For a clip of The Vogues lip-syncing to their recording, go here. Enjoy!
The issue of whether morality is or is not tied either to a belief in God or religious prescriptions has come up time and again, and apparently Christopher Hitchens hears it quite often. Tom Gilson provides a good response to the question, which as he comments might surprise some Christians as well as atheists:
1. Christians are by no means committed to believing that belief in God or gods taken generally is good or leads to ethical actions. The Bible is full of stories of people who believed in a God or gods, and yet sacrificed children, practiced temple prostitution, and more. We believe there is but one God, revealed in Jesus Christ, that contradictory beliefs are in error, and that there is no reason to expect extraordinary good to come from them.
2. This may come as a surprise to some readers, but Christianity is also not committed to the belief that Christians are more ethical than others. The explanation for this comes in three parts. …
Tom’s post is succint, but addresses the question well. It’s worth reading, and I’d appreciate any comments you might have on the topic.
A couple of days ago over at Clashing Culture, Anastasia wrote a piece entitled, What ID should focus on (take 2). As the title emplies, this is her 2nd try at addressing her thoughts about reconciling faith with science. You can read her 1st article and my response here.
As I really hate to leave really long comments on other people’s blogs, and as the topic does fit in my recent string of posts concerning epistemology, I thought I would respond to her post here as a separate post.
Anastasia,
I appreciate your taking another run at this issue. However, while I agree in principle with a couple of things you have said, on the whole I find your understanding of Christianity to be quite naive, and think you’ve made some fundamental errors.
First, you, like many other people, are using the terms “ID” and “Creationism” synonymously when they really refer to 2 very different types of thinking. Both Creationists and ID proponents will bristle at this confusion. To you they may seem the same, but without recognizing the difference you will never be able to communicate your thoughts properly. Creationists, as the word is generally used today, refers to people who believe the Genesis account to the exclusion of any sort of evolutionary path of mankind. The term is broad enough to include many who do accept various forms of evolution, as well as the fundamentalists you refer to in your post. Creationism is a theological position, not a scientific one.
On the other hand (and I know you will take issue with this to some extent, but that’s another issue), the Discovery Institute and other ID proponents are not approaching the issue from a theological position. There are fellows at the Discovery Institute who are not Christians, and for that matter, are not even Deists. They take issue with various forms of evolutionary theories based on data, not theology. You can disagree with how they address the data, but as I said, that’s a different issue. Many who are considered IDists include those who believe in evolution in some forms, including common descent. Again, the term is broad, but the along a wholly different continuum than “Creationism.”
You have indicated that you find literal Creationism scary, because, as you state, you worry about children who “learn some biblical interpretation instead of reality.” Certainly, that is your position as a materialist. However, “reality” is a philosophical term. There are many scientists (I know some) who would argue with your concept of reality. Obviously, as you point out, you can be a scientiest without being a materialist, which brings me to another point:
You accuse the Discovery Institute of trying to kill “science as we know it, which they equate with materialism.” No, and yes. “Science as you know it” would be what is often called “scientific materialism,” “philosophical materialism,” or “scientism.” It is the belief – unprovable, at that – that there is no other reality outside of the material world. The Discovery Institute is opposed to this philosophy which has become wedded to science. As you have indicated your feelings about the Discovery Institute’s article, The “Wedge Document:” “So What?”, I would be very interested in hearing exactly what it is you find so scary there.
The point of your article was to address how these ID proponents should address current congregants and potential congregants. First, you make the error in assuming that the ID folks are in a sense “evangelical” as it relates to the Church. Actually, it isn’t. It’s not religion, and while there are a number of Christians who are interested in the topic, we don’t confuse it with theology. I would guess that the vast majority of Christians, including those who went to see “Expelled,” still don’t know who or what the Discovery Institute is, and don’t rightly care.
Now, here’s where I will wholeheartedly agree with you: those fundamentalists who have extremist and irrational views, as well-meaning as they may be, are dangerous. I’ve been working to undo damage they’ve done for many, many years, and not dealing with the Creation v Evolution issue; that is a meaningless side issue, as far as I’m concerned. The fundamentalist, ultra-right-wing wacko contingent are, in my opinion, misrepresenting the Gospel, and messing people up. If you read Galatians, the Apostle Paul was incensed at the legalists (the same basic issue) who tried to mess up the Galatian church, and suggested that they either be castrated or told to go to hell. If you don’t believe me, go read it yourself. It’s quite entertaining.
