Strategic Impact

From a colleague, I became aware today of a newly compiled list…of the “50 Top Atheists in the World Today,” as compiled by atheists. It is a remarkable list with a couple of surprises:  Richard Dawkins is not number 1 (he’s #7), and Woody Allen is on the list (#35).

What is also remarkable is that nearly half of them (24) are academics; that is, they are current or former faculty members. In fact, 17 of the top 20 are. The first non-academic on the list is #10, Christopher Hitchens. Most of the rest are novelists or other professional writers. The vast majority have advanced degrees, even if they are not faculty.

To An Unknown God

One of my favorite passages in the book of Acts is in chapter 17 when Paul visits Rome and preaches in the Areopagus to the intellectual elites of the city, telling how he saw an altar “To An Unknown God,” and how he was there to reveal that God—Jesus. Recently I came across this blogpost suggesting that America as a whole is now in a similar position. We have forgotten who the God is referred to in our pledge, our currency, and in our patriotic songs. Thus, in reaching out to our fellow Americans, we can adopt Paul’s Athens methodology.

I think it is a provocative idea and is a quick read with some great history about how that altar came to exist in the first place. What strikes me is that Paul was preaching to the intellectual elites of that culture, which when translated forward 2000 years corresponds to university faculty.

Here’s where the challenge begins. Paul acknowledges the deep spirituality of the Athenians as a precursor to his message, commenting on the vast numbers of gods in their pantheon. As I look over the current university pantheon, I see precious few deities, and either a severe animosity towards the Christian God (or anything that hints at Him) or an even more profound, even herculean effort to ignore Him. The basic academic pantheon consists of about three deities with different areas of campus honoring them in different proportions, based on area of study.

We have Knowledge, sometimes called Science, whose gender identity is generally ambiguous.

Which is Responsible for More Evil, the Church or Atheism?

The last several days have been inspired by comments on the Greta Christina blog post that inspired February’s “Unlikely Bedfellows” post here on TSR. In some of her responses to readers’ comments, she discusses various arguments for and against both faith and atheism. While I passionately disagree with much of what she says and supports, I respect her stated desire to have rational discussion on the merits of different worldviews.

She takes issue with certain classic Christian arguments about atheism, such as more evil has been committed by atheists than the Church, and responds that it is the other way around.

As I thought about the topic, I realized it is a pathetic argument from either direction.

Evidence?

Yesterday, I wrote about another interpretation of data showing that some regions of the brain seem to be responsible for religious experiences. The problem with my interpretation, an atheist would say, is that there is no evidence that such regions are a hardwired means for a spiritual God to interact with physical people.

I argue that there is also no evidence that it isn’t a plausible explanation. Hold on, let me explain.

If there is a supernatural dimension to existence, what would we expect evidence of that to look like?

That is a critical question. If we don’t know what to look for in terms of falsifiable data, then not finding it is not proof against it.

The GID

Chances are you are reading this on some type of electronic device:  desktop computer, laptop, smart phone, PDA, tablet, kindle, nook, maybe even a giant plasma screen in downtown Tokyo (I can dream).

Electronic devices really only need a processor, memory storage and power supply/regulation. However, they wouldn’t be much use to us, because we don’t speak in ones and zeroes. In order for electronic devices to be suited for human use, HIDs, or Human Interface Devices are required. These may be keyboards, mice, screens, touch screens, or other input/output device. With HID’s we can work with electronic devices to do innumerable tasks, including writing and reading blogs.

Now, just because these are HID’s doesn’t mean that humans are the only ones who can then interact with the electronics. A cat can walk across the keyboard and input characters. (How many cats laying on keyboards does it take to produce a graduate thesis in probabilistic philosophy?)

A few years ago, researchers discovered certain areas of the brain, that when electrically stimulated, caused the subject to have ‘religious experiences.’ Aha! Proof that even religion is mechanistic, biochemical, evolutionarily derived phenomena.

That is one possibility, but it is not the only one. Another is that those areas of the brain were created as GID’s, or God Interface Devices, and the researchers are cats walking across His keyboard. It is logical that if there is a spiritual realm, and there is a spiritual Creator that desires to interact with His physical Creation, this Deity would hardwire a means for doing so.

Is that the only other explanation? I don’t know. I suppose we could come up with a third alternative (or more), but the important point is that a naturalistic explanation isn’t the only possible one.

There is a big, immediate objection on the lips of most every atheist reading this. Come back tomorrow to discuss it.

