Letter # Two
Kendall,
Thank you for your response. I'll grant that the last paragraph of my letter was pretty bald and I made some leaps without filling in the gaps. But my basic point about the nothingness was this: there is reductionism that you are applying to the Biblical text that has a strong naturalistic aroma it. That kind of reductionism is a modern mood and an epistemological program. It can be applied to any and everything and it has been. It doesn't just stop with higher criticism, it goes on and on like an acid and eats everything that is human if it is applied consistently. But almost no one has the courage to spill these acids with equal opportunity consistency. This is what is so wonderful about Nietzsche. He did. And he despised as cowards and weaklings people who wouldn't face up to implications. So what we get instead are cadres of people who stop believing in Jesus but go on believing that we ought feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and generally go about doing good. And, it is very difficult to get people to ask themselves questions about "why?" after they have stopped believing. John Wesley and General Booth loved the poor and cared for them (magnificently) because they loved Jesus, and wanted to do what He commanded. They could tell you quite smartly why they did what they did. The basic questions were not a stumbling stone. But try to get a modern secular liberal (for example) to tell you why he wants to care for the poor. He does it out of habit from generations of Chapel going, and it is in his bones. But it is difficult to keep in the heart, because the heart begins to be empty. Caring for the poor is a reflex and a result of homesickness for the old but lost beliefs that warmed his ancestors. The net result is that usually in the end, cynicism, doubt, and exhaustion overwhelm one, and hands on care seems more and more futile. The truth is that caring for the poor is utterly unromantic, and apart from very strong religious impulse, it simply stops being done, or one hopes that impersonal agencies will do the work. That is what I was driving at about people wanting Messianic results without the Messiah (and how in the end, self defeating it is).
It is very difficult in short term to make the points about reason and consciousness, but briefly, if you carry the naturalistic program out with consistency, the very building blocks of knowledge and existence are knocked out. A naturalistic explanation of reason, consciousness and conscience becomes self defeating. The program of naturalism is to SEE THROUGH what men once thought was explicable by recourse to God, and show that it is rather explicable by the immanent and the material (just like the Biblical text). But if reason, consciousness, and conscience can be "explained away" and "seen through", then there is nothing left to explain and nothing left to see. One has at that point "seen through" existence, and existence no longer exists. There is no good reason to stop with your naturalism at the Biblical text. The program should be carried through. I want to push you to some deeper level of consistency. Most people want to be reductionistic in some area or other, and often feel liberated by seeing through THAT, but then find in the end there is a snake in the bottom of the bottle that bites in places where they wanted to be left comfortably alone. But really, one cannot pick and choose and be fair. If naturalism is "true", it is true for the whole field of reality, and not just patch work areas. If Jesus is Lord, He is by definition Lord of ALL, and not just of the mountains or the plains. That's what I mean by cheating. You may be liberated from Fundamentalism, but did you also count on being liberated from the benefits that legitimately flow from God being the Creator and Redeemer (like being the Image of God as a man, and instead being a machine, or at best a highly developed animal)? Did you count on reason being reduced (as a consequence) to atoms crashing into each other in your brain, and therefore thought not being about anything "true", but rather just a secretion (with no truth value at as a result)?
I assume you are not a missionary for mercenary reasons, but if naturalism is "true" why are you a missionary? You seem to have some ethic you are living out, but if Jesus is not the Lord, why the Sam hill are you trying to do something like what the Sermon on the Mount tells you to do? Conscience is another phenomena that the naturalistic program can explain away in wholly sociological terms. Apply your program here. Is there anything unique in your ethical sense that a good reductionistic psychologist or sociologist cannot explain and explain away wholly in terms of conditioning etc.? I think not. Your conscience is in as bad a shape as you seem to think the Church and Christendom are.
You are quite right about modern science being a result of and step child of Christianity. Modern science is based on five assumptions, all of them theological.
"1. The universe is RATIONAL reflecting both the intellect and faithfulness of its Creator.
2. The universe is ACCESSIBLE to us, not a closed book but open to our investigations. Minds created in the image of the Divine mind can understand the universe God created.
3. The universe has CONTINGENCY to it, meaning things could have been different from the way we find them...hence, knowledge comes by observing and testing it.
4. There is such a thing as OBJECTIVE reality. Because God exists and sees and knows everything, there is truth behind everything. Reality has a hard edge to it and does not cave in or shift like sands in response to our opinions, perceptions, beliefs, or anything else.
5. There is a UNITY to the universe. There is an explanation--one God, one equation, or one system of logic--which is fundamental to everything. The universe operates by underlying laws which do not change in an arbitrary fashion from place to place, from minute to minute. There are no loose ends, no real contradictions. At some deep level, everything fits." (from Kitty Ferguson, FIRE IN THE EQUATIONS, Eerdmans 1994)
Now the oddity is, carry through your program of "scientific reductionism" and you destroy every theological assumption that science is based on. You don't just destroy the Biblical text. You destroy the ground you were standing on in the first place. (Father Stanley Jaki has wonderfully given his life to just the study of the Christian roots of modern science, and any and all of his books are wonderful.) Apart from these theological assumptions, science becomes a modern "habit" rather like modern do goodism, but has no real foundation (because the foundation is all in the doctrine of God, of creation, and of providence).
