Just as religious folks can be divided into sects by their theologies, so I often wonder what a natural taxonomy of Atheists would look like. I imagine one test for a certain subspecies of Atheists would be to see if they read religious books like this one. Religious folks are often very puzzled with those of us Atheists who are “obsessed” about religion. They wonder if we are still seeking the Truth and may return to the flock or if we are just feeling guilty in our new apostate life. Meanwhile, many lifetime Atheists also don’t see why we’d be interested in such writings. So, I ask both my Atheist and Christian readers: Do you read what you don’t believe and if so, why? What do you feel about such ventures? I did so to understand, not to prove anyone wrong, but simple to explore and feel.
“The Theological Roots of Pentecostal Theology” by Donald Dayton was recommended to us by Nick Norelli, a Pentecostal scholar, in my post “Curriculum of Understanding” where I invited readers to suggest their favorite books to help non-believers understand their particular beliefs. As can be expected, it was rather dry and abstractly theological, but I enjoyed learning from Dayton’s scholarly objectivity.
Donald W. Dayton (Yale Divinity School; Ph.D., University of Chicago), is a professor of theology and ethics at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Lombard, IL. His earlier books include The American Holiness Movement: A Bibliographic Introduction and Discovering an Evangelical Heritage. Dayton is a believer
The first two pages of each chapter’s are right out of hymnals. At first, this made me disappointed that I bought the book — “This is going to be a sappy, subjective insider’s story”, I thought. But I was very pleasantly surprised to find the author a very objective scholar. Dayton often left me unclear on what he himself actually believed — “Is he Pentecostal? Is he even Christian?” But as the book moved on, I realized that this Christian author was striving against being “uncritical or apologetic” for which he criticized many other Christian scholars.
The hymns starting each chapter did not to set the tone for a confessional theology, but assist the reader to feel the hopes, fears and joys of the believers. I feel such sympathy is essential in understanding any faith. Each chapter then explores the evolution of Pentecostal doctrine showing how the various doctrines supported the felt social needs of the particular believers in their point in history. Wow, that took me off guard. To read a believer who understands the natural evolution of their own beliefs is refreshing. Dayton shows religion as a social tool.
Dayton unpeeled the roots of Pentecostalism showing the influences of Pietism, Puritanism, Methodism, Holiness Movements, and Perfectionism in such a way as to draw in my mind the image of the interactions of waves — I will do another post on this “wave theology” later. Dayton shows us how Pentecostalism grew out of Methodism’s rich theology instead of simply being a contrived emotionalism sprung from revivalist movements. The sociological complexity of his story was fascinating, even for this Atheist. Dayton does not hesitate to quote revealing superficial sides of these elements, or should I say, the human authorship of these doctrines. For example I enjoyed his telling of a 1900 propaganda pamphlet which bragged of the “electric sparks” from the “Pentecostal battery”.
Dayton guided me through several insider controversies: apocalypsism & millennialism, christiocentric vs pneumocentric religious sentiment; salvation as holiness vs salvation as a heavenly reward; gifts of the spirit and more. But I must repeat, Dayton’s writing is a bit dry and detailed for the non-Pentecostal, yet alone the Atheist, and he often assumes much Church history and doctrinal knowledge of the reader. So I am not recommending this book unless you have a particular interest in Pentecostalism. Nonetheless, I was pleasantly surprised by the read. It helped me re-think the various waves of influence in my own past Christian life and gave me a larger sympathy to a variety of Christian believers today. Most importantly, it gave me fodder for my blog (smile) — more posts coming.
Triangulations 
“Just as religious folks can be divided into sects by their theologies, so I often wonder what a natural taxonomy of Atheists would look like.”
From a purely ‘scientific’ perspective, I think you have the logic backwards. Shouldn’t you actually start from ‘pure’ atheism and proceed to categorize levels of less pure atheism (i.e., theism)?
I understand that for most people, this isn’t their personal experience (i.e., they start as ‘theists’ due to indoctrination as children), but starting a taxonomy from theism and going toward atheism would be very problematic (e.g., which theism would you start from).
