Some say [religion] is a form of belief in God. But that would not fit Zen Buddhism, which does not really believe in God at all. Some say it is belief in the supernatural. But that does not fit Hinduism, which does not believe in a supernatural realm beyond the material world, but only a spiritual reality within the empirical. What is religion then? It is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing. For example, some think that this material world is all there is, that we are here by accident and when we die we just rot, and therefore the important thing is to choose to do what makes you happy and not let others impose their beliefs on you. Notice that though this is not an explicit, "organized" religion, it contains a master narrative, an account about the meaning of life along with a recommendation for how to live based on that account of things.
Some call this a "worldview" while others call it a "narrative identity." In either case it is a set of faith-assumptions about the nature of things. It is an implicit religion. Broadly understood, faith in some view of the world and human nature informs everyone's life. Everyone lives and operates out of some narrative identity, whether it is thought out and reflected upon or not. All who say "You ought to do this" or "You shouldn't do that" reason out of such an implicit moral and religious position. Pragmatists say that we should leave our deeper worldviews behind and find consensus about "what works"-- but our view of what works is determined by (to use a Wendell Berry title) what we think people are for. Any picture of happy human life that "works" is necessarily informed by deep-seated beliefs about the purpose of human life. Even the most secular pragmatists come to the table with deep commitments and narrative accounts of what it means to be human (The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, 15,16).
Related Posts:
Tim Keller on Leading the Secular to Christ
I Believe in Matter Almighty
Stem Cells and the Myth of Religious Neutrality
Forcing My Religion
A seminarian asked me yesterday if I knew of any books that address the question of what makes a belief religious. I immediately thought of Roy Clouser's The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories and loaned him my copy. As providence would have it, today Joe Carter asks, "What is a Religious Belief?" and provides a very helpful introduction to Clouser's thought. Joe gives good reasons to reject the commonly held view that only those systems of thought that include a belief in one or many gods and/or induce worship-related activities are religious and illustrates how religious belief is inescapable even by the most ardent materialist.
In the National Review Online, David Klinghoffer asks some very good questions in response to yesterday's Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling; questions like:
"If ID is bogus because many of its theorists have religious beliefs to which the controversial critique of Darwinism lends support, then what should we say about Darwinism itself? After all, many proponents of Darwinian evolution have philosophical beliefs to which Darwin lends support."
and
"Is it really true that only Darwinism, in contrast to ID, represents a disinterested search for the truth, unmotivated by ideology?"
Klinghoffer notes that one of the expert witnesses whose testimony Judge Jones found persuasive is on the board of directors of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association as well as a member of the Atheist Alliance International. In addition, Klinghoffer includes some very telling quotes from proponents of Darwinism revealing what can only be called an antipathy for religion, especially Christianity. Here's a sample:
There is University of Minnesota biologist P. Z. Myers, a prominent combatant in the Darwin wars being fought in an archipelago of websites. He links his own site (recently plugged in the prestigious journal Nature) to a "humorous" web film depicting Jesus' flagellation and crucifixion, a speeded-up version of Mel Gibson's Passion, to the accompaniment of the Benny Hill theme music "Yakety Sax," complete with cartoonish sound effects. "Never let it be said that I lack a sense of reverence or an appreciation of Christian mythology," commented this teacher at a state university. In another blog posting, Myers daydreamed about having a time machine that would allow him to go back and eliminate the Biblical patriarch Abraham. Some might argue for using the machine to assassinate other notorious figures of history, but not Myers: "I wouldn't do anything as trivial as using it to take out Hitler."
Apparently, one's motivation for advancing a position is only relevant when it opposes Darwinian dogma.
The day before yesterday, I read a lecture given by Michael Goheen called "The Power of the Gospel and the Renewal of Scholarship" (HT: Prosthesis). The following excerpt is timely in light of the Pennsylvania court's decision.
[The] belief in a secular or pluralist society is an illusion however. The claim to religious neutrality is a myth, and a dangerous one at that, because it masks its own ultimate commitments. In fact, all human societies embody all-encompassing truth claims about the world that are based on ultimate commitments. These faith commitments are often below the level of conscious understanding yet they shape and form the whole of our social life. Western culture is not a secular society but a society that since the time of the Enlightenment has been shaped and formed by a deep religious faith in progress, human autonomy, scientific reason, technology,and social planning. While these idols are under attack these days, and a multitude of new spirits are rushing to fill the vacuum of the central core of culture that is being swept clean, the fact remains the same: Ultimate commitments lie at the foundation of our shared social life and shape every part of it. . . .all human societies including secular or pluralist societies are shaped in their entirety by a shared understanding of the universe and humanity’s place in it.
That being so, the question is not whether religion will be permitted in the classroom but which religion will gain admission.
The Secular Coalition for America, a non-profit political organization for atheist groups, has hired former Nevada state senator Lori Lipman Brown as its congressional lobbyist and national voice. Her mission:"to educate the public about mistaken notions regarding atheists while making sure religion doesn't get a ringside seat at issue debates."
