In a recent op-ed in the New York Times titled "The Evangelical Rejection of Reason," my colleague Randall Stephens and I argued that most of the GOP candidates, reflecting widespread evangelical sensibilities, were effectively rejecting secular knowledge. The argument was essentially an abstract of our new book, "The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age."
The response from leading evangelicals has been very encouraging. It appears that there is widespread concern about rampant anti-intellectualism and many important leaders added their voices to ours. Evangelicals from the fundamentalist end of the spectrum, however, are upset. After all we did suggest that they embraced "simplistic theology, cultural isolationism, and stubborn anti-intellectualism." Their response has been to accuse us of capitulating to secularism and forfeiting any claim to being genuine Christians. Al Mohler was especially critical in his piece "Total Capitulation: The Evangelical Surrender of Truth." In particular he excoriated me a second time for my earlier claim that "I am happy to concede that science does indeed trump religious truth about the natural world."
The common and perhaps too casual juxtaposition of "evangelicalism" and "secularism" -- or even "science" and "religious truth" -- creates the impression that these two worldviews, for lack of a better term, are at odds with each other. Certainly the subtitle to our book suggests this and many of our critics are framing the discussion in those terms. But subtitles and op-eds are rather tight quarters to maneuver complicated arguments about the nature of knowledge claims.
We should reject the idea that knowledge can be divided into two (or any number) of separate realms. "Religious knowledge" and "secular knowledge" are particularly inadequate and even dangerous categories to start with. Such divisions are practical constructions that help us organize the world, but they don't reflect the way the world actually is. An alien anthropologist might conclude that physics and biology are somehow "different and separate" because of the way they function in our universities and laboratories. But we know that the world is not adorned with little flags labeled "biological phenomena" and "physical phenomena" to help us assign the problems to the right department. The arrangement in our great universities where these disciplines are housed in separate buildings, reflects the practical reality that the problems of those disciplines are sufficiently different that people tend to be drawn to one or the other. But we know that there can be no discrete separation, for those disciplines meet constantly to engage problems of optics, joint mechanics, blood pressure and so on. And we know that it would be meaningless to dispute about whether the study of blood pressure or near-sightedness properly belonged to physics or biology.
In the same way -- but far more importantly -- we cannot divide the world on a large scale into "secular" and "religious." A slightly less flawed, but still too simple, knowledge map would be a continuum stretching from "religious knowledge claims" at one end to "anti-religious knowledge claims" at the other with "secular knowledge claims" somewhere in the middle.
Such a continuum, limited because of its one-dimensionality, would better reflect the messy reality of the world as we actually encounter it, rather than the more tidy way we construct it. Such a continuum would also remind us that there are no natural boundaries to types of knowledge and that we should expect to be puzzled as we try to make sense of the world.
The great achievement of modern science has been to move knowledge about the natural world from the religious end of the spectrum to a middle ground that we call, for lack of a better term, secular. But I don't think we should view this as taking knowledge claims from one "side" and giving it to the "enemy," like the Red Sox did when they traded Babe Ruth to the Yankees.
To be secular is to be "non-religious" not "anti-religious." Science requires the acknowledgment of simple facts without regard for their "value" in supporting any grand system. The separation of fact and value is what has empowered the great engine of knowledge-creation we call science. It is another of the important changes wrought by science as it matured. We must be able to pursue simple facts about the world -- the mass of the proton, the mechanism of cell division, the age of the earth, the origin of life, the relationship between humans and other life -- without an a priori assumption that these facts will necessarily support any particular religious worldview.
I see no reason why a religious believer should regard a simple fact as somehow hostile, just because it is a so-called secular claim. The discussion of the planetary status of Pluto, or the veracity of recent claims that neutrinos are exceeding the speed of light are secular discussions, with no obvious religious significance -- and certainly no anti-religious aspect.
This is what secular should mean to religious believers: finding facts without worrying about how they fit into their value system. Such facts can then be analyzed to see whether or not they support a religious worldview but as simple facts they should not be perceived as threatening.
