Reading a review of Behe's new book God as Genetic Engineer, I am reminded that what creationists claim as true, and what even creationist proponents believe can be supported by the evidence are two different things.
For example, Behe accepts an old age for the earth, common ancestors for chimps and humans, and the ability of sequential mutations to increase an organism's chances for survival. He accepts these things, though they contradict biblical literalism, because the evidence is compelling.
Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, given a chance to clarify his views of evolution, backs away from a literal reading of Genesis, and says that faith and science are not in conflict - meaning that evolution happened, and that Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally.
What remains? A conviction, widely held, that "all this is not an accident." The notion that some way, some how, "God did it." This is not based on the Bible or science – it is a "gut feeling" that life is not just a series of random events – that we have a privileged place in the universe.
The difficulty, of course, is in getting down to specifics. It is clear that God did not do it as laid out in the Bible (or any other religious text). It is clear that God (as immediate cause) is not needed to explain any part of the world we live in (except to assert that in some as-yet-not-understood way, “God did it”).
Not only do we find no clear evidence of God acting in history or our day-to-day world, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no known mechanism for supernatural action at all. The response of faith is, “well, obviously, science is wrong, because God does act.” That, and the other theistic response - that the things we discover about the natural world, including cosmology and evolution, is how God does it.
So how can smart people like Behe and Huckabee and Brownback live with this cognitive dissonance (claiming both that the all we can know about are material causes, and faith’s claims that all the important causes are supernatural)? They know (and even publicly admit) that the Bible does not accurately portray (when taken even semi-literally) the history and workings of the natural world. Yet they find themselves compelled by their belief to insist that God has taken a direct (though unspecified) role in shaping the natural world, the historical events in the world in the last few thousand years, and in the day-to-day events of their (and billions of others') lives.
Treat this like a large-scale survey about what people need and want in their lives. They want the world to make sense. They need there to be order and pattern and purpose. We experience the effects of this unmet need in the social chaos we see around us - people seeking any number of things (much self- and socially- destructive) to escape pointlessness and boredom, alienation and loneliness.
Science is often perceived as relentlessly eroding a sense of purpose and significance - at best silent, and at worse dismissive of the notion that we can have a special relationship with a supernatural force that impacts our world in a way that benefits our daily life, community and world history. Science earns this reputation by failing to find any evidence that claims of supernatural intervention have any basis in fact.
The implications are not lost on people of faith: absent supernatural intervention, we may not be a special people, and our leaders not appointed by the gods. This may not be not the promised land. The seasons and weather may not reflect supernatural approval or disapproval of our actions. Wealth may not be a sign of divine favor. Parking spaces may not be held open for us by the great valet in the sky. Worse, much of what happens may be as pointless, random and unfair as it seems. Meaning may be where we find it, and love may be where we make room for it.
Of course, this could all be taken as a wakeup call to grow up and take more responsibility for our lives, our relationships, our community and planet. Conversely, many people have tried and failed the attempt to be responsible and proactive, and have found themselves unable to cope with the despair, the open alternatives, the absence of any objective set of values or fixed compass by which to navigate. They turn to faith for certainty, for direction, even purpose.
So the reaction is often to blame the messenger - science. This is normal - especially since the expectations for science and technology are so great, and science and technology has proven such a mixed blessing. Still, the message, such as it is, is accurate.
Science cannot get us out of this mess, because it is not a religion, offers no path to meaning and purpose, and is not, in itself, a foundation for meaningful community.
People seem to need a sense of purpose, significance, and community. We seem to need a sense of our place, and a way to make a meaningful, lasting contribution. We want to be safe, and to be free from fear and want. We obviously to need to learn how to be social creatures, able to interact positively with others – and to do that, we need stable, helpful models. This takes enduring institutions and an extravagant investment of time and compassion. It takes a way of starting over, a way of being held accountable, a way of being forced to live within some limits.
The value of individuals, the right relationship between a government and the governed, an individuals obligations to their community (and vice versa)- these are all tightly bound up with people's moral, ethical and religious beliefs.