SDG

Unlikely Bedfellows

One of the cooler features of the blogging platform TSR uses is the ability to track various statistics about site traffic. I can see how many hits to the site, the most popular posts, from what countries visits have come (my favorite), search terms used to find the site, and the referring websites. This last is particularly interesting because a referring website is one that in some way has a link back to TSR on which someone has clicked. That’s how I know for instance that Martin Gaskell’s guest post has been the most popular post by a huge margin and that the viewers have come largely from BBC, The UK Guardian, and various atheists’ own blogs.

Periodically, I’ll track back to these referring sites to see in what context the blog is mentioned and what those sites have to say. Last week, I posted about a chart I found on one of these atheist sites, and today I want to strongly agree with an atheist blogger I recently read through this exercise.

Greta Christina, in a post entitled, “No, Atheists Don't Have to Show ‘Respect’ for Religion,” eloquently argues against the spirit of ecumenicalism prevalent among “progressive and moderate” followers of various religions. Amen.

We must be careful to define our terms. In this context, ecumenicalism is defined as accepting other religions as equally valid to your own. This is different from the ecumenicalism within a given religion where the different sects/denominations agree to disagree and still have fellowship on the foundational tenets of that particular faith. This type of ecumenicalism is healthy, valid, and I encourage that, and I suspect Greta would, too.

So why is an atheist opposed to ecumenicalism? She gives basically two strong arguments:

1) Hypocrisy. She describes the tendency of ecumenicalists to talk about loving people of other faiths, tolerating and accepting their differences… until an ‘extremist’ or ‘fundamentalist,’ or, heaven forbid, an ‘atheist’ shows up. Then, these people are evil. It’s fine to tolerate those who tolerate you in the spirit of tolerance, but there is only intolerance of those perceived to be intolerant. “Everyone is welcome into our group, unless you criticize it, then you’re not only out, your voice has no validity.” She’s right. There is a significant inconsistency to the logic that largely invalidates their message.

Similarly, she argues, these folks (and I suspect many people who are conservative in their faith are guilty of this too—it’s a very human tendency.) will “engage in fervent political and cultural discourse” on any manner of topics, but when religion is thrown in as a topic to be dissected and criticized, then it is unfair. In other words, you can be critical of any aspect of culture except religion—that is sacred and untouchable and its very existence justifies itself against cross-examination. Again, I agree. If faith is a rugged and viable worldview and force on society, then it should be strong enough to withstand critique and attack. The fact that one tries to shield it from attack shows that person’s very lack of faith, as I suggested recently. Throughout Scripture, God challenges skeptics and believers alike to take Him on, to question Him, to see if He can come through. (Psalm 34:8, Isaiah 1:18 and Isaiah 7:10-17 are the first that come to mind.)

2) Apathy about truth. Greta readily recognizes that the different religions are fundamentally different and often mutually exclusive. They can’t all be right, and may all be wrong. Therefore, in order to go about professing that so and so’s religion is just as valid as yours is to completely ignore the real sticking points in the basic tenets of both faiths. It’s like saying all religions are like different flavors of ice cream (as long as they don’t have nuts), when in reality they are different maps that can’t agree which road has the bridge out. Again, it is a catastrophic error in fundamental logic.

She writes:  “In my debates and discussions with religious believers, there's a question I've asked many times:  ‘Do you care whether the things you believe are true?’ And I'm shocked at how many times I've gotten the answer, ‘No, not really.’” She destroys this blasé vapidity quite well, and I encourage you to read it. Again, amen. I am particularly puzzled by “Christians” who share this attitude, because by calling oneself a Christian, it implies an agreement with the One who claimed, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” (John 14:6) Hmm, seems like we’re back at hypocrisy again…

Finally, she closes well, arguing that ecumenicalists apparently see only two ways to handle religious diversity. Either banish, oppress or otherwise attempt to destroy the other views, or pretend the real differences don’t exist. She proposes (start cheering!) Door #3:  accept there are differences and discuss them vigorously but peaceably. In short, live by the original definition of tolerance:  “The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others”. You can recognize and respect the differences without accepting or endorsing them. Again, this is how ideas are refined and false, incompatible or ineffective ones worn away.

While she doesn’t explicitly say it, I suspect Greta has at least some respect for people of faith who stand by their beliefs, even if they don’t do it appropriately, because they are at least trying to be consistent with the religion’s tenets and recognize that the differences are real and those differences have implications in the way the real world works.