Brown is quoted as saying: "My beef is with people who have taken [religion] out of the 'sacred' sphere and used it instead as a political tool. Having done that denigrates religion." That sounds at first as though she esteems religion and wants to safeguard it against being abused. But not so quick. The article goes on:
Brown has strong convictions when it comes to keeping religion out of government. She would like to spread the word that even people without religion have morals. Brown believes the secular people her group represents can work side by side with religious people.
In other words, religion is fine as long as it stays in its place - the private sphere. As long as your religion is confined to personal ethics and feelings it's OK. But if it maintains, as Christianity does, that it is a source of knowledge and thus has bearing on all aspects of life including social issues, then it has overstepped the bounds secularists have established. And all this is done in the name of rationality, neutrality, and objectivity. Ms. Brown will be seeking to influence public policy issues such as stem cell research, access to emergency contraception, and physician assisted suicide and well she should. But she and those she represents should readily admit the philosophical (dare I say, "religious"?) system that guides their reasoning (see my previous post, I Believe in Matter Almighty). [HT: The Revealer]
In today's Chicago Tribune, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, senior pastor of the Moody Church, responds to an essay by Bishop John Shelby Spong ("Political pulpit - The Bible as weapon in the culture war") that appeared in last week's Sunday paper. Spong, singing the well-worn chorus of "separation of church and state," took issue with conservative Christians who, according to him, are seeking to impose their naive, unscholarly (read contrary to the Jesus Seminar) interpretations of Scripture on the general populace. Lutzer notes:
What Spong fails to point out is that the liberal left also seeks to impose its agenda on the rest of us. The three examples he gives--same-sex marriage, abortion and the Terri Schiavo case--all point to a conflict of opinions, and no matter which side one takes, somebody is imposing his morality on someone else.
Concerning the privatization of religion he writes: When I visited the People's Republic of China in 1984, our tour guide justified the government's policy on religion by arguing for a separation of church and state. She said that religion was free to operate in all of those areas that were not controlled by the state. When we probed more deeply, she said that religion was a private matter and that the people of China were free to be as religious as they wanted to be "within their own minds."
and asks: ....if religion is deemed to be private, who is to say that the day might come when it is completely restricted to houses of worship, eventually to our homes, or even limited to our own minds?"
Read the rest here (free registration required)
In Part Two of a three-part series on Christian Morality and Public Law, Al Mohler identifies three myths of secularism: the myth of the secular state, the myth of secular argument, and the myth of secular motivation. Concerning the second, he notes:
No argument is truly irreducibly secular. For anyone who wants to make an argument about anything beyond procedure will have to deal with questions of meaning, morality, and value--questions that are larger than any individual human frame of reference. On issues like those, there are no arguments that are genuinely secular. As a matter of fact, listen carefully to those who most seek to advocate purely secular arguments. On questions of meaning and morality, their arguments are themselves just as essentially religious as the "religious" arguments they reject. They may believe their claims are not religious, but they end up being religious precisely because they are anti-religious. Moreover, they attempt to set up their own version of God--their own idea of what is the ultimate good--in order to determine value.
....There is no neutrality. On questions as ultimate as the existence or non-existence of God, or the binding or non-binding character of His dictates and commands, or the objectivity or subjectivity of morality, or the absoluteness or non-absoluteness of truth, there are no mediating positions. There is no neutrality.
This point, which I applied to the current debate over the ethics of embryonic stem cell research, must be hammered home again and again in the public square. How I wish more Christians who have opportunities to discuss matters of public policy in the media would stress this point and press their opponents on it. For that matter, I wish all Christians, regardless of their access to media platforms, would be adequately prepared to make this case. In order for this to happen, however, we must view worldview formation and analysis as a vital part of the church's disciple-making task. Unless we teach believers how to think in wholes and recognize how individual beliefs emanate from larger systems of thought, they will be less equipped to "destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor. 10:4-5).
Nancy Pearcey's Total Truth is an excellent resource for understanding worldviews in general and the Christian worldview in particular. Pearcey was a student of Francis Schaeffer's and is doing a marvelous job of exposing a new generation to the relevance of his thought to the contemporary intellectual, political, and social scene. You can listen to an interview with her about the book at Pensees: Faith Seeking Understanding.
National Review Online contributing editor Stanley Kurtz relates his reaction to Harper's Magazine's May cover stories on "The Christian Right's War on America":
I fear these stories could mark the beginning of a systematic campaign of hatred directed at traditional Christians. Whether this is what Harper’s intends, I cannot say. But regardless of the intention, the effect seems clear.
The following excerpt illustrates points I made in recent posts on the inconsistencies of relativism and the myth of religious neutrality:
The Left is loathe to treat Islamic terrorists as moral reprobates, but when it comes to conservative Christians, Hedges calls on his fellow liberals to renounce their relativist scruples and acknowledge “the power and allure of evil.”
....For a very long time now, secular liberals have treated conservative Christians as the modern embodiment of evil, the one group you’re allowed to openly hate. Although barely noticed by the rest of us, this poison has been floating through our political system for decades. Traditional Christians are tired of it, and I don’t blame them. That doesn’t justify rhetorical excess from either side. But the fact of the matter is that the Left’s rhetorical attacks on conservative Christians have long been more extreme, more widely disseminated, and more politically effective than whatever the Christians have been hurling back. And now that their long ostracism by the media has finally forced conservative Christians to demand redress, the Left has abandoned all rhetorical restraint.