Science is not a replacement for faith or morals, but it often represents the only viable alternative to revelation or arbitrary claims of authority. It is can be an infuriating goad to arbitrary authority. Science can be stifling orthodoxy to folks who are trying to think in new ways. Because science makes no claim to infallibility, and yet is often viewed as the final arbiter of truth - (both claims have some merit), science is seen as both autocratic and fractious, authoritative, and as changeable as the next discovery or clinical trial.
The best way to defend science is to build healthy communities of people who, among other things, embrace science as a tool - neither making it an oracle, nor forcing it to be subservient to some other master (politics, capitalism, prejudice or religious dogma). Science is a critical tool exactly because it can help us discover accurate things about our world. When we silence science (as we have in the discussions of global warming, for political purposes, in our drug approval process, for economic motives, and so on) we all lose - because we have diminished our ability to distinguish claim from fact, and are more at the mercy of dogma and demagogues, wild speculation, ignorance and superstition.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Invitation to the Big Tent
While science engages with religious conservatives on issues like scientific proof for a young earth, global flood and special creation, what these literalists are actually doing is presenting the following syllogism:
A moral culture can only be built on the Bible
The Bible is only authoritative if taken literally
Therefore, to have a moral culture, the Bible must be taken literally
This logic has a lot of traction with non-literalists, who want a safe culture in which to live and raise their kids. The world is in fact worrisome, and free-market capitalism has not delivered the promised happy and abundant society.
Science is portrayed as insisting that the Bible cannot be taken literally, which turns out to be seen as an attack on attempts to build a moral society. This puts science on the side of the bad guys. That science is correct in its rejection of literalists’ claims is no defense.
"No wonder society is sick," conservatives say, "if science is allowed to tear down the only foundation for ethical behavior."
You might notice that science is only peripheral to this issue – and to argue for strong science without addressing the assumptions about what is required to have a moral society is to be relegated to the less-interesting part of the discussion.
One approach for science advocates may be to engage in a discussion about what constitutes a moral society. When we address issues of social and economic justice, both religious and non-religious folks can participate – while deemphasizing the importance of special creation and other literalist agenda items. Moderates are satisfied, because topics of concern to them are being addressed.
People seem to be taking note of the fact that we face many social justice issues today. For example, 27 million people in some form of slavery, a growing disparity between rich and poor, competition for oil and other resources with countries like China and India. Against our will, many of us are facing up to the fact that global warming is happening. In the face of the political, economic and ecological crises we face, it may be time to broaden our understanding of what it means to live a moral life.
Science advocates can further the cause of science by noting that our growing awareness of the interconnectedness of life and culture come from a revamping of how we view the world, in no small part due to the work of science. In fact, we need to directly challenge the notion that a conservative religious agenda, with its narrow focus on personal morality, is an adequate moral and ethical foundation for the modern world.
This need not be confrontational - everyone can be invited to discuss issues of justice and the defense of the weak - strong themes throughout the Bible, for example. Rather than lose moderates to the "Big Tent" of ID, why not invite them to a "big tent" of social and economic justice?
A moral culture can only be built on the Bible
The Bible is only authoritative if taken literally
Therefore, to have a moral culture, the Bible must be taken literally
This logic has a lot of traction with non-literalists, who want a safe culture in which to live and raise their kids. The world is in fact worrisome, and free-market capitalism has not delivered the promised happy and abundant society.
Science is portrayed as insisting that the Bible cannot be taken literally, which turns out to be seen as an attack on attempts to build a moral society. This puts science on the side of the bad guys. That science is correct in its rejection of literalists’ claims is no defense.
"No wonder society is sick," conservatives say, "if science is allowed to tear down the only foundation for ethical behavior."
You might notice that science is only peripheral to this issue – and to argue for strong science without addressing the assumptions about what is required to have a moral society is to be relegated to the less-interesting part of the discussion.
One approach for science advocates may be to engage in a discussion about what constitutes a moral society. When we address issues of social and economic justice, both religious and non-religious folks can participate – while deemphasizing the importance of special creation and other literalist agenda items. Moderates are satisfied, because topics of concern to them are being addressed.
People seem to be taking note of the fact that we face many social justice issues today. For example, 27 million people in some form of slavery, a growing disparity between rich and poor, competition for oil and other resources with countries like China and India. Against our will, many of us are facing up to the fact that global warming is happening. In the face of the political, economic and ecological crises we face, it may be time to broaden our understanding of what it means to live a moral life.