The funny thing is that Greta, the ecumenicalists, and I all agree that views that espouse hatred, violence and oppression are an anathema. What I think I would most like Greta and her friends to understand is that it is possible to be evangelical and even fundamental (by their literal definitions rather than the current social connotations) and still be tolerant in the classic sense. There are a number of Christians, particularly among faculty (though far from exclusively!), who long to have meaningful discussions about evidence, logic, reasons, strengths and weaknesses about the various worldviews without ad hominem attacks on one’s intelligence or personal worth. These are folks who believe in a God real enough and strong enough to handle doubt and hard questions without being either vindictive or dismissive towards those arguing with integrity.

It’s funny how this whole discussion boils down to one word with many facets:  respect.

It’s also funny how respect is one of the primary characteristics of a central Biblical concept:  love.

Maybe, just maybe, this is how one begins to display obedience to one of Christ’s commands:  “Love your enemies, and bless those who curse you.” It ain’t how the world operates, and therefore reveals one of the primary, real differences between Biblical Christianity and the rest of the world’s religions:  God took action to redeem humanity instead of demanding humanity fix itself first.

“Christ arrives right on time to make this happen. He didn't, and doesn't, wait for us to get ready. He presented himself for this sacrificial death when we were far too weak and rebellious to do anything to get ourselves ready. And even if we hadn't been so weak, we wouldn't have known what to do anyway. We can understand someone dying for a person worth dying for, and we can understand how someone good and noble could inspire us to selfless sacrifice. But God put his love on the line for us by offering his Son in sacrificial death while we were of no use whatever to him.”

“Now that we are set right with God by means of this sacrificial death, the consummate blood sacrifice, there is no longer a question of being at odds with God in any way. If, when we were at our worst, we were put on friendly terms with God by the sacrificial death of his Son, now that we're at our best, just think of how our lives will expand and deepen by means of his resurrection life! Now that we have actually received this amazing friendship with God, we are no longer content to simply say it in plodding prose. We sing and shout our praises to God through Jesus, the Messiah!”

                                                                                                                Romans 5:6-11, The Message

SDG

A Different Trumpet Call

In some ways, this is a difficult post to write, because I feel the need to address a room-filling elephant in the American church. In surfing the web this week, I came across this chart on an atheist website. After a little hunting, I found the original source, a blog evaluating various aspects of data from a dating website. If you are interested in what it says, scroll down nearly halfway to where it tells you how to circumspectly find out if your date is religious, and you’ll be able to skip the parts about how preference for beer correlates to sex on the first date. Hardly a scholarly site.

So why am I giving it any credence at all? Simply because it is consistent with empirical evidence I have observed as well as that observed by folks with whom I shared the chart this week. So rather than being the authority on which this post is based, it was merely the spark that ignited my concern into action (or at least into the words of this post).

If the suspense hasn’t yet driven you to either of the links to see what the chart says, I applaud your fortitude. Basically, the chart indicates that the more religious you are, the less likely you are to be proficient in reading and writing. The chart compares different religious viewpoints and degree of self-reported devotion to one’s faith and their literacy grade level. If you are atheist, Buddhist, Jewish, or agnostic, you were the most literate. It goes downhill from there, in order: Hindu, Muslim, Catholic and finally Protestant.

Apparently, the ‘researcher’ compared the proficiency of spelling and grammar of all of the folks using the dating site and correlated it with stated faith and how seriously the person claimed to adhere to it. That’s about as much detail as was given in the article. I have no idea how they assessed grade level to the quality of writing, so don’t know the validity of the assessment. So why give it my attention?

Again, it is because it is consistent with my empirical observations. It grieves me to realize that the portions of our country that are associated most strongly with our faith strongly correlate with the worst educational statistics. When this country was founded by predominantly Protestant folks seeking religious freedom, one of the first and most important (in their view) things to do was to establish schools and universities so that their children could be educated in order to understand and advance their faith. Get that? Their faith was the goal of their education, not its enemy.

My friend, Dr. Robert Woodberry, a subject of a recent Scholar Redeemer post, is a sociologist who has found extraordinarily strong correlations between the work of Protestant missionaries around the world and a profound increase in the standard of living of the native population.

And yet, and yet, I see evidence all around me of folks who fear ‘secular education,’ and see faith as separate from and superior to anything the ‘world’ has to say on topics, and who see anyone who doesn’t hold to their interpretation of Scripture as deceived, wrong, evil, or of Satan, and therefore will not engage with them but retreat into holy huddles.

