heaven and hell quite often, there is little known about what will happen when we die.

We may look to the word sheol, a word used to describe the ancient place of the dead.

The grave can be literal or metaphorical, physical or spiritual, so readers have to interpret what they think that means.

Some Bibles translate the word sheol into the phrase the grave, as the NIV does in Genesis 37:35 and other passages including the word. But even this phrase is a bit ambiguous; the grave can be literal or metaphorical, physical or spiritual, so readers have to interpret what they think that means.

Unfortunately, there is not a lot of art preserved from ancient Israelite life. So, religious scholars and historians do not have access to ancient depictions of what they believed sheol looked like.

But we do know a bit about the word itself. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, sheol is a Hebrew word of uncertain etymology with Hebrew synonyms for things like pit and abyss (in English).

Modern conceptions of death and the afterlife, as shown by Pews research, are pretty imaginative.

Heaven and hell are separate spaces for those judged as good or bad; one a place of eternal reward, the other of eternal suffering. However, scholars say this is not at all what sheol was thought to be by the Israelites.

Sheol was not hell, nor was there judgment or torture occurring there. Rather, it was a space under the world where the souls of all those who had died congregated.

According to Shawna Dolansky of Carleton University, the use of the term sheol throughout the Hebrew Bible demonstrates a widespread belief in some sort of dark and dreaded shadowy postmortem existence. Ones presence in sheol did not denote any sort of morality because the souls of all dead persons went there.

She says it is sometimes described as watery or muddy, but never as a hot and fiery place of torment sinners must endure eternally, as many Christians believe today. However, despite all the references to sheol in the Hebrew Bible, it is still difficult to know exactly how the biblical writers and ancient Israelites understood death, she said.

Given recent research, it appears difficult still today to pin down exactly how modern believers understand the afterlife.

Mallory Challis is a senior at Wingate University and serves this semester as BNGs Clemons Fellow.

Related articles:

Heaven-or-hell theology may be simple, but it is neither biblical nor morally defensible. Whats the alternative? | Opinion by Alan Bean

Pew study offers some surprising insights to American views on suffering, salvation, heaven and hell

Read the original here:

Most Americans believe in heaven or hell, but their ideas aren't always biblical - Baptist News Global

Do you need to believe in God to convert to Judaism?

Over the past week, plenty of people got the chance to chime in on the matter when Hey Alma, a Jewish feminist website, published an essay by Abby Jo Morris titled Im a Jewish Convert. Im Also an Atheist.

As far as my own corner of Jewish Twitter is concerned, the answer to the above question is a loud and indignant no. One person wrote that the author is misguided & mistaken about what being Jewish & Judaism are all about and further called her an insincere convert who needs her conversion rescinded.

This, it turned out, was a common theme. Many seemed convinced that her conversion was inherently invalid because of her atheism, or at the very least needed to be invalidated ex post facto.

These are claims about halacha, or Jewish law, and my intention here is not to discuss the halacha of conversion. For one thing, its not something Ive studied. I can, however, share what little I do know:

There are generally four agreed-upon requirements for conversion to Judaism.

One, immersion in a Mikveh, or ritual bath. Two, circumcision or symbolic circumcision (hatafat dam brit) for males. Three, an interview with a Beit Din, or religious court. Four, acceptance of the yoke of the commandments, which is usually part of the Beit Din meeting.

It would seem from this list that belief in God is not a requirement for conversion that is, until one remembers that belief in God is considered to be one of the commandments the first of the decalogue, in fact.

Like many things in Judaism, however, there are disagreements about what acceptance of the yoke of the commandments means. Is it simply a verbal act? Or does it require utter sincerity of heart? On this matter, there are diverse opinions and debates.

All of this is to say that the matter is complicated, and that the people tweeting about the halachic validity of the authors conversion seem lacking in intellectual humility on the matter.

Furthermore, I suspect that the issue here isnt really about halacha. Rather, something else is bothering people, and they are using the language of halacha to express it.

The real issue, it seems to me, has more to do with identity and cultural appropriation than with Jewish jurisprudence, and I admit that I also bristled when I first read the essay because of my sensitivities around these issues.

The author writes, Jewish identity is not quite a culture, race, ethnicity, or religion because it predates these delineations which are a Western (read: Christian) creation.