Science advocates can further the cause of science by noting that our growing awareness of the interconnectedness of life and culture come from a revamping of how we view the world, in no small part due to the work of science. In fact, we need to directly challenge the notion that a conservative religious agenda, with its narrow focus on personal morality, is an adequate moral and ethical foundation for the modern world.
This need not be confrontational - everyone can be invited to discuss issues of justice and the defense of the weak - strong themes throughout the Bible, for example. Rather than lose moderates to the "Big Tent" of ID, why not invite them to a "big tent" of social and economic justice?
Monday, April 23, 2007
Science in Conflict with Religion?
Science is misunderstood primarily because of preconceptions about how the world is (or must be) – that is, we already know what the world "must be" like, and don’t want to yield our preconceptions to the empirical results of the scientific process.
One source of misconception is the certainty that the world is influenced by the supernatural (that is, by some agency with no knowable method of action). This is not to say that God does not exist - just that God seems to use the mechanisms of the natural world to accompish his purposes.
While it is possible to say that, in principle, science and relgion are not in conflict, most science is in conflict with that part of any religion that involves magical or supernatural action (again, action without scientifically observable mechanisms). So, for example, a young earth, special creation and a global flood (but also Native Americans as descended from the "lost" tribe of Israel and countless other incorrect beliefs about the natural world).
The reason that ID-ists distance themselves from mechanisms is because of this conflict. Science describes a world in which identifiable (measurable, repeatable) mechanisms exist for all actions observed in the natural world. Most religions explicitly defend god's prerogative to act without regard to natural mechanisms.
There are two ways out of this dilemma. First, you can deny science. Say that there is scientific evidence for things with no natural explanation (I say deny science, because so far, there is no such evidence). Alternatively, you can define religion to be some sort of vague impulse, statistically indistinguishable from natural causes. The first involves denying the plain facts, the second involves making faith irrelevant (except as a personal mental model - and construing religion as such strips it of much of its appeal and power).
There are likewise a couple of reasons to deny that religion and science conflict - first is to avoid the complete rejection of science by those folks who do think that the supernatural exists, but who have not really looked into it rigorously. Second, because of the recognition that, for all the anti-social things religion creates, it also provides a cohesive social order and sense of meaning that seems fairly impervious to any attempt to stamp it out.
One source of misconception is the certainty that the world is influenced by the supernatural (that is, by some agency with no knowable method of action). This is not to say that God does not exist - just that God seems to use the mechanisms of the natural world to accompish his purposes.
While it is possible to say that, in principle, science and relgion are not in conflict, most science is in conflict with that part of any religion that involves magical or supernatural action (again, action without scientifically observable mechanisms). So, for example, a young earth, special creation and a global flood (but also Native Americans as descended from the "lost" tribe of Israel and countless other incorrect beliefs about the natural world).
The reason that ID-ists distance themselves from mechanisms is because of this conflict. Science describes a world in which identifiable (measurable, repeatable) mechanisms exist for all actions observed in the natural world. Most religions explicitly defend god's prerogative to act without regard to natural mechanisms.
There are two ways out of this dilemma. First, you can deny science. Say that there is scientific evidence for things with no natural explanation (I say deny science, because so far, there is no such evidence). Alternatively, you can define religion to be some sort of vague impulse, statistically indistinguishable from natural causes. The first involves denying the plain facts, the second involves making faith irrelevant (except as a personal mental model - and construing religion as such strips it of much of its appeal and power).
There are likewise a couple of reasons to deny that religion and science conflict - first is to avoid the complete rejection of science by those folks who do think that the supernatural exists, but who have not really looked into it rigorously. Second, because of the recognition that, for all the anti-social things religion creates, it also provides a cohesive social order and sense of meaning that seems fairly impervious to any attempt to stamp it out.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Why Science Matters
An update, based on comments from folks at KCFS.
Why Science Matters
If the world were simple and straightforward, science may never have developed from ordinary observation and experiment. As it happens, the natural world is much more complex and diverse than anyone would ever guess. From the behavior of quarks to the light-years-spanning galaxies in space, from the over 350,000 species of beetles to the intricate beauty of DNA's double helix, our world has amazed us with its complexity, invention and resiliency.