I also agree with you that to teach that science is evil is doing people a disservice. Science is merely a tool – it may be limited in what it can prove or disprove, but it is a decent tool nonetheless, and it was developed with the help of many good Catholics. I will take issue, however, that the public schools teach children critical thinking skills. I’m conspiracist enough to believe that what passes for critical thinking is more often than not brain-washing. My wife is a public school elementary teacher, so I’ve a little knowledge there.
I will also agree with you that it is important for people to properly reconcile their faith with science (and, I would add, history, philosophy, etc.), and I will deal with that further in an upcoming post. For far too many years, Christians were expected to keep their faith a “private matter” and never even tried to help people apply their faith to the “Gestalt” of their life. However, you are quite naive in your assumption that Christians in general have an issue with “forcing religion to fit inside a scientific argument.” Here, as I’ve said before, you really should get out more. There’s obviously a whole lot more going on in the contemporary church than you realize.
Now, your closing, encouraging us to “stay within our lanes” seems to contradict this reconciliation you just proposed. Science and religion are indeed “different animals.” However, they are not totally distinct, and never were – until scientific materialism tried to make them distinct. This is not a scientific argument, this is entirely philosophical. Science, as you say, cannot disprove that which is undetectable, at least by scientific methods. Here, you are more perceptive than folks like Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger. Science by definition is limited to that which is observable, repeatable, and measurable. However, that says absolutely nothing about that which is outside the realm of science.
Your statement that “neither will religion be able to prove that god exists, except through faith” is correct in that, as you state, it is “far removed from the scientific method.” However, I think you are using the term “faith” pejoratively. There is a great deal of evidence for the Christian “faith.” I am not one of those who believes that one can “prove” anything; even believing that 2+2=4 has an element of faith. In fact, believing that the scientific method can provide reliable data takes faith.
I truly appreciate your willingness to address these issues in such a thoughtful manner, and encourage you to explore these issues a bit more. And, I’m serious: I would like to hear in detail why you feel the way you do about the Discovery Institute article.
Ask nearly anyone who claims to know the current trends, and they’ll tell you that we now live in a postmodern world. Ask them what that means, and you’ll hear things like, “there are now no objective standards for truth” or “postmodernism is a rejection of the metanarrative.” As I have mentioned in a prior post, postmodernism is hated and feared by theologians and scientists alike, as it undermines what is foundational for both: modern reason. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, though I have been reading and thinking about it for a good number of years. What I have concluded so far is that not all of postmodernist thought is bad, not all postmodern thought is good, and it is for the most part not so much a departure from modernism as it is a neo-modernism.
First, postmodernism is a critique of certain aspects of modernism, which is badly needed. Modernism as a worldview is extremely narrow-minded, arrogant, anti-historical, and egocentric, if that term can be applied to a worldview. Modernism is constructed in such a way that in its own eyes, it can’t fail. One of its main errors is its faith in progress, that the evolution of society – and of man – is necessarily positive, and that every day in every way, we are getting better and better. More knowledge is always good, in spite of what Adam and Eve discovered. While imaging that we are rational to the utmost, and depending almost exclusively on man’s ability to reason, this belief in necessary progress is not itself based on reason. Modernism, in many ways, is a fraud, and those calling themselves postmodern have found it out. In spite of the incredible “progress” of technology, the average white-collar American works more hour per week than 30 years ago, and stress-related illnesses are on a rapid rise. Progress?
Postmodernism challenges the lie that everything is okay. It also challenges the lie that everything fits into nice, neat boxes. Postmodernism recognizes that spirituality is important. It challenges the scientific hold on truth, as well as religion’s hold on it. Postmodernism recognizes that what moderns accepted as a rule “was more of a guideline.” However, it has also adopted the same anti-historical arrogance; while it often pays homage to the past, it assumes that postmodernism is better. It has not thrown out all of modernism, just what it doesn’t like. Postmoderns, for example, are more addicted to modern technology than anyone. Apple is perhaps the first large postmodern corporation, and its product line it tailored specifically to that target market, using good old-fashioned modern marketing techniques. Do postmoderns rise up in rebellion? Not in the least; in fact, the “Mac Guy” has become an icon.