Indeed, this is true. Judaism is not just a religion but isnt conversion a religious institution of the Jewish people? By way of parallel, being Black is more than just a skin color. Black identity also involves culture, family, faith, and history. That said, one cannot simply adopt Black culture, family, faith, and history as ones own if one isnt Black.

Someone tried this already. Her name is Rachel Dolezal, and society largely rejected her experiment in trans-racial identification. Shouldnt we similarly reject the attempt to convert to Jewish ethnicity?

Here, one cant help but be reminded of the episode of Seinfeld in which Jerry fears his dentist has converted to Judaism just for the jokes.

That said, we should examine the claim that one cant, or shouldnt, convert primarily for cultural/ethnic reasons.

Lets look at the example of Ruth the prototypical Jewish convert. Granted, halacha has evolved since the days of Ruth, but I still think we can look to her story to understand the ethos of the act of conversion itself.

In the Book of Ruth, we are introduced to Ruth, a Moabite woman. She and her sister are married to two Israelite brothers from Judah. When their husbands both die suddenly, Ruths mother-in-law, Naomi, decides to leave Moab to return to Judah.

The sisters, who love Naomi greatly, ask to come with her.

Naomi demurs, stating turn back, my daughters! Why should you go with me? Have I any more sons in my body who might be husbands for you? (1:11).

Her sister agrees to stay in Moab, but Ruth persists. Do not urge me to leave you, she states, for wherever you go, I will go; wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. (1:16-17).

This is Ruths conversion, and it is interesting to note that it is not a confession of faith. Rather, it is an expression of solidarity. Ruth vows to join her fate to Naomi and to the Jewish people. This is the essence of her statement.

Of course, Ruth does not disavow the Israelite God. God may not be first on Ruths list, but He is present and accounted for nonetheless. Still, her statement about God is not a statement about believing in God.

This is consistent with the rest of the Torah, which doesnt traffic much in theological propositions. For the Torah, belief does not mean belief in the claim that something exists, but rather is an expression of trust, loyalty, and dedication.

For instance, after the Israelites cross the sea in their flight from Pharaoh and his army, it is written that the people believed in the LORD and in His servant Moses. (14:31).

What is the nature of this belief?

Surely, it cannot be the belief that God and Moses exist, for this would make no sense regarding Moses, who obviously exists. Rather, it is that they have given themselves over to God and Moses in trust. They have aligned themselves with God and Moses.

Considering this, I am disinclined to consider propositional belief in God as all that important when it comes to Judaism. After all, God is not a proposition. God transcends any words we use, propositions we believe in, or theologies we devise.

Ultimately, God cant be grasped by this kind of belief. God can only be grasped by relationshipby the ways in which we draw close to God and align ourselves with God.

Ultimately, God cant be grasped by this kind of belief. God can only be grasped by relationship by the ways in which we draw close to God and align ourselves with God.

And so, I would encourage the haters to read past the headline of this controversial Hey Alma essay. If they do so, they will see an individual who attends synagogue, participates joyfully in Jewish community and ritual, and who blesses God daily with the ancient words of our peoples liturgy.

This is someone who has said your God will be my God and who has joined her fate to the Jewish people. That she calls herself an atheist has, in my humble opinion, no bearing on any of that.

It is, after all, just words.

Matthew Schultz is the author of the essay collection What Came Before (2020). He is a rabbinical student at Hebrew College in Newton, Massachusetts.

Go here to see the original:

Do You Need to Believe in God to Convert to Judaism? - Jewish Journal

When I die which religion will offer the best deal? Malcolm Yeadon

Send new questions to nq@theguardian.com.

Buddhism without a doubt. Reincarnation gives us all a chance to do better in our next life. andybogle

None, because youre asking for the wrong reason. If you believe in some higher entity then theyre not going to be impressed in your religiousness for your own benefit. Maybe just try being a good person anyway, and if you get a decent after-death result consider it an added benefit. Being a good person because youre scared of what the afterlife might bring is the height of hypocrisy. Be a good person because you want to just be a good person. KattCat

Atheism. No need to spend your life trying for something in the next world, because there isnt one. Enjoy what youve got now. VirgilKane

I dont particularly fancy reincarnation, I mean, who wants to come back as a tin of condensed milk? ChairmanMouthwash