Science unveils a world far beyond our expectations, drawing us from our day-to-day experiences and confronting us with a reality more inventive than our richest imaginings.
Science Gives Us An Accurate Picture Of Our World
From earliest history, philosophers have speculated about what the world was and how it worked. Many of these ideas were wrong: the results of limited perceptions, inaccurate assumptions and often, a lack of attention to facts.
Science is the product of our search for a more accurate understanding of the world around us. Throughout history, people looked at what was happening around them, reached tentative conclusions, and tested their assumptions with careful experiments. They learned from other inquisitive minds, and encouraged one another in their search for knowledge. Science is simply an extension of that quest.
Based on observation, confirmed by experiment and subject to verification, scientists have developed, not just a description of the world, but a kind of understanding that lets us put that scientific knowledge to work. From Ben Franklin experimenting with lightening to Thomas Edison and the electric light bulb is a direct line - scientific research to technological advance.
What has emerged is a startlingly accurate picture of the world and how it works. It is not a complete picture, and no doubt surprises are in store – but the sciences, painstakingly built up over centuries of work, provide a framework of understanding that informs many of our most important perceptions, decisions and actions.
Science Improves our Everyday Existence
It is easy to lose perspective on what it was to live in a world before modern science. People often died young, mostly of diseases that could have been prevented by good public heath practices. Nature was seen as capricious and judgmental. Our ability to provide food and shelter was limited to manual labor, augmented by a few simple tools and machines.
Clean drinking water, improved crop yields, antibiotics, streetlights and the Internet all sprang from an understanding of the world provided by science.
Even more, nature is no longer the province of vengeful spirits, disease no longer the result of someone’s malign intentions, and the physical properties of the world no longer hidden behind a veil of mystery, forbidden to mortals. This understanding has allowed us to solve a host of problems, resulting in a myriad of improvements to the quality of our life.
Science Can Inform Some of Our Most Important Decisions
Many of the difficult questions we face, from genetic engineering to global warming to alternative fuels benefit from a basic understanding of the science behind the issues. By being better educated in the sciences, we are able to make more informed decisions as a consumer, a patient and a citizen.
Science Promotes Common Understanding
Science, with its focus on natural cause and effect and repeatable, experimental verification can provide a common vocabulary and set of perspectives on the world - a kind of Rosetta stone by which we can better understand our relationship to one another, the earth, and all life. This can be as simple as forging a common understanding of the mechanisms that make crops grow, ecologies flourish and children healthy. These common understandings help banish fear and mistrust, and provide concrete arenas for cooperation and growth.
Science Is A Tool
Everyone forms conclusions about how things work. Science provides a powerful means to test those conclusions, and reveal areas where we need to enlarge our understanding of the natural world. A good grasp of science – its strengths and limitations - is one of the keys to better understanding our world and our selves.
Science is one of the most successful, accurate and powerful tools we’ve ever discovered. Like any tool, the value we get from it depends on how well we use it. If we apply the fruits of science with skill and wisdom, it enhances our life and understanding. As we face the many challenges in front of us, we need the unique contributions of a strong, free, accurate science.
Why Science Matters
If the world were simple and straightforward, science may never have developed from ordinary observation and experiment. As it happens, the natural world is much more complex and diverse than anyone would ever guess. From the behavior of quarks to the light-years-spanning galaxies in space, from the over 350,000 species of beetles to the intricate beauty of DNA's double helix, our world has amazed us with its complexity, invention and resiliency.
Science unveils a world far beyond our expectations, drawing us from our day-to-day experiences and confronting us with a reality more inventive than our richest imaginings.
Science Gives Us An Accurate Picture Of Our World
From earliest history, philosophers have speculated about what the world was and how it worked. Many of these ideas were wrong: the results of limited perceptions, inaccurate assumptions and often, a lack of attention to facts.
Science is the product of our search for a more accurate understanding of the world around us. Throughout history, people looked at what was happening around them, reached tentative conclusions, and tested their assumptions with careful experiments. They learned from other inquisitive minds, and encouraged one another in their search for knowledge. Science is simply an extension of that quest.