The division of knowledge claims into religious and secular is a simplification that works well for culture warriors eager to demolish one side or the other. Ken Ham's Museum displays are set up to contrast "God's Word" with "Human Reason." But Ham knows this is too simple. Where in this organizational scheme, for example, would we put the claim that protons are heavier than electrons? It doesn't come from "God's Word" so it must be the product of "Human Reason." Does this mean it is the enemy of God's Word?
Hardly.
Follow Karl Giberson, Ph.D on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gibersok
Rev. Dr. Mark Achtemeier: Coming Out as an Evangelical Supporter of Gay Rights
The Evangelical Rejection of Reason - NYTimes.com
Two âEvangelicals'â Rejection of Reason - Cornwall Alliance
The evangelical rejection of reason? â Chris Blattman
Two Evangelicals' Rejection of Reason - Christian News ...
Christians need an IDENTITY.
They do not know who God says they are.
So they run looses goose. As religious people. Instead of true voice in the earth.
Unless of course one admits to having supernatural powers with which to communicate with a supernatural god(s). To this date there is no scientific evidence for communication; any scriptural witnessing of such events are not admissible evidence but can only be taken on faith alone.
So, god(s) is whatever suits your fancy; and He is different for each and everyone; unless of course you adhere, voluntarily to an institutionalized religion that dictates who He is.
We are at the point where living by scripture's word is so harmful, that even if there is a god we should be working for humanity as a whole exclusively. It is a big enough job without confusing it with a myriad mythological rules.
Wouldn't it be even more fascinating if the first cell came courtesy of a meteor from another planet and we are actually aliens on our own planet? Either way, we are all descendent from that first living cell, this has been proven, so all traditional scripture can be thrown on the trash heap at this point.
Of course, even if we had a complete theory of life, the universe, and everything, we can't exclude the TAG, prime movers, or other philosophical gods.
Wow! Are you a prophet? All the ethics and morals that you know of in your life time comes from God. It does not come from man. When you make predictions like you have made in your post, you are doing the same thing that prophets did in the Old Testament.
However, the exception is that you don't know what you are talking about. There is a chasm that separates man from knowing certain truths concerning God and science. You have placed all of your faith in science, and the trouble with science is it won't fill that hole in your soul.
If there is no "God" then it is totally unimportant as to whether we work towards humanity as a whole exclusively or otherwise. I know it sounds good for you to say it, and it makes you look like a real caring individual...but, it's all nonsense.
But, you will be there to "witness"...but, not what you think.
This is clearly nonsense. Once again we see how self regarding religious people are. It is, of course, far more likely that religions incorporated the moral codes of the societies in which they arose than that some imaginary deity handed them down. And societies would have had moral codes to start with because such codes are essential for cohesion in any society.
"If there is no "God" then it is totally unimportanÂt as to whether we work towards humanity as a whole exclusivelÂy or otherwise"
Nonsense. There is no need for God in order for humanity to work together. Enlightened self interest alone would be sufficient for that.
I have not placed all my faith in science. I have witnessed what science has accomplished and by logical deduction can conclude it will accomplish much more.
I am not too worried about what I will witness later, by the way, but I am positive you will witness the exact same thing.
People like to believe more than they like to know, because we like that sense of certainty within ourselves, and really religion was formed out of a sense of uncertainty about the world around us, and it was a good way of feeling certain.
I can't help but notice that you put forward a lot of theories & conjecture about why other people believe in God. Have you conducted any research on this topic? What is the source of these theories about why people believe? How many of us have you actually asked?
I say that in plural so we can be on the same page of understanding that your Deity is not the only deity people in the world believe in or have believed in.
But, if you'll re-read my post, I don't mention gods at all. I was talking about peoples sense of certainty, and the need for that sense wherever that lies.
My sense of certainty comes from knowledge, things I can KNOW. Because of that, I find my sense of certainty in Science, Math, History, and I assume you do as well to some degree.
The difference I think is concerning that which we can't know, and I think that people don't like that sense of uncertainty in those topics, why do we exist, what happens when we die, etc. So people like to believe things they can't know, and it provides a sense of certainty.