William Lane Craig is the first author I have found who agrees with my conclusions. In a recent article in Christianity Today, he writes:
The idea that we live in a postmodern culture is a myth. In fact, a postmodern culture is an impossibility; it would be utterly unlivable. People are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, engineering, and technology; rather, they are relativistic and pluralistic in matters of religion and ethics. But, of course, that’s not postmodernism; that’s modernism! That’s just old-line verificationism, which held that anything you can’t prove with your five senses is a matter of personal taste. We live in a culture that remains deeply modernist.
Otherwise, how do we make sense of the popularity of the New Atheism? Dawkins and his ilk are indelibly modernist and even scientistic in their approach. On the postmodernist reading of contemporary culture, their books should have fallen like water on a stone. Instead, people lap them up eagerly, convinced that religious belief is folly.
Is there a need for a true post-modernism? Perhaps. Or, perhaps what we need is rather a rediscovery of pre-modernism, a loosening of our anti-historical attitudes and the misplaced faith in progress. I’m not suggesting we give up the internet or stop thinking logically; I am, in fact, quite attached to many of the accomplishments of modern technology, as well as modern logic, which has its place. However, I do think we need to recover some of what was lost in the iconoclasm of the “Enlightenment” in order to put modernism into some kind of context. This, I think, is what is being attempted by much of postmodernism, but at the moment it still seems too egocentric – and modern – to be any more than just a new expression of modernism.
One finally comes to the conclusion that, despite vigorous protests, belief in evolution and intelligent design are matters of faith. – Roy Spencer
Roy Spencer is an indepenent thinker and critic of the current global warming movement. In an article entitled Faith-Based Evolution on the TCS Daily site, he addresses the faith issue discussed in the prior post as it applies to evolutionary theories. What he says isn’t new, and I know exactly what evolutionists would say in response, however without addressing the issue of faith. Since it was pertinent to today’s subject, I thought I’d just pass along the link to his article.
In keeping with my series of posts dealing with epistemology and worldview, BarryA over at Uncommon Descent has – almost as if on cue – written an excellent piece discussing how both Theists and materialists rely on a combination of faith and reason. He makes a number of points that I had planned on making in upcoming posts, so rather than duplicate efforts, I will direct you over there to read the full article. I will revisit these points in a future post. Just to whet your appetite:
Materialist believe that a real world exists outside of themselves and that they have trustworthy perceptions of this real world from their senses. Surprise. Those two beliefs are not based upon any evidence. Materialists hold the beliefs based on pure faith, a frequently unacknowledged faith to be sure, but faith nevertheless.
If we accept the rules of basic logic (which is itself a presupposition), we have to agree that when it comes to accepting either evidence or the methodology for evaluating evidence, we eventually come to a point where we must take a leap to faith (or at least, a leap to presupposition). At this point, the materialist typically calls the philosopher names and walks away. But, I think the arguments tha BarryA makes are valid; either we must agree that we lack evidence for materialistic presuppositions, or else we must call into question logic itself, at which point modernism and all that comes with it implodes.
Once again, isn’t epistemology fun?
I used to be from Minnesota. I probably shouldn’t admit that, but I do… However, I don’t think I ever voted there (maybe once?), so I guess I don’t feel responsible for Minnesota politics.
I happened to catch Jesse “the Body” Ventura on Larry King a moment ago. Apparently he’s not running for Minnesota State Senator, but he’s leading Al Franken, who really is running. What a weird state. Of course, I can’t imagine Al Franken as a serious politician, even in Minnesota. Even after Jesse Ventura. Or after Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale. Of course, I live in Oregon, so I can’t brag. We’re so lazy here that we all mail in our ballots days early, just so we can stop paying attention to the political ads.