All and none. JMackerell

I have no fixed ideas or opinions about the afterlife at all, except that it appears to be denominational. This means that as a pagan, Im going to escape being reunited with my loved ones, as they were/are all Catholics, with the exception of my atheist grandad. Strewth, spending the whole of eternity with your rellies?! I cant think of anything worse. exlangrandeflaneuse

Whatever theyre offering, Ill double it for a surprisingly low monthly subscription. DrBuzzard

While there is a lot of nonsense spoken about Christianity, what Jesus does and is is enough for me. I believe that if we close down our spiritual life while were physically alive, we just die when we die. If were in relationship with God while were physically alive, well be spiritually alive after we die. But we cant say what the afterlife is like, it is mystery. jenkinsblenkinsop

Heaven is a fairy story for people who are afraid of the dark. Stephen Hawking, I believe. Any faith that offers a torch would be my preference. MontyGue

Atheism, because you get to have a good nap. Drowningbat

Whatever helps you through this life and doesnt hurt others. Im an atheist and my daughter is a devout Muslim; we each do our best. normaleila

Surely if you live a good life with kindness and humility then you will be in line for anything on offer. Quakerism gives me the space to explore my spiritualism and humanity without nailed-down thou shalt nots and rigid dogma. Grumple

Catholicism. Just make sure you get your sins forgiven at the last minute and youre home safe. boredoldbat

None of them. They all make claims they cant substantiate and chances are, this is all we get. Try to be a kind and decent person while youre alive and make the most of it. After all, tomorrow isnt promised us, let alone an afterlife. JosephineJW

Given that none of them appear to offer a mechanism for making complaints if youre not satisfied with the afterlife you are provided with, I would suggest that they display a certain lack of confidence in being able to deliver on their promises. This suggests that the best deal is no deal. HyrdmothTheSecond

Theres a lamentable lack of customer feedback. Mobilepope

Depends if you are male or female and how you die. Which just highlights the absurdity of it all. Stillgrizzly

Firstly, it depends upon who the person who dies, I in the question. If I was someone who recognised his true Lord and God in his lifetime, followed the chosen path prescribed by his God in his life with full sincerity and hope of reward, strived his utmost best to bring benefit to himself and others around him and patiently persevered any challenges or obstacles he faced in life, then I would emphatically say, the religion of Islam is the best deal before and after you die. Abu Abdullah

No religion can provide you with any deal. When our bodies die, our souls will judge themselves in accordance the laws of the creator. These laws are built into our conscience, so we cannot dent knowledge thereof. Tony Berlein

Wait to Black Friday, they give the best deals then. Just shop around. C Davis

Read more here:

Readers reply: when I die which religion will offer the best deal? - The Guardian

CALEB WILDE isfamiliar with death. He is the descendant of two long-term generational funeral home families and went into the funeral industry himself. His first book, Confessions of a Funeral Director, delved into some of the more uplifting stories hes had in death care. His latest book, All the Ways Our Dead Still Speak, is more introspective.

The early chapters detail a few death experiences an atheist seeing the dead parents of her husband as he dies, for instance and at first, thats what I thought the book would be about: exploring what peoples deathbed visions meant to them, regardless of whether those visions were real. But for Wilde, thats missing the point. What matters is that the dead are still speaking to us. Death isnt necessarily an end, Wilde argues its a transformative experience; the living carry inside us the essence and dreams of the dead. Open conversations about death and dying can lead to a healthier society.

Wilde specifically calls out white people, his ancestry and mine, for being disconnected from their ancestors. He cites the difference between the polite, private, quiet funerals of white people versus the communal, intensive, emotional funerals of Black people. Many white people believe that grief is a personal, private journey. However, in many Black families and cultures all over the world, grief is a communal process. People come together to remember, love, and support each other. In these times, they cease to become individual selves and instead focus on the plural self on community: A community of people both dead and alive.

Read the original here:

We Don't Have to Let the Dead Die Twice - Sojourners

Whether youre a die-hard Phillies fan who never misses a game, a casual observer known to partake in the occasional South Philly tailgate or E- A-G-L-E-S, Eagles! chant, or a sports-atheist, you may have noticed yourself feeling happier in recent weeks.

The Phillies are impressing in their first playoff run in more than a decade. The Eagles are undefeated. The Union have home-field advantage heading into the playoffs.

This weekend, postseason baseball will make its long-awaited return to Citizens Bank Park. Then, the Eagles will face the Cowboys across the street Sunday in prime time. Needless to say, fans are fired up.