Read the rest here. Then, read Jesus: A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant about his master. It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household. So have no fear of them... (Matthew 10:24-26a).
An article by Nicholas Wade in today's NY Times perpetuates the fallacious notion that religious belief is inherently antagonistic to scientific progress. It also sustains the popularly held opinion (unfortunately, even among some Christians) that those who profess adherence to a particular religion are irrationally biased while the members of the scientific community are objective, dealing only with hard facts and free from unscientific precommitments.
The article reports that the National Academy of Science yesterday proposed a list of ethical guidelines for performing embryonic stem cell research (hereafter ESCR). They believed this was necessary in the absence of leadership from the federal government. The following excerpt displays the "good, objective, science/bad, irrational, religion" dichotomy:
Scientists have high hopes that research with those all-purpose cells, which develop into all the various tissues of the adult body, will lead to treatments for a wide variety of diseases by enabling them to grow new organs to replace damaged ones.
But because of religious objections - human embryos shortly after fertilization are destroyed to derive the cells - Congress has long restricted federal financing of such research; President Bush has allowed it to proceed, but only with designated cells. As a result, the government has not played its usual role of promoting novel research and devising regulations accepted by all players.
It would be more accurate to say that many scientists are optimistic about ESCR's potential and are eager to proceed. Wade gives the impression that there is a consensus among researchers concerning the promise and ethics of this research. But this simply isn't true. The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, for example, consists of numerous researchers and physicians who question both its potential benefits and its ethical permissibility. You can read their reasons here. (See also the Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity in the links section to the right.)
The following quote from Dr. David Baltimore, president of the California Institute of Technology is further evidence of an assumed antagonism between scientific progress and religion:
This shows how far this country has gone toward being controlled by religious precepts rather than scientific opportunity.....It is a terrible omen for our being able to maintain our position as the country that leads in biomedical technology.
Dr. Baltimore's comments also represent the widespread insistence that religious convictions have no place in the shaping of public life. As long as religious beliefs are privatized, giving individuals a sense of purpose and meaning, they can be tolerated. But the moment religion claims to be a source of knowledge about the nature of things and how things ought to be, it has overstepped its boundaries. Religious conviction is like a puppy being housebroken. It's cute and tolerable when it stays on the paper but all hell breaks loose if it steps over the edge onto the linoleum.
I suspect Dr. Baltimore and his cohorts would vehemently deny that their conclusions concerning the ethics of ESCR are products of their own religious beliefs but I think that's the case and I'll tell you why.
Earlier this month a post by Macht at Prosthesis prompted me to reread portions of a book whose argument I find persuasive. The book is Roy Clouser's The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories. Clouser maintains that all theorizing, whether scientific or philosophical, rests on presuppositions that are essentially religious. According to Clouser:
This means that theories about math and physics, sociology and economics, art and ethics, politics and law can never be religiously neutral. They are all regulated by some religious belief. The effects of religious beliefs therefore extend far beyond providing the hope for life after death or influencing moral values and judgments. By controlling theory making, they produce important differences in the interpretation or issues that range over the whole of life.
What makes belief religious? Clouser addresses this question in his first chapter. He rejects popularly held ideas that in order to count as religious a belief system must include an explicit ethical code or inspire worship. The ancient Epicureans, for example, acknowledged the existence of gods but did not believe they cared about human affairs. Japanese Shintoism is a more contemporary counterexample.
Clouser also denies that religion is characterized by belief in a Supreme Being, noting that Hinduism's concept of the divine (Brahman-Atman) is not considered a being but rather "the being-ness or "being-itself" which is in all individual beings and which makes them possible."
What is common to all religion is belief in the divine, where "the divine is whatever does not depend on anything else for its existence, so all that is not divine depends for its existence on the divine." According to this definition, matter would be "the divine" in a materialistic philosophy, not because it is regarded as deity but because it that which is considered by materialists as that upon which all else is dependent and in terms of which all else can be explained. This is why, in a previous post, I presented the affirmation of materialist philosophy in the form of a religious creed.If Clouser is right, then it's really silly to talk about whether religious belief has any place in shaping public life. The more appropriate question becomes whose religious belief will be applied.
Even if one rejects Clouser's thoughts concerning what constitutes religious belief, the fact remains that all theorizing rests on presuppositions or ultimate commitments concerning the nature of reality, knowledge, and ethics. The assumptions made in one of these areas has consequences for the other two. For example, if one presupposes a materialistic universe, it follows that there are no such things as ethical absolutes and thus some form of ethical relativism will be appealed to. Nor will revelation be considered a valid source of knowledge since there is no supernatural personality from which revelation could come.
Proponents of ESCR would have us believe that theirs is the objective, religiously-neutral, and compassionate stance. I wonder. Is it not at all possible that they have been blinded, and that not by science?