Based on observation, confirmed by experiment and subject to verification, scientists have developed, not just a description of the world, but a kind of understanding that lets us put that scientific knowledge to work. From Ben Franklin experimenting with lightening to Thomas Edison and the electric light bulb is a direct line - scientific research to technological advance.
What has emerged is a startlingly accurate picture of the world and how it works. It is not a complete picture, and no doubt surprises are in store – but the sciences, painstakingly built up over centuries of work, provide a framework of understanding that informs many of our most important perceptions, decisions and actions.
Science Improves our Everyday Existence
It is easy to lose perspective on what it was to live in a world before modern science. People often died young, mostly of diseases that could have been prevented by good public heath practices. Nature was seen as capricious and judgmental. Our ability to provide food and shelter was limited to manual labor, augmented by a few simple tools and machines.
Clean drinking water, improved crop yields, antibiotics, streetlights and the Internet all sprang from an understanding of the world provided by science.
Even more, nature is no longer the province of vengeful spirits, disease no longer the result of someone’s malign intentions, and the physical properties of the world no longer hidden behind a veil of mystery, forbidden to mortals. This understanding has allowed us to solve a host of problems, resulting in a myriad of improvements to the quality of our life.
Science Can Inform Some of Our Most Important Decisions
Many of the difficult questions we face, from genetic engineering to global warming to alternative fuels benefit from a basic understanding of the science behind the issues. By being better educated in the sciences, we are able to make more informed decisions as a consumer, a patient and a citizen.
Science Promotes Common Understanding
Science, with its focus on natural cause and effect and repeatable, experimental verification can provide a common vocabulary and set of perspectives on the world - a kind of Rosetta stone by which we can better understand our relationship to one another, the earth, and all life. This can be as simple as forging a common understanding of the mechanisms that make crops grow, ecologies flourish and children healthy. These common understandings help banish fear and mistrust, and provide concrete arenas for cooperation and growth.
Science Is A Tool
Everyone forms conclusions about how things work. Science provides a powerful means to test those conclusions, and reveal areas where we need to enlarge our understanding of the natural world. A good grasp of science – its strengths and limitations - is one of the keys to better understanding our world and our selves.
Science is one of the most successful, accurate and powerful tools we’ve ever discovered. Like any tool, the value we get from it depends on how well we use it. If we apply the fruits of science with skill and wisdom, it enhances our life and understanding. As we face the many challenges in front of us, we need the unique contributions of a strong, free, accurate science.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
The Way Forward
“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.”
Recent trial balloons from the right suggest that the next approach for creationists attempting to make inroads into public school is the notion of science as a "materialist religion."
The argument for creationism is a theological one - "This is how I read the Bible." Responding with evidence for evolution misses the point - which is that some people choose to accept a somewhat literal reading of the Bible over the clear evidence.
While science is not a religion, and methodological materialism is not a faith, biblical literalism most certainly is. The relentless press to establish a narrow, sectarian view of Christianity as the official religion of the US is something we all should resist. First, because theocratic states are by their very nature repressive. Second, because this country explicitly rejects the idea of an official religion (that is why there is no religious test for office allowed in the constitution). Third, because the only people with the energy to push for a theocracy believe all sorts of things that are just plain wrong (like a young age for the earth, a global flood and special creation) that will cause all sorts of pain and damage when they end up with the sanction of government.
So the discussion might go like this:
Q: I've heard that evolution is a failed theory, and is only kept alive by lies and distortions. Why should I believe it?
A: If that were true, you should not believe it. As it happens, there is strong evidence for evolution, and I'd be happy to talk about it, but let me ask you a question first, "are you open to considering the evidence?"
Q: What makes you think I'm not?
Well, for most of us, we have a hard time believing in things we disagree with. For example, we want to believe certain things about our country, our children, our friends - and we have a hard time accepting it when someone presents us with facts that run counter to our beliefs.
It is the same with science. Most people who object to evolution have a particular view of God that they see as incompatible with the gradual development of life over billions of years.
If you accept evolution, you have to give up a literal reading of Genesis. Are you willing to consider doing that, if the evidence is strong enough?