It feels great coming off a win and going to work the next day, said Devin Valentine, 32, of North Wales, a lifelong Eagles, Sixers, and Phillies fan (in that order). It just brings energy and passion to me and my coworkers and my family.

While the excitement and anticipation cant eradicate other global and individual stressors, their impact on the regions communal happiness and well-being should not be disregarded, psychology experts say.

Emotions have these multifaceted impacts on people. They change our behavior. They change our thinking, said Crystal Reeck, an assistant professor at Temple University who has a Ph.D. in psychology and neuroscience. One persons positive mood can end up spreading to another, even in this case if someone is not an Eagles fan.

READ MORE: Phillies-Braves: Schedule, tickets, and everything else you need to know

In fact, its at times like these that the sports-dont-matter argument is proven most untrue, psychology experts say; the joy and camaraderie are meaningful.

Happiness is contagious, said Eric Zillmer, a clinical psychologist and Drexel University professor who teaches courses on happiness and sports psychology. Thats the beauty of these events that are happening right now.

You just cant help but be giddy, he added.

Zillmer, the universitys former athletics director and director of its Global Sports Lab, said he has studied what the happiest countries, such as Finland and Denmark, have in common.

As the Philly sports teams have been winning, hes seen four of these qualities also on display in Philadelphia.

In a region where people identify strongly with their neighborhood or county, and an increasingly polarized political climate, it can be hard to find issues that unite us.

Theres nothing better than to beat the Braves 7-6 on Tuesday, he said. This is something that creates a fabric throughout our city.

In the happiest countries, they are resilient even in the face of adversity, Zillmer noted, and in recent years, those obstacles have been plentiful: the pandemic, inflation, geopolitical conflict.

On a smaller scale, Philadelphians are enjoying a special kind of joy that comes after setbacks.

Its even more delicious to enjoy the Phillies playoff victory given we havent been in the playoffs since 2011, he said. Philadelphians love nothing more than a triumphant struggle and this is what were getting. Its kind of unexpected that the Phillies have risen to this level of play right now and the Eagles have reinvented themselves in one season.

Some people garden, meditate, or take long walks. But, even for a casual fan or someone who doesnt usually watch sports, immersing themselves in a team can have benefits, even if just for the length of the game, Zillmer said.

Sports by definition is a celebration of the here and now, he said. You cant focus on anything else.

When you play sports and watch sports, especially when its meaningful like being in the playoffs, you dont worry about the regrets of your past or the anxieties of your future, he added. So right now, its almost like were going through group therapy in Philadelphia.

Its comforting to feel a sense of belonging to something bigger than yourself, Zillmer said, and attending or watching a sports game can provide that.

Part of Phillys collective identity is its investment in its sports teams, said Temples Reeck. Thats why a lot of people here especially feel so personally impacted by the performance of these teams.

But at the same time, Zillmer added, the casual fan can feel it. They can feel this energy. It also provides meaning in their lives.

Continue reading here:

Why the Phillies and Eagles successes might have you feeling happier, even if youre not a fan - The Philadelphia Inquirer

A truly Socratic response to revelationpassive surprise, perplexed skepticism, clarifying refutation, heroic confirmation, relative exceptionalism, creative revision, and persistent serviceoffers us, perhaps, a way out of the cultural impasse we are in.

The parties of reason and revelation seldom treat one another well: Those fond of reason all too often do not believe in revelation (pick your own favorite secular atheist); those fond of revelation all too often ignore or distort reason (pick your own favorite Christian fundamentalist). Not everyone, of course, but enough to make one wonder if anyone could bring them into genuine dialogue. And, lets be honest, perhaps we ourselves, in the inner dialogue of our souls, have trouble adjudicating reason and revelation. Perhaps we might understand ourselves and our debates better if we could throw ourselves beyond the traditions of the impasse and go back to a moment before Christianity and atheism altogether.

What I would like to do is simple, even nave. I would like to examine ancient Athenian Socrates account of his own response to a Delphic revelation. If Socrates is imitable, what shall his example teach us? The account comes in Platos Apology (20d-23e).[1] Socrates is defending himself against the actual legal accusations of having invented new deities and corrupted the youngfor which he will be found guilty and executedbut he realizes that he must first refute an earlier reputation for obnoxiousness earned through his customary activity of questioning people. He suggests that he must have some kind of human wisdom, and calls as a witness the god of DelphiApollo himselfto confirm Socrates human wisdom. This begins his narration of a past revelation and his own responses to it. Notice that the wisdom or sophia Socrates acknowledges may arise from his very response to the oracle.