Of course this is quite peripheral from what I think your post is really trying to get at. Personally, I would put information like the cited book in the same category as the history of failed scientific theories (e.g., phlogiston or aether). It’s only interesting as history.
@ geoih
(1) I wager that by “pure atheism” you mean the simple, plain belief in no god(s). I agree, that is the definition. But real people hold this belief and thus hold this simple belief with a whole bunch of other beliefs. Just like real people believe in Jesus — “pure Christianity” — but hold many other beliefs that divide them into sects. Actually, as I read your comment, perhaps you misunderstood my point in the first paragraph. I am just joking that there may be a difference between Atheists who read this kind of stuff (like, me) and those Atheists that don’t — and it has nothing to do with their lack of belief in god(s). Does that help?
(2) I understand your issue with all the versions of theism being “failed scientific theories”, but theologies, much like the irrational feelings about sports teams among many atheists, fills the life of real people. It is that aspect I am trying to understand. Beliefs have both truth-value and function. I am exploring function. Yes, yes, many atheists visit my site trying to always return me to only the orthodox mission of all atheists of evaluating only the “truth-value” aspect of belief — I get that, and though I do that too, also I often explore the functional aspect of belief and its meaning in the life of believers — be they atheist or theist. Does that make sense?
Sounds like an interesting book. But I have to finish dozens and dozens of books before I could even find the time to buy/borrow this one. But I’ll keep it in mind.
BTW, I just finished Stephen Prothero’s book Religious Literacy. He argues that every American (and perhaps every person on the planet) should be familiar with religious ideas, doctrines, facts, history, etc., even though they may not believe any of it. Mighty interesting stuff, and a very breezy read.
Thanx Qohelet — I ordered the audio tape from my local library. Maybe it will help me is figuring out how to approach this stuff with my kids better. After all, my daughter already informed me that she is the only 2nd grader who doesn’t believe in a god. I then sat down both of my kids and told them both “closeting” and told how it happens to both gays and atheists. I think they are starting to understand the pros and cons about coming out too much in a bigoted world.
It seems like Lord Shiva today led Massimo (a neurocognitive scientist and now philosopher) to write about “the Incoherence of Free Will” and Dennett.
Shame on those of you who don’t believe in the gods.
An excellent short read — give it a look.
I find that when I read detailed theological articles, my eyes glaze over and my mind wanders. It just doesn’t hold my interest. I was once a cultural(nominal) christian, and am now an atheist. I suspect that if I was more seriously interested in theology when I was a theist, I would still find these types of books interesting.
@ Boz
Indeed, I totally understand that “glaze” you speak of. I do the same when people want to have exciting discussions about sport teams. “It just doesn’t hold my interest”.
Further, I agree at your hinting that what we embrace in our youth, can stay with us strongly in some version throughout our life.
I, for instance, am still interested in Star Trek and love watching the Wizard of Oz. Stuff lingers !
Quote from Sabio Lantz: “I wager that by “pure atheism” you mean the simple, plain belief in no god(s).”
Perhaps a better word would have been pure nontheism. I think you would need to start from a point before belief (or nonbelief).
Yes, I did get that you were shooting for humor with your initial comment, I just thought it was more thought provoking than categorizing theists.
Quote from Sabio Lantz: “…many atheists visit my site trying to always return me to only the orthodox mission of all atheists of evaluating only the “truth-value” aspect of belief…”
Hopefully, I don’t fall into that category (much). Sounds a little too doctrinaire to me.
@ geoih
I love the word “doctrinaire” — it is a habit of all minds, to tenaciously embrace an idea which serves it well — true or not.
Just found your blog via your post @ Imonk. This entry hit home with me as a former christian now atheist/hard agnostic. I reckon this issue of obsession with theology to be not unlike losing interest in watch your favorite football team play each week but still checking the scores from time to time but not truly concerned about their standing.
I grew up in a pentecostal church that could have been the illustration for the dictionary definition of a pentecostal charismatic church in the 80’s; speaking in tongues, healing, casting out demons, prosperity gospel, constant scandals with the church leadership. My unwilling involvement in that “community” took up a large chunk of my younger years and its influence on me, whether I like it or not, is still very prevalent.
