Do you believe in ghosts? Do you believe in miracles? Do you believe in the supernatural? In spirits? In life after death? In literal plenary inspiration? In the Virgin Birth?
Christianity seems to be based on most of those (spot the odd one out!). And to those of a modern mind-set, they are concepts from the pre-scientific age. They are best dismissed as fantasy or mistakes, as neat ideas which turn out to be unsupported by evidence: like alchemy, the ether, or scientific determinism. Healing - like homoeopathy - is readily explained by the placebo effect; some other miracles by the human propensity to see patterns where none exist. As far as we can tell, the laws of physics (and other branches of science; indeed the laws of information theory which some now think make a better foundational theory than particle physics) are uniform and immutable across time and space - albeit with special perturbations near singularities and the big bang.
The last bit is, I fear, code for saying 'we're still working that bit out'. Since we plainly do not know everything yet - and some have begun to say that actually we never will; that the enlightenment itself is running out of steam - it is a little surprising that some will go so far as to say 'there is no such thing as ...', or even perhaps 'I don't believe in ...". It's a reasonable short-hand, but we can hardly say it's an accurate, scientifically supported statement: it's hard, after all, to prove a negative.
So, I think I'd rather prefer a different kind of dialogue. If we offer a Christianity based on miracles ("they happen today") we alienate a lot of scientifically-minded people. If we major on bizarre bits of the supernatural, we are liable to persuade people - at least the kind of people I mix with daily - that we are nutters. So let's not do it.
I'm not going to go so far as to say there are no miracles: we have much too much to learn about the world to say that there are no mechanisms which suspend the regular laws of physics. But I don't think it's very helpful to talk about them. If we're going to read biblical accounts of impossible things, I'd certainly rather dwell on the message and the point, rather than on their historicity. Does that defame the God of scripture? Is it dishonest?
2010/10/05
2010/10/03
the other point of view
I saw something recently - I forget where, sorry - that in days of yore when people studied rhetoric, prior to the start of any debate, each antagonist was required to state the argument of the other. They had to satisfy each other that they understood the main points of the other's point of view, before trying to persuade anyone against it.
I don't know if that's a true characterization, but it's an attractive thought. Of course, in any dialectic one seeks to nullify each argument of the opponent, but too often we fail to grasp what's really on the mind of those we disagree with. Politicians seem to be particularly bad at this - the objective observer can see them scoring points against each other (all too often ad hominem, or against infelicities in the presentation) instead of engaging with the argument itself. This is either naive small-mindedness, or wilful misrepresentation. Neither is very attractive.
Sadly, the same thing seems to be all over the blogosphere in the 'Christian' blogs. The amount of bile poured out upon those perceived as somewhat heterodox sometimes takes my breath away. So much of it seems to come from those who don't want to see the other's point of view. I looked earlier today for some emerging church commentary/perspective on the Alpha course. Instead - as is the nature of a google search - I found endless blogs denouncing both as the anti-Christ. (Incidentally, one of the best, most balanced commentaries that I found on Alpha came from an atheist Nature editor, in the Guardian.)
Would that we had grace to understand properly the things that others would have us believe. And would that they too would engage and grasp that with which they would argue. Too much apologetics is quite introspective, built upon successive evangelical arguments, rather than being tested by real engagement with those who would wish to dismiss it all - which, in turn, makes it easy to dismiss because its content is rubbish. That doesn't honour the gospel; that doesn't direct people to the wonderful person of Christ - and that's the real shame.
I don't know if that's a true characterization, but it's an attractive thought. Of course, in any dialectic one seeks to nullify each argument of the opponent, but too often we fail to grasp what's really on the mind of those we disagree with. Politicians seem to be particularly bad at this - the objective observer can see them scoring points against each other (all too often ad hominem, or against infelicities in the presentation) instead of engaging with the argument itself. This is either naive small-mindedness, or wilful misrepresentation. Neither is very attractive.
Sadly, the same thing seems to be all over the blogosphere in the 'Christian' blogs. The amount of bile poured out upon those perceived as somewhat heterodox sometimes takes my breath away. So much of it seems to come from those who don't want to see the other's point of view. I looked earlier today for some emerging church commentary/perspective on the Alpha course. Instead - as is the nature of a google search - I found endless blogs denouncing both as the anti-Christ. (Incidentally, one of the best, most balanced commentaries that I found on Alpha came from an atheist Nature editor, in the Guardian.)
Would that we had grace to understand properly the things that others would have us believe. And would that they too would engage and grasp that with which they would argue. Too much apologetics is quite introspective, built upon successive evangelical arguments, rather than being tested by real engagement with those who would wish to dismiss it all - which, in turn, makes it easy to dismiss because its content is rubbish. That doesn't honour the gospel; that doesn't direct people to the wonderful person of Christ - and that's the real shame.