------
Science is on the defensive on two fronts. First, that the evidence for evlution is flawed, and second, science is a religion, and so Christianity should be given equal time. The proper response is to point out that a particular sect is trying to promote their narrow sectarian faith at the expense of the truth, and in the face of the Constitution.
— Bertrand Russell, Roads to Freedom
Recent trial balloons from the right suggest that the next approach for creationists attempting to make inroads into public school is the notion of science as a "materialist religion."
The argument for creationism is a theological one - "This is how I read the Bible." Responding with evidence for evolution misses the point - which is that some people choose to accept a somewhat literal reading of the Bible over the clear evidence.
While science is not a religion, and methodological materialism is not a faith, biblical literalism most certainly is. The relentless press to establish a narrow, sectarian view of Christianity as the official religion of the US is something we all should resist. First, because theocratic states are by their very nature repressive. Second, because this country explicitly rejects the idea of an official religion (that is why there is no religious test for office allowed in the constitution). Third, because the only people with the energy to push for a theocracy believe all sorts of things that are just plain wrong (like a young age for the earth, a global flood and special creation) that will cause all sorts of pain and damage when they end up with the sanction of government.
So the discussion might go like this:
Q: I've heard that evolution is a failed theory, and is only kept alive by lies and distortions. Why should I believe it?
A: If that were true, you should not believe it. As it happens, there is strong evidence for evolution, and I'd be happy to talk about it, but let me ask you a question first, "are you open to considering the evidence?"
Q: What makes you think I'm not?
Well, for most of us, we have a hard time believing in things we disagree with. For example, we want to believe certain things about our country, our children, our friends - and we have a hard time accepting it when someone presents us with facts that run counter to our beliefs.
It is the same with science. Most people who object to evolution have a particular view of God that they see as incompatible with the gradual development of life over billions of years.
If you accept evolution, you have to give up a literal reading of Genesis. Are you willing to consider doing that, if the evidence is strong enough?
------
Science is on the defensive on two fronts. First, that the evidence for evlution is flawed, and second, science is a religion, and so Christianity should be given equal time. The proper response is to point out that a particular sect is trying to promote their narrow sectarian faith at the expense of the truth, and in the face of the Constitution.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Why Is the Church Silent?
In the early 20th century, the fundamentalist movement purposefully turned away from social justice issues and the results of modern scholarship in order to affirm “fundamental” biblical principles. These were unrelentingly issues of personal morality and personal relationship with God, based on a particular way of reading the Bible. This is a theology that embraces the idea that Jesus did not preach revolution against the established order, but asks us to be good citizens so that we can be about a life of devotion to God, unencumbered by larger political or social concerns (which are best left up to God).
The concept of America as a Christian nation, the idea that God wishes to bless His people, and the notion that we are to be good citizens (plus the lingering idea of communism versus capitalism as a religious / economic / political struggle) all combine to send the powerful message that there is no real conflict between conservative Christianity and American capitalism. For example, most of the social action and compassionate ministries sponsored by the conservative church involve caring for the victims of the system, not transforming the system to remove the harm. Even when the conservative church critiques the system, it complains of moral failure, not a system of capitalism that prospers when people make impulsive, selfish and shortsighted choices.
It is a "blame the individual" orientation that keeps many Christians blind to a system that is designed to elicit behavior of economic benefit precisely by tearing down moral and rational safeguards (for example, by advocating a sense of entitlement over responsibility, spending over saving, style over substance, instant gratification over delayed gratification and so on). People who live responsible, moral lives are poor consumers - so the natural conclusion should be that free-market capitalism is fundamentally at odds with Christianity.
That many Christians are now becoming concerned about social justice and ecological issues is not because of a renewed interest in theology or Bible study (either of which would offer a strong corrective and a call to action), or from a call by national religious leaders to move in a new direction. Rather, the excesses of the free market, the rising tide of suffering and disease, the rejection of Western capitalism by whole cultures and the dangerous state of our eco-system has come to the attention of more and more “ordinary” people, and those people are bringing these issues into churches.