As an newly minted Einsteinian-Saganist (:) I take a dim view of the utter nonsense and theological chicanery that church, and others like it espouse. Still, I have an obsession with reading theological blogs and books similar to the one you posted about. I am certainly not guilty in leaving faith and superstitious ways of viewing the world nor am I looking for a way back in. My best answer is that it is an interesting subject for its own sake. I simply find the subject interesting. Many memebrs of my family are still true believers and keeping myself sharp on matters theological does have the added benefit of keeping me aloof to their proselytizing tendencies.
I look forward to taking in more of your blog in the future. A first scan shows it have plenty of interesting entries.
@ Civil
Thank you for visiting. I too find the subject of religion and philosophy still fun and interesting.
Nice art work, btw ! Great to have an artist as a reader.
I tend to read quite a lot on Pentecostalism (and write a little, being a ex-pente. If you’re interested the best resource i have come across is the late Walter Hollenweger’s Pentecostalism:Origins and Developments worldwide (Hollenweger was Professor of Mission at Birmingham Uni and a former pentecostal pastor).
Personally I was a bit disappointed with Dayton.
Thanx Richard — used versions of Hoolenweger are $36 — I am not THAT curious about Pentecostalism !
🙂
While I am not an atheist, your assessment of Dayton’s book is accurate. In fact, this book was one of the eye openers into the insight that Pentecostalism did not spontaneously occur in the first century church. The fact is Pentecostalism is a sociological phenomenon and not supernatural. That being said, however, does not mean that one can then make the logical leap to “all metaphysics are irrational.”
Scientism and atheism rely on philosophy and not pure empiricism as any honest philosopher will need to acknowledge.
Sincerely,
Charlie J. Ray
Hello Charlie,
I wouldn’t know what “all metaphysics are irrational” means. To much vaguenss. Particulars would help.
I agree that most people hold a scientism and atheism positions that are not based on pure empiricism by any means. So do I get the “honest philospher” award.
But trust me, when someone uses rhetoric like “as any honest philosopher will need to acknowledge”, I instant do not trust them. Smile
Well, on the same token, I’m suspicious of anyone who claims they do not have any “metaphysical” ideology, particularly when philosophy itself is not an “empirical” science. Logical positivism has been discredited ages ago. I find it simply amazing to see atheists continuing to use arguments based on logical positivism:)
At any rate, I’m not interested in some long, drawn out debate over atheism and theism or Christian theism. I just thought it was noteworthy that you had read Donald Dayton’s book and had come to similar conclusions that I had. The typical pentecostal claim to supernatural origins for the movement are perfectly explainable from a sociological perspective.
But then pentecostal scholars have more in common liberal theology than most are willing to admit. This is why Dayton utilized sociology as a different angle for providing what he sees as an apologetic for the pentecostal movement. Ironically, that apologetic merely serves to reinforce the suspicions of skeptics–whether the skeptic be an atheist or a Reformation Christian.
But then scientism has it’s own mythology: time travel, worm holes, warp drives, extended life cycles, UFO visitations, etc. Atheists have their own hopes for utopia on earth. I think John Lennon wrote a song about that, didn’t he? What if there were no religion?
Take care,
Charlie
Charlie, I’d caution you on speaking generally about “atheists”, just as I caution atheists about speaking generally about “Christians”. There are as many flavors of atheists as there are Christians. I feel like you are not talking to me but to some idea you have of what an Atheist should be. This is a mistake Atheists make toward Christians too. We talk AT an imaginary person instead of with a real one. Human relations 101.
Point taken. The varieties of atheists makes it difficult to know who is what since I’ve never tried to categorize them. I do recognize the general categories of “hard” and “soft” atheism, though.
Take care,
Charlie
@ Charlie Ray:
To that end, I made a tool for Atheists to share themselves so people dialoguing can have a head start in truly understanding each other. It is just a small beginning but it helps. It is here –> Atheists Share Yourself
My “About Author” tab uses those tool to share a bit about myself.
Perhaps you should share your flavor of Christianity on your site.
Anyone who visits my website can read my views on the blog description, the sidebar, and in the posts. Clearly I am a classical Calvinist and an Anglican of the English Reformation/Protestant/Evangelical side of Anglicanism.