2010/09/28
faith and doubt and scholarship (part 2)
A very different perspective on the previous questions occurs to me.
A friendly theologian explained to a member of the housegroup the difference between the assumptions made by scholarship and the assumptions made by faith. Hence, the confessing student approaches the text with the general assumption of truth; the unbelieving - or sceptical - mind-set requires proof.
And that in turn reminded me of a contrast someone made between the Oxford Theology Faculty - which sets out to be academic and objective - and the confessing faculties of some Universities, particularly (when mentioned) those in Switzerland. In the latter, we would find a generally very different approach to these questions. Indeed, the point was made that in the Oxford faculty, the question "how would the Catholics approach this" is a good one; in the Protestant confessing faculty in Geneva, the same question would be inadmissible and irrelevant.
And I'm left wondering which actually makes for better scholarship. The scientist in me says that the approach which is sceptical and aspires to be objective is best. But I wonder if that extends generally. Let us leave aside silly arguments about scepticism in the study of anthropogenic climate change. I wonder how many non-socialists you find studying Marxist economic theory. I wonder how many misogynists you find in women's' studies. I wonder how many Platonists you find studying intuitionistic logic. And so much else besides.
I may be mistaken, but we tend to assume that people are allowed to hold worldviews consistent with the research they undertake. But for students of religion it's not so good. Or is it?
A friendly theologian explained to a member of the housegroup the difference between the assumptions made by scholarship and the assumptions made by faith. Hence, the confessing student approaches the text with the general assumption of truth; the unbelieving - or sceptical - mind-set requires proof.
And that in turn reminded me of a contrast someone made between the Oxford Theology Faculty - which sets out to be academic and objective - and the confessing faculties of some Universities, particularly (when mentioned) those in Switzerland. In the latter, we would find a generally very different approach to these questions. Indeed, the point was made that in the Oxford faculty, the question "how would the Catholics approach this" is a good one; in the Protestant confessing faculty in Geneva, the same question would be inadmissible and irrelevant.
And I'm left wondering which actually makes for better scholarship. The scientist in me says that the approach which is sceptical and aspires to be objective is best. But I wonder if that extends generally. Let us leave aside silly arguments about scepticism in the study of anthropogenic climate change. I wonder how many non-socialists you find studying Marxist economic theory. I wonder how many misogynists you find in women's' studies. I wonder how many Platonists you find studying intuitionistic logic. And so much else besides.
I may be mistaken, but we tend to assume that people are allowed to hold worldviews consistent with the research they undertake. But for students of religion it's not so good. Or is it?
2010/09/27
oh my
I used to have a lot of respect for Gerald Coates - whacky house church/'new churches' leader as he was. I haven't heard anything of him for years. Then I saw this (h/t The Register) which, I'm afraid, is too bizarre by half. Even if the newspaper story is half made up, as most seem to be, it doesn't sound good.
2010/09/26
faith and doubt and scholarship
At our homegroup last week, we watched a lecture about the Old Testament, by a Dr Amy-Jill Levine. This was the introduction to a long series - which we may or may not watch - so she was setting out her whole perspective. This involved discussing the various kinds of literature in the OT, and briefly touching on their literary influences and historical/archaeological evidence.
In one sense, it was unremarkable stuff. A little dated in places, but nothing you wouldn't hear in a run-of-the-mill theological college. Even though she advanced her own opinion that King David didn't necessarily exist as a real historical figure, I'd say that her perspective wasn't really more radical than you'd hear even in a fairly evangelical school (but I may be wrong, because I don't tend to hang out in theological colleges).
But those are things you don't hear from the pulpit in an evangelical church. Describing the early chapters of Genesis as 'myth' is a bit of a red rag to people accustomed to thinking that believing the bible is God's word means believing that everything which seems like it might be history is ... well, a forensic account worthy of Simon Schama, or Lord Dacre, or whoever your favourite historian might be. Suggesting that it might not have been written down until the time of the Exile, that as a result its account of events a thousand or more years earlier might be patchy, is liable to evince harrumphs and bristly responses. Suggesting that the early chapters of Genesis have material in common with the myths of Babylon, and the former might have been written in knowledge of the latter, is tantamount to some awful crime.
Where did it all go wrong? How did receiving the bible as God's word come to mean leaving hold of our critical faculties? If there's scant extra-biblical evidence for the Exodus, does it really destroy our faith to say so? Can you really read the book of Judges as if it were written according to the literary conventions of enlightenment Europe? Would it be so bad to fess up and say that Job and Jonah have more in common (in terms of historicity) with Falstaff or King Arthur than Queen Victoria or Winston Churchill?