A friend of his, one Chaerephon, went to Apollos oracle in Delphi, and asked it if there were anyone wiser than Socrates. Now the Pythian replied there was no one wiser (21a). It is clear that Chaerephon is not acting on Socrates orders here, but acting of his own accord and even impetuously. Our first characteristic of a Socratic response to revelation is that the revelation is not sought, but received. Revelation is a passive, not an active experience. The oracle reveals that there is no one wiser than Socrates, but it was not Socrates who sought that; indeed, he is surprised, as we will see. The first response to revelation is passive surprise, for revelation seeks you, not you revelation. A question asked by another concerned him.

But Socrates does not remain thus:

For when I heard this, I thought to myself: What in the world does the god mean, and what riddle is he propounding? For I am conscious that I am not wise either much or little. What then does he mean by declaring that I am the wisest? He certainly cannot be lying, for that is not possible for him. And for a long time I was at a loss as to what he meant. (21b)

It is true that Apollonian statements are famous for being often, if not always, enigmatic: riddles. (In the museum in Delphi, the most impressive of its many statues is a towering one of the Sphinx, and there is in the Apology always a dark double of another, less Socratic response to revelation, Oedipus, but I wont explore that here.) The second response to the revelation is that Socrates notices that his reason cannot fathom the revelation. Socrates knows empirically that he is not wise, but the god says that he is so. Since the god cannot liean assumption Socrates believes without demonstration, interestinglySocrates is confused. He knows that he is not wise, but the truthful god says that he is. The second response of reason to revelation is perplexity. Socrates knows two, irreconcilable propositions: the god appears wrong; the god cannot be wrong. The perplexity comes with not a little impiety since, at least provisionally, Socrates doubts the gods veracity. The oracle cannot be true. The length of time within for a long time is a disorientation of the soul when Socrates is at a loss as to what the god means.

However long that time of disorientation was, he does not remain content with it:

[T]hen with great reluctance I proceeded to investigate him somewhat as follows. I went to one of those who had a reputation for wisdom, thinking that there, if anywhere, I should prove the utterance wrong and should show the oracle, This man is wiser than I, but you said I was wisest. (21b-c)

Socrates now begins an investigation. The third response to revelation is to examine the perplexity by trying to prove revelation wrong. If he discovers someone wiser than he, the oracle will be wrong. Notice that he assumes he will discover such a person, and he is trying to refute the oracle to maintain his own self-understanding. This is not mere submission to the divine. Reason interrogates revelation to refute it. Socrates sets out to show Apollo that he is mistaken.

What did the interrogation look like? It took the form of Socratic dialectic, the questioning of an interlocutors response to a question until the responses weaknesses are evident:[2]

So examining this man and conversing with him, this man seemed to me to seem to be wise to many other people and especially to himself, but not to be so; and then I tried to show him that he thought he was wise, but was not. As a result, I became hateful to him and to many of those present; and so, as I went away, I thought to myself, I am wiser than this man; for neither of us really knows anything fine and good, but this man thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not think I do either. I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either. (21c-d)

Socrates naturally approaches someone known to be wise, who, he thinks, will prove the oracle wrong. Surprisingly, he discovers in conversation that the one thought to be wise is not. In one sense, the investigation is a failure. Socrates failed to prove the oracle wrong. In another sense, the investigation makes progress. Wisdom is now understood in two ways, actual and reputed: to seem wise is not necessarily to be wise. This progress is modest, though, since Apollo might only think Socrates is wise, while he is not so.

Here, however, we come to a truly radical feature of Socratic response to revelation. In order to accept the oracles veracity, and this is the fourth characteristic we are seeking, he will recast it. Revelation is changed to be understood. Socrates realizes that his interlocutor does not know, but thinks that he does, while he himself neither knows, nor thinks that he does. So he concedes the oracles claimhe is wiser than his interlocutorbut only by first refining what wisdom is. The truly devout Apollonian would argue that Socrates is increasing his understanding of what Apollo said: That is what Apollo meant all along. Perhaps. The oracle is refuted in one sense, confirmed in another. Perhaps, though, the oracle intended the sense confirmed. How would Socrates know? Through reason. If neither Apollo is mistaken in his formulation that Socrates is the wisest, nor Socrates is so in his own that he is not wise, then the god must have meant what Socrates discovered. As Socrates recasts it, I am wiser than this man; for neither of us really knows anything fine and good, but this man thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not think I do either (21d). Wisdom is now knowing that one does not know. The term is defined to be accepted, now commensurate with Socrates own self-understanding and the gods earlier, presumably intended meaning.