This is an area where few theologians, pastors, national religious leaders or even prophetic voices within the church are raising an alarm. There has been no renewal, no call to repentance, no “move of the Spirit” convicting Christians in these areas. That these concerns are raised at all is in fact due to the encroachment of secular concerns into the church - which explains why there is precious little theology, ecclesiastical structure or leadership to nurture it. It also explains the hostility or indifference to issues like global warming - it is simply irrelevant to the agenda of personal salvation.
Many conservative Christians are genuinely puzzled as to why accurate science, opposition to global warming or renewed political action to establish a more just system (not to simply provide relief to those already suffering) should matter to Christians. “Why are these things important?” they ask – “How does involvement in these areas make me a better Christian?” Conservative Christianity does not have an answer to these questions, because they have a theology that is almost totally focused on the individual’s personal connection to God, to the exclusion of all else.
The concept of America as a Christian nation, the idea that God wishes to bless His people, and the notion that we are to be good citizens (plus the lingering idea of communism versus capitalism as a religious / economic / political struggle) all combine to send the powerful message that there is no real conflict between conservative Christianity and American capitalism. For example, most of the social action and compassionate ministries sponsored by the conservative church involve caring for the victims of the system, not transforming the system to remove the harm. Even when the conservative church critiques the system, it complains of moral failure, not a system of capitalism that prospers when people make impulsive, selfish and shortsighted choices.
It is a "blame the individual" orientation that keeps many Christians blind to a system that is designed to elicit behavior of economic benefit precisely by tearing down moral and rational safeguards (for example, by advocating a sense of entitlement over responsibility, spending over saving, style over substance, instant gratification over delayed gratification and so on). People who live responsible, moral lives are poor consumers - so the natural conclusion should be that free-market capitalism is fundamentally at odds with Christianity.
That many Christians are now becoming concerned about social justice and ecological issues is not because of a renewed interest in theology or Bible study (either of which would offer a strong corrective and a call to action), or from a call by national religious leaders to move in a new direction. Rather, the excesses of the free market, the rising tide of suffering and disease, the rejection of Western capitalism by whole cultures and the dangerous state of our eco-system has come to the attention of more and more “ordinary” people, and those people are bringing these issues into churches.
This is an area where few theologians, pastors, national religious leaders or even prophetic voices within the church are raising an alarm. There has been no renewal, no call to repentance, no “move of the Spirit” convicting Christians in these areas. That these concerns are raised at all is in fact due to the encroachment of secular concerns into the church - which explains why there is precious little theology, ecclesiastical structure or leadership to nurture it. It also explains the hostility or indifference to issues like global warming - it is simply irrelevant to the agenda of personal salvation.
Many conservative Christians are genuinely puzzled as to why accurate science, opposition to global warming or renewed political action to establish a more just system (not to simply provide relief to those already suffering) should matter to Christians. “Why are these things important?” they ask – “How does involvement in these areas make me a better Christian?” Conservative Christianity does not have an answer to these questions, because they have a theology that is almost totally focused on the individual’s personal connection to God, to the exclusion of all else.
Monday, March 26, 2007
First Science, Then...?
One of my concerns with both the exodus of religious conservatives from schools and the fight for vouchers is the impact this trend will have on public schools.
First, public school will become a place for those with no options. The better off, more motivated and anti-secular parents will resist funding schools they do not support or intend to use.
What is worse, we will end up with many students graduating from alternative schools that leave out important information - civil rights, important lessons of history, facts about the natural world - resulting in the formation of minds hostile to a secular democracy, cultural pluralism and scientific literacy.
Rather than teaching common values and a shared view of how the world works, we may end up with balkanized groups of students, each with their own distorted view of the world, and each with a parochial view of the world that makes it difficult or impossible to understand people different from themselves, let alone get along with them.
First, public school will become a place for those with no options. The better off, more motivated and anti-secular parents will resist funding schools they do not support or intend to use.
What is worse, we will end up with many students graduating from alternative schools that leave out important information - civil rights, important lessons of history, facts about the natural world - resulting in the formation of minds hostile to a secular democracy, cultural pluralism and scientific literacy.
Rather than teaching common values and a shared view of how the world works, we may end up with balkanized groups of students, each with their own distorted view of the world, and each with a parochial view of the world that makes it difficult or impossible to understand people different from themselves, let alone get along with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