Is that kind of doubt destructive? I don't think so. In fact, I think it's essential. Creation versus evolution has become the totemic issue for scholarship versus 'literal' biblical interpretation, but the same kind of issues arise over and over again. That's not to say that the scholarship should be accepted uncritically - a lack of archaeological evidence is not at all the same thing as a 'proof that it never happened'. But if Christian piety remains detached - and divergent - from the best high-quality thinking about its own core text, then it can only be impoverished, naive, and irrelevant. Can't it?
In one sense, it was unremarkable stuff. A little dated in places, but nothing you wouldn't hear in a run-of-the-mill theological college. Even though she advanced her own opinion that King David didn't necessarily exist as a real historical figure, I'd say that her perspective wasn't really more radical than you'd hear even in a fairly evangelical school (but I may be wrong, because I don't tend to hang out in theological colleges).
But those are things you don't hear from the pulpit in an evangelical church. Describing the early chapters of Genesis as 'myth' is a bit of a red rag to people accustomed to thinking that believing the bible is God's word means believing that everything which seems like it might be history is ... well, a forensic account worthy of Simon Schama, or Lord Dacre, or whoever your favourite historian might be. Suggesting that it might not have been written down until the time of the Exile, that as a result its account of events a thousand or more years earlier might be patchy, is liable to evince harrumphs and bristly responses. Suggesting that the early chapters of Genesis have material in common with the myths of Babylon, and the former might have been written in knowledge of the latter, is tantamount to some awful crime.
Where did it all go wrong? How did receiving the bible as God's word come to mean leaving hold of our critical faculties? If there's scant extra-biblical evidence for the Exodus, does it really destroy our faith to say so? Can you really read the book of Judges as if it were written according to the literary conventions of enlightenment Europe? Would it be so bad to fess up and say that Job and Jonah have more in common (in terms of historicity) with Falstaff or King Arthur than Queen Victoria or Winston Churchill?
Is that kind of doubt destructive? I don't think so. In fact, I think it's essential. Creation versus evolution has become the totemic issue for scholarship versus 'literal' biblical interpretation, but the same kind of issues arise over and over again. That's not to say that the scholarship should be accepted uncritically - a lack of archaeological evidence is not at all the same thing as a 'proof that it never happened'. But if Christian piety remains detached - and divergent - from the best high-quality thinking about its own core text, then it can only be impoverished, naive, and irrelevant. Can't it?
2010/09/13
Is There a Future for Evangelicalism?
Jonathan D. Fitzgerald asks this question over the Huffington Post. It's a shame he has an almost entirely US-centric answer - it half-defeats the point of the question, I'd say.
2010/09/11
review: Enemies of Reason
Review: Enemies of Reason / Slaves to SuperstitionMore 4/Richard Dawkins
Channel 4 has a series in homage to, and presented by, Richard Dawkins. I think some or all of it is repeated, but I didn't see it first time around. Earlier episodes featured his now-familiar criticism of religion, and Christianity in particular.
Now, I'm watching a recording of a later episode on Slaves to Superstition. He's been chasing down and ridiculing horoscopes, spiritualism, dowsing, conspiracy theorists, and more, with his familiar blend of scepticism and scientism. He explains the benefit of believing verifiable evidence over private feeling.
And I'm inclined to agree with him. Every bit. Science offers us strong, valuable insight into our world's systems. It has advanced medicine beyond the wildest dreams of our ancestors. All this random spiritualism is largely flim-flam, with no substance and no real benefit - no impact beyond what you'd expect from random processes. Indeed, this line came from the middle of the programme:
Even in the 21st century, despite all that science has revealed about the indifferent vastness of the universe, the human mind remains a wanton story-teller, creating intention in the randomness of reality.
The whole thing is a bit of a hymn to rationalist enlightenment thinking,without a hint of any cracks in the edifice. His calm rational interviews of spiritualists, exposing their bizarre nonsense, is of course amusing. That their ways of thinking may give comfort and help is discarded: founded on nothing at all, their influence can only be malign. I think I agree.
And so two things bother me:
- for what good reason do I think that Christian faith is any different?
- is Richard going to be intellectually honest enough to ask whether the same purblindness afflicts the scientific community? It's much easier to build a theory based on the convenient data, and discard that which doesn't seem to fit. I don't suggest that a major scientific calumny is being committed - but I have to wonder whether it is more of a common human trait to discard the evidence that doesn't fit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)