Why?

Bob’s the sociologist, not me. However, I think the Big Event that did the most to shatter the Protestant (and to a lesser extent, Catholic) confidence was Origin of Species. Basically, someone floated a plausible theory that casts doubt on the special Creation of humanity, and we crumbled. Why? One possible reason is that Christians had grown accustomed to their dominant role in American society and grew intellectually lazy, and thus their faith was more cultural than living and vibrant. They lifted their understanding of what the Bible says above other possible interpretations. They failed to read and appreciate the wealth of diverse interpretations of difficult passages by 1800 years of church thinkers, limiting themselves to rather simplistic interpretations. Thus, many were ill-equipped to intellectually engage evolutionary theory on a scientific, academic, or even logical basis, and surrendered the discussion with blind insistence on their interpretations. They had already ceded the intellectual rigor of the academy and hadn’t realized it, so perceived an attack rather than an attempt to fill the vacuum of quality scholarship.

What was the result? Christians as a rule began to advocate ‘blind faith’ (a term I despise), and that the truth of our faith trumps any evidence apparently against it. When this should have emboldened them to seek out data all the more strongly, instead they turned inward and suspicious, discouraging the brightest among them from pursuing those studies. Ignorance and fear multiplied, causing the church to stop trying to answer the difficult questions raised by science (and other academic fields) and insist on spiritual platitudes. The result was almost a Hindu like dualism—the physical world was deceptive illusion and the spiritual one the only reality. Yet, the Bible is the holy book that is one of the most grounded in the real world. The Jewish and Christian faiths are meant to be lived in the daily grind, not divorced from it.

When our young grew up in this environment, then went ahead and entered the secular educational system, the rationality God put into their brains received a shock like falling into an icy river and they realized they didn’t know how to swim, so they succumbed to the philosophy that their faith didn’t have the answers and was empty. They had been discouraged from asking questions in church, and in the academy, not only were they encouraged to ask, they were given answers that made sense of the information given, not knowing there was more out there to be discovered that would bolster their faith as reasonable. Their faith was revealed to be weak and powerless, and therefore God must be also, if He even existed after all. When word of this falling away reached home, folks just held on tighter in panic, their fear reinforced, and a vicious cycle began.

The church in effect agreed with the naturalist philosophy that faith was irrelevant and couldn’t be defended in the marketplace, so it exiled itself underground. Is this the picture of the church Christ painted to Peter of a force tearing down the gates of Hell? Are these the believers in whom perfect love casts out fear? Or is it the picture of those who hold to the form of religion but deny its power? Instead of the Church victorious, we have the Church anemic, afraid of getting bruised, afraid the atheists might actually be right that God does not exist and their faith is in vain.

I didn’t realize until seeing that chart how deeply I was aware of this phenomenon. Ever since high school, I was passionate about not wanting to study at a Christian college because I knew I needed my faith to be challenged in the world in which I would spend my career and life. I was passionate that I would send my kids to public school so they would be equipped to engage their culture from the beginning—I would train them in the faith at home and through church in such a way that they would be prepared for what they would face and they would get immediate practical application of it with their peers.

There are some truly wonderful Christian schools at all academic levels and some truly backwards ones. Within each category are faculty who are either wonderful or blind-faithers and everywhere in between. However, I wanted to be in the secular environment, fleeing the holy huddle, being a shelter for Christian students, and engaging the secular ones, providing an alternative. We still need folks to do that.

What I realized this week, is how badly we as Christian faculty, the exceptions to those in the graph, need to reach ‘in’ to the Body, to ease their fears, to enable them to stand, to open the eyes of their blind faith, showing them that faith is truly the assurance of things hoped for, because of what we have seen in God’s faithfulness. We do not need to be afraid for God’s power or reputation—He is the Lord All Mighty. Faith is supposed to give us the confidence to seek out the truth in the world and proclaim it in all of its forms, not cause us to run in fear in case it gets crushed.

Faith and fear are opposites. It is time for us as Christian scholars to lead our brothers and sisters out of fear and into faith. We need to help them to see their view of God is too small, a god of the gaps, not the Conqueror of Death and Author of Life. We need to restore a love of learning and study of Creation within the Church, to reignite the idea that scholarship is a holy calling, and reinforce the command that intellectual integrity is not only possible, but expected in a person of faith.

SDG