At this point, one might be forgiven for imagining that the Socratic response to revelation has ended since Socrates now understands what the oracle meant. But that is not the case. Even though he is becoming hated by those reputed to be wise, he continues to go about the gods business of investigating the meaning of the oracle (21e). This firth characteristic of Socratic response to revelation is surprising. Having already discovered what the oracle must have meant, Socrates continues to try to refute it by seeking through dialectic to find someone whose true wisdom will refute the oracles elevation of him:

After this then I went on from one to another, perceiving that I was hated, and grieving and fearing, but nevertheless I thought I must consider the gods business of the highest importance. So I had to go, investigating the meaning of the oracle, to all those who were reputed to know anything. And this, I do declare, was my experience: those who had the most reputation seemed to me to be almost the most deficient, as I investigated at the gods behest, and others who were of less repute seemed to be superior men in the matter of being sensible. So I must relate to you my wandering as I performed my Herculean labors, so to speak, in order that the oracle might be proved to be irrefutable. (21e-22a)

And this continual testing is not only divine service, but also divinely requested service: I investigated at the gods behest! How has Socrates discerned that Apollonian vocation? He must presume that Apollo, knowing Socrates character, knew how he would respond to the oracles pronouncement and wanted him to respond thus. Revelation seeks refutation. And it seeks continual refutation since Socrates continues to engage in dialectic. Only by doing so can the oracle be seen to be not simply un-refuted, but un-refutable. Reasons hero will wander, and like Hercules, engage in divinely mandated labors of refuting the god.

At this point, allow me to concede that refutation here does not mean only, in any simple sense, shown to be wrong. The Socratic elenchus is not only a refutation in the standard sense of the Greek term; it is also a clarificationthat is, a refutation of one casting of understanding and a clarification that it is a new understanding that is required. Of course, the new understanding must now undergo Socratic interrogation, as well, and indeed Socrates narrates going not only to the politicians, but also to the poets and the craftsmen to do just that. Socrates Apollonian vocation is a life-long service to clarifying what Apollonian wisdom is. The next two characteristics of a Socratic response to revelation, both of which may seem like afterthoughts, are actually astounding.

The sixth characteristic of a Socratic response to revelation is that sometimes Socrates does, in fact, show that revelation is mistakennot misunderstood, but mistaken. It turns out that craftsmen do actually know something Socrates does not about making things (22d). Even though they presume that knowledge means that they are knowledgeable about much, if not all else, leading to foolishness, they are wiser than Socrates in that he does not know how to make the things they do. Sometimes, revelation is simply mistaken. Refining our understanding of revelation entails discovering a portion of error in revelation.

Socrates narration of his past in Platos Apology ends up with his re-writing revelation:

I am called a wise man. For on each occasion those who are present think I am wise in the matters in which I confute someone else; but the fact is, gentlemen, it is likely that the god is really wise and by his oracle means this: Human wisdom is of little or no value. And it appears that he does not really say this of Socrates, but merely uses my name, and makes me an example, as if he were to say: This one of you, O human beings, is wisest, who, like Socrates, recognizes that he is in truth of no account in respect to wisdom. (23a-b)

The oracle first said that no one is wiser than Socrates (21a); now, Socrates revises that to mean that only he is wise who (like Socrates) has little or no wisdom, and knows it. Human sophia is a recognition that there is little or no sophia for human beings. The Apollonian dictate to know thyself now means, Know that you do not know. The seventh characteristic of a Socratic response to revelation is that it revises revelation.

The eighth and last characteristic, persistent service, follows from the others:

Therefore I am still even now going about and searching and investigating at the gods behest anyone, whether citizen or foreigner, who I think is wise; and when he does not seem so to me, I give aid to the god and show that he is not wise. And by reason of this occupation, I have no leisure to attend to any of the affairs of the state worth mentioning, or of my own, but am in vast poverty on account of my service to the god. (23b-c)

There is always the possibility that Socrates will discover, in the next interlocutor, the refutation or clarification through elenchus of the oracle, so he cannot rest from his divine calling to respond to revelation.