I did think Ventura was kind of a kick as governor, especially as he wasn’t my governor. However, hearing him on Larry King tonite reminded me of just how ignorant the man really is. It’s kind of funny that he says what he thinks, but then you realize that this is what he really thinks! He was making fun of Bush praying before his decision to to into Iraq. I don’t know that Bush ever said that God told him to invade Iraq, only that he had prayed about it. I appreciate that – I don’t for a moment think that it was an easy call for Bush, and those who do think that are just plain idiots. No one makes a decision like that – even from a career standpoint – without giving it a lot of thought, and often, prayer.
Ventura, though, is too smart for that, saying that in his nearly 57 years, God has never spoken to him. As my favorite rabbit would say, “what a maroon.” Jesse, you may have never spoken to God, but if you’ve never heard Him speak (in the land of 10,000 lakes, yet!), you just weren’t listening.
He did make one sensible comment though:
“I think that bodes very badly for the Democrats in the fact that you have an unpopular president, a more unpopular Congress and a senator in lockstep with this president and now you have a third party candidate who hasn’t announced and you have fallen behind him. I think the Democrats are in some serious trouble.”
But, today is apparently the last day to file, and it appears that Franken’s lack of success has awakened hope in a number of would-be contenders. So who will it be? Another pro wrestler? Another comedian? Maybe a real politician who wants withdraw yesterday from Iraq and raise taxes?? Or, perhaps a retired hockey player whose campaign will focus on bringing pro hockey back to the Gopher State? I think he’d get my vote.
Ah, but it’s all good fun, as they say…
In my last post I briefly discussed the origins of modern epistemology (that area of philosophy concerned with what we know and how we know that we know what we know), for the purpose of providing some background to discuss modern Christian epistemology and post-modern epistemology.
Recently I received an e-mail which linked to recent articles appearing on Christianity Today online, with the subject line, “Apologetics makes a comeback…” Apologetics historically is the systematic defense of Christianity. The Apostle Paul is considered the first Christian apologist, first using the word apologia as recorded in Acts 26:2. At its most basic, apologetics is providing the basis for your faith; however, under modernism, apologetics has often come to mean the systematic proof of Christianity. Modern apologetics includes philosophical arguments relying heavily on Aristotelian logic, as well as scientific and historical arguments. With modern apologetics, reason tends to reign supreme – even more so than with much of modern materialism.
As with its arch-rival, philosophical materialism, modern Christianity (especially evangelicalism) has been to some extent running scared from the West’s newest worldview, postmodernism. Postmodernism started as an architectural style, a move away from modernism’s boxy steel & glass that now dominates our cities’ skylines, and philosophers began using the term. Philosophically, it is very hard to define, other than that it is a purported deconstruction, critique and rejection of many of the failures of modernism. In some ways, it is not a philosophy so much as a non-philosophy. However, the major issue with regard to Christianity has been the tendency to reject the notion that anyone can claim any hold on truth. Truth claims are seen as methods of control (which often they are; no one has either the ability to know what is true or the right to enforce that view on others. We all choose our own paths, our own truths, blah, blah, blah.
So, when Christianity Today starts publishing “apologetics isn’t dead” articles, what’s behind it is this fear that postmodernsm will put modern apologetics out of business. However, CT’s article A New Day for Apologetics quotes author Lee Strobel:
“It wasn’t too many years ago that scholars were writing off apologetics because we live in a postmodern world where young people are not supposed to be interested in things like the historical Jesus,” Strobel says. “The biggest shock is that among people who communicated to me that they had found faith in Christ through apologetics, the single biggest group was 16- to 24-year-olds.”
A 2nd CT article turned out to be an interview with an old friend of mine, Mark Mittelberg, who has recently published a book entitled Choosing Your Faith: In a World of Spiritual Options (Tyndale, 2008). This book – while I admit I haven’t even seen a copy yet – is a bit different than some of the older apologetic books, as it is focused on evaluating truth claims in a culture where truth seems to be up for grabs. Mark says,
I would urge my fellow believers to not let go of one of the most important things God has given us: logic, evidence, old-fashioned apologetics, which Jesus often appealed to when he was questioned. He would say, “Don’t just listen to my words, but look at my works, look at my miracles, look at the fact that I am fulfilling the roles of the Messiah in the prophecies. Look to the fact that I will rise from the dead.” And then to Thomas the doubter, he said, “Look at the holes in my hands and in my side. Look at me; it’s Jesus.” Over and over he pointed to the facts, the evidence, as did the apostles and other writers of Scripture. I’m not saying it’s the only approach; I’m just saying it’s an important approach that we need to use well…
If we can call this The New Apologetics, it seems that besides offering logical evidence for Christianity, it is also to an extent an apologetic for modernism; saying, “don’t give up on logic, reason and evidence.” Here, oddly enough, even The New Atheists would be in agreement, but disagree as to what constitutes evidence. However, even at modernism’s peak (the pre-Vietnam era), there were many for whom logic, reason and evidence simply weren’t enough.