What are the fronts in this regard? Creationism -vs- evolution? Global warming -vs- climate change? Age of the earth?
What I think the verse you are citing refers to is the message of the cross. I mean how foolish is it for God to save humanity by becoming an infant to die on a cross? What sense does that make to the rational man? Throughout history God uses methods that make us go "huh?" But they are always and without exception there to teach us, guide us, and to do for us what we can't do ourselves.
Engage in whatever debates you want about the 'science.' The only way to know for sure is to ask the one who created science... God. Unfortunately some of these debates won't be answered conclusively this side of the grave. The bigger question is how to get there to ask Him!
Taking responsibility for ourselves and leaving superstitious fears behind . We're still not ready for that ? Too bad. More tribal conflict over the names of gods untill we are.
Today the aspect of human experience that those philosophers and this author wish to isolate in the realm of fact for many of us belongs to the realm of religion. Ours is a religion of belonging to this world. We are not aliens from some other world or banished from the Garden of Eden. We are where we belong, and if we are religious it is in terms of the whole of things.
Science and religion share the world of value. Kant told us that while speculation and imagination need not be confined to science, neither are they allowed to contradict science. That is today's religious challenge.
Until the secular side of science truly understands the "spiritual" perspective (not necessarily agree with it, but at least understand it), I presume many will continue with their stereotypical denegration of "believers" as they continue with their soi-doisant superiority. A scientific model of any type, based on this biggoted type of perscpective, is flawed from the start. This is but one challenge for the secular side of science today.
Thank you again for your thoughts...and I look forward to reading more posts from you. Fanned.
How are we to resolve conflicts between the divine utterances of different cultures and traditions, or within our own tradition?
By what "algorithm" can we establish the metaphysical usefulness of any particular faith algorithm?
when your group of intellectuals decided to define your theories as facts you took on the realm of religion.
just heard a preacher this morning state: "if it is not in the bible it is not a fact"
there are many aspects of some religious beliefs that are far advanced in its understanding of reality of your so called theories as facts.
but this article bought much comfort to the materialists and for that you need to be congratulated. you reinforced their existing beliefs. ie ego thing.
the religious do the same with their articles that appeal to those that have the same system of beliefs.
the religious and the materialist have at least one thing in common. they do not like to think or study or research outside their established beliefs. ie human ego thing wanting to be known for knowing.
for the materialist one unexplained paranormal phenomenon and their entire materialistic system of beliefs even their so called facts comes crashing down.
for the christian one moment of understanding that the idea of a sacrifice to appease an angry wrathful jealous god of unconditional love does not pass the simplist of logic tests brings down their entire system of beliefs.
both sides have to become very defensive if anyone even suggests their beliefs are based in an unawareness of reality.
I don't think that this is correct. An unexplained phenomenon is exciting, an opportunity to learn something new...as long as it is not simply mass delusion and is an actual external event.
You've got it backwards. The materialist belief is a RESULT of the thinking and the study and research, not before. The Religious is a result of years of conditioned belief by parents removed from study and research. Children in sunday school aren't researching the historical accuracy of the Noah Story,they are being told the story is true at a time when their trust in what adults tell them is held as authority.
James W. Fowler (1981) Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development & the Quest for Meaning. New York: HarperCollins.
You are giving us nothing but your conjecture about why people believe in God.
You make perfect sense! Thanks for this article & for your timely book.
This distinction also negates the continuum idea of knowledge that you presented. A continuum implies that there is a range of values that don't have a disjoint at any place along the way. However, when it comes to religious and secular knowledge, there is such a disjunctive point. It takes place when the facts in question stop being subject to disproof. Every 'fact' identified through secular processes is subject to revision or rejection based on future discovery. Unless religious knowledge reaches that particular point, placing on a continuum with secular knowledge is not going to be accurate.
Philosophy is almost orthogonal to religion.
Your axes of religion should be monotheism and pantheism.
Atheism is also orthogonal to religion, i.e. it has a religion component of ZERO.
Irrelevantism, my favorite stance, is the value of infinity on the atheist axis. So far from the religion plane as to regard religion as totally irrelevant.
All fun stuff.