A truly Socratic response to revelationpassive surprise, perplexed skepticism, clarifying refutation, heroic confirmation, relative exceptionalism, creative revision, and persistent serviceoffers us, perhaps, a way out of the cultural impasse we are in, where, as Matthew Arnold might have it in Dover Beach, ignorant armies of atheists and fundamentalists clash by night, armies often (remember) within each of our own souls. Why? Because it is neither an atheism nor a fundamentalism, and because it makes its progress through the instrument of reason that must be the path of discourse, be it public or private discourse, for human flourishing. Its not as easy as Platos Socrates makes it look, but the Apology is the one Platonic work with a claim to historical veracity. What has happened can happen. So theres hope for us all.

Notes:

[1] The Loeb Classical Library trans. H.N. Fowler (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1982).

[2] For a wonderful, clear account of that dialectic, see Ward Farnsworths The Socratic Method: A Practitioners Handbook (Boston, MA: Godine, 2021).

The Imaginative Conservativeapplies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politicswe approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please considerdonating now.

The featured image is a photograph of marble bust of Socrates, Roman artwork (1st century), perhaps a copy of a lost bronze statue made by Lysippos. This file is licensed under theCreative CommonsAttribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

More here:

A Socratic Response to Revelation - The Imaginative Conservative

A major national police-community partnership event this weekend needs to be made secular and inclusive, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is insisting.

Faith and Blue, which is promoted by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services at the U.S. Department of Justice, says its mission is to build neighborhoods where everyone feels safe and included and contends that faith-based organizations are key to building these bonds.

Each year since the Faith and Blue initiative began in 2020, FFRF has received complaints from its members as well as members of the public about their local law enforcement agencies promoting religion at these events. Faith and Blue events often include religious activity that exclude the nonreligious, demonstrating the danger of governmental partnerships with faith-based groups.

Here are just a few examples of religious endeavors inappropriate for publicly sponsored events that have occurred as part of Faith and Blue.

The only activity scheduled for this Sunday in Dover, Del., as part of Faith and Blue is an invitation for the community to join Dover police officers and city officials in an afternoon of fellowship in worship at local churches. Its flier for the event proclaims that we are strongest when together, we believe! implying that nonbelievers are not contributors to a strong community. Faithandblue.org actually promotes this worship event on its website.

In 2020, the Greenville, S.C., Sheriffs Office put out a video for Faith and Blue weekend in which the sheriff shared his personal religious views: There is no doubt that we live in uncertain times. But one thing is certain, and thats the love that Jesus Christ has for each one of us. . . . Remember that God is in control.

And a Detroit police chaplain used the departments 2020 Faith and Blue event to broadcast a prayer from a patrol vehicles loudspeaker, coercing all in the vicinity to listen to a government-sponsored prayer: In the name of Jesus Christ, Father, we need you to go into each and every house, Father, and loosen those handcuffs, in the name of Jesus Christ . . . were praying for your protection.These types of incidents crossing the constitutional line are inevitable when the federal government encourages law enforcement agencies to put on a Faith event, FFRF contends.

There is no reason to single out faith-based organizations over other important community groups for their own weekend of partnerships with local law enforcement, FFRF Co-Presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor write to Department of Justice Acting Director Robert Chapman. And, under our Establishment Clause and vaunted separation of church and state, there is every reason not to sponsor or promote an event that is undoubtedly going to create confusion about those boundaries, and appears to place Faith on an exalted plane.

FFRF is urging that this annual program include all community organizations, not just faith-based ones, and that the word Faith should be deleted in the event name to make it clear that these are intended to be secular events. The Department of Justice COPS program must take immediate action to prevent future constitutional violations stemming from Faith and Blue events nationwide, FFRF is insisting ahead of the events planned this weekend.

FFRF, noting that almost a third of the population today identifies as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular, adds: Minority religious and nonreligious citizens should not be made to feel excluded, or like outsiders in their own community, because the city governments, sheriffs offices and police departments that they support with their taxes put on a religious event and encourage members of the public to participate in church services, prayer or other religious activities.

You can read the letter in its entirety here.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with more than 38,000 members across the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.

More:

FFRF: Nationwide cop event this weekend should be secular and inclusive - Freedom From Religion Foundation