PDA

View Full Version : Don Cupitt


Irish Murdoch
4th May 2004, 05:42 AM
I wonder what any of my fellow sceptics think of people like the radical theologian Don Cupitt? For those of you who haven't heard of him, Cupitt is a fellow of Emmanuel College Cambridge, and is an ordained minister of the Church of England. But, he believes that this world is the only world there is (so, that there is no heaven, no hell, and no transcendental realm of any sort), doesn't believe in any supernatural entities (no God, no Devil, no angels, no demons), and thinks it is akin to "an intellectual sin" to believe in anything for which one does not have evidence. Gods, he maintains, are one and all mere projections of our values.

But despite all this, he doesn't think that one ought to abandon religion. He sees living religiously as a very important thing to do. But living religiously, for him, obviously doesn't involve believing in anything remotely supernatural. It means, as far as I understand it, being committed to certain values that can take a (fictional) God as their focus. It means developing a disinterested approach to the world; one in which you "pour yourself out into" the world of other people, with no hope of any reward in this life, or any other. Living in this way he calls living according to a "solar" ethic--the sun simply pours itself out into the world, and its doing so is the very essence of its life, and at the same time is the process of its own death.

Phew, sorry to get all poetic there. But anyway, I'm just interested to know what everybody thinks. Is Cupitt being realistic and offering a viable way of living our lives? Or is he needlessly trying to hold onto religion when it is of no use? To me, this at least seems like honest religion. But insofar as it is, is it redundant?

The Don
4th May 2004, 06:22 AM
It sounds to me from your description that he was so thoroughly brainwashed at some point in time that he is unable to allow himself to be de-programmed. If this were not the case then he could merely declare himself a humanist.

If however the problem is that he will lose tenure at Emmanuel College were he to renounce his faith and lose his ordained status then I would call him a cynical pragmatist

Irish Murdoch
4th May 2004, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by The Don
It sounds to me from your description that he was so thoroughly brainwashed at some point in time that he is unable to allow himself to be de-programmed. If this were not the case then he could merely declare himself a humanist.

If however the problem is that he will lose tenure at Emmanuel College were he to renounce his faith and lose his ordained status then I would call him a cynical pragmatist

:) I doubt he'd lose tenure--as an atheist theologian, he couldn't be seen as any more controversial than he already is! And anyway, having (illicitly) lived in Emmanuel College at one time myself, I can only imagine that getting booted out would be a good thing. ;)

Anyway, the man himself can make his own case more eloquently than I, so here's an interview with him: http://www.philosophers.co.uk/portal_article.php?id=43

triadboy
4th May 2004, 07:39 AM
Doesn't the Church of England require belief in invisible creatures?