So, in the early 21st Century, we are told on one hand that we are living without a doubt in a postmodern culture. On the other hand, interest in science, technology and apologetics seems as strong, if not stronger, than ever. What gives?
Stay tuned for the possible answer to this question, and more …
A few days ago I asked the very philosophical question, “how do we know what we know?,” just touching on a topic that I happen to find extremely interesting. I’m not an expert, by any means – if I were, I could be making a lot of money doing what I am doing here for free – and neither am I an expert on the history of epistemology.
What I do understand is that the origins of Western thought with regard to these matters dates back to ancient Greece, to Plato and his student Aristotle. For the first thousand years of the Church’s existence, Plato was of no little influence in both the Eastern and Western churches; Augustine was heavily influenced by Plato. At that time very little of Aristotle’s writings were even available in the West. It was not until Abelard came along around the year 1100 that an Aristotle-based philosophy began to develop. Abelard’s mentor was a realist, as you would expect. Abelard began to dismantle his professor’s arguments using Aristotelian logic and soon gathered a considerable following. His most famous quote is perhaps, “For by doubting we come to inquire, and by inquiring we perceive the truth.” While challenging Augustine’s position on original sin, he remained essentially orthodox in his theology. His logic, however, was no match for his love for Heloise, which nearly lost him is private parts.
The real shift toward what would become the “Age of Reason” came 30-40 years later with the appearance of Thomas Aquinas, the first medieval Christian to have access to all of the translated works of Aristotle. While having somewhat limited influence while he was alive, his writings eventually impacted most of the Western Christian world. His primitive thoughts on the essential nature of things – asking the question, “what can we know?” – set the stage for what would become modern science. Aquinas proposed that all human knowledge – even that of God – came through our five senses, essentially establishing the concept of modern natural theology (Plato as well as Augustine also referred to natural theology, but did not limit “experience” to the 5 senses).
Thomas Cahill writes about the impact of Aquinas’ teaching on the western church:
Not even God’s revelation, filtered through scripture and church, could replace reason’s role in tackling and settling questions – since even God’s revelation must be approached, absorbed, and digested by human reason. … Such a philosophy must necessarily reduce the role of revelation and of church in the lives of those who subscribe to it, for it is the human mind, and it alone, that ultimately sits in judgment on the meanings of the scriptures and the pronouncements of the church, as on all else. (Mysteries of the Middle Ages, p. 215)
Cahill goes on to explain that in spite of this rationalistic approach to knowledge, Aquinas remained an orthodox believer, writing, “Three things are necessary for a human being’s salvation: to know what he ought to believe; to know what he ought to desire; and to know what he ought to do.” He also wrote, “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” Obviously, Aquinas did not see any conflict between faith and reason.
Aquinas wasn’t universally accepted, however. While he was sainted about 50 years after his death, his teachings were still being debated. It wasn’t until 1879 that his teachings became the “official” teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, due to Pope Leo XIII. Cahill questions the basis for this decision, stating that Pope Leo “viewed Thomism principally as a weapon to be used against the rising political and social liberalism of nineteenth-century Europe.”
Regardless of the RCC’s official position, it would seem that the success of modernism is largely owing to Aquinas, whose influence is seen everywhere. This is especially true within Western Christianity, as even most non-Catholics have succumbed to the prevailing worldview of modernism, as evidenced in the area of apologetics and the reliance upon reason in interpreting the Scriptures. Most in the church would probably agree with Thomas when he says, “The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
But, what if he was wrong? (hint: I tend to think he was.)
Joe Cocker finally explained.