I'll carry on in another letter, this one is getting too long.
Yours,
Rich
-----------------------------------------
posted by Dale Callahan at 8:37 PM
5 Comments:
Dale,
I don't know why you find these letters helpful. The writer makes a habit of constructing fictional "truths" about his reader's point of view then tearing down his constructs. He doesn't even do a good job of the tear down.
Some examples? How about the "caring for the poor" argument? First of all, is there any demonstrable evidence that non-Christians tire of the task more easily and give up sooner than Christians? Hardly. The fact is that individuals differ in their ability to continue exhausting and futile tasks, regardless of their religious point of view. He also fails to understand that the best way to "care for the poor" is to overcome the futility by seeking systemic changes in society that insures that all people have their basic needs met and have an opportunity for economic success. Maybe that's the futile, unromantic exercise the Christians have given up and left to the secularists. It's not Messianic results we seek, it is simple economic justice and peace. No miracles necessary.
He seems to think that the ideas that humans and their consciences are not derived from some supernatural God make human existence of no value and that conscience will no longer exist. Again that's his assumption and there's a great deal of historical evidence that the assumption is false.
His 5 assumptions of modern science are clearly made up out of the whole cloth. All of them are untrue on their face. They may well be assumptions he has made about modern science, but if so, they show his lack of information about the topic not faults of science itself. Just take #1 as an example. The assumption that modern science reflects "both the intellect and faithfulness of its Creator" is not an assumption of modern science, it is an assumption of the letter writer. I could go on, but there's not much point.
If Kendall no longer believes in the religion that has sent him as a missionary and if that is his primary role in the field, then he should resign his post. He might want to consider remaining in the same location and work to undo the damage he did while a missionary. The inculcation of fundamentalist Protestant ideas in a vulnerable society bonded together by Catholicism is destructive. The inner-city poor need to bond together to work for justice and social equality, not split apart on some theological pinhead.
DL, I think you really need to sit down and at least try and figure out the argument that is being brought against you.
The argument isn't that unbelievers don't help the poor...this isn't what the author of the letter is saying...it is saying "why" do they help the poor.
You know that you are inconsistent in your beliefs DL this is why when you are asked a point blank question you don't answer...you give a song and dance side step show.
I asked you if you had premarital sex with your "now" wife was that wrong [universally and absolutely] sinful?
I asked you after this that if you or your wife had sex with someone outside the marriage relationship would that be universally and absolutely wrong or sinful?
You answer with a very sneaky non answer. You tell me that some people don't need "religion" to have morality...ok...but does merely announcing that make it true?
Show me, according to your outlook on reality how your wife's sleeping around with other men, or you sleeping around with other women, is wrong or sinful?
Dale,
I think you need to reread the letter again. He says when "modern secular liberals" are caring for the poor "...it simply stops being done." If his ultimate conclusion is wrong, his explanation for why he arrived at the conclusion is bogus on its face. He essentially is saying that because "modern secular liberals" don't share his rationale for "caring for the poor" they are doomed to stop doing it earlier than Christians. Simply wrong.
One of the key reasons the majority of people in Latin America are poor is that they have been indoctrinated with a religion that teaches them obedience to authority and which works hand-in-hand with the state, no matter how oppressive. They don't need a different religion that also teaches obedience to authority, they need to rise up and demand justice and equality.
As for my private sex life, I have no intention of discussing it in a blog. However, to address your obsession with sexual "sin", let me state my position on the issue:
I do not consider sexual relations between consenting adults to be immoral by itself. If one of the parties is deceiving or coercing the other, that is wrong. If one or both parties are failing to use proper birth control or measures to avoid sexually transmitted disease, then that is wrong. If one or both parties has made a commitment to another person to be sexually faithful, then they are violating that trust by engaging in sex with a 3rd party.
I do not approve of waiting until marriage to have sex, because it is an important part of the marriage relationship and people need to insure they are compatible in this area. Also, removing restrictions on premarital sex helps to eliminate the confusion of sexual lust with love.
Does that answer your question?
He says "So what we get instead are cadres of people who stop believing in Jesus but go on believing that we ought feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and generally go about doing good. And, it is very difficult to get people to ask themselves questions about "why?" after they have stopped believing.
As for your personal arbitrary "rules" for marriage relations...that is exactly what they are...personal and arbitrary.
In your world there are no unchanging laws...just changing material world.
Even if you did promise "today" to be faithful for life what binding law is going to keep you to that word?
Look around you DL, people have gone to the chapel with the exact same vows as you...and have ended things because of hard times.
As the church adopts more of a worldly attitude then it too is riddled with divorce.
Your worldview that cannot justify why one should be moral actually justifies immorality.
You presume (as does he) that it is only those who were previously Christian who are engaged in helping the poor. Lots of people who are not religious at all or who come from other religious traditions have a long history of helping the poor. It doesn't wash as an argument.
Obviously as you point out, many people who are confessed Christians and who are sacramentally married in Christian churches are unfaithful. The conclusion I draw is that religion is not a significant influence on morality. In the US, the rate of divorce is highest in the states with the largest percentage of fundamentalist Christians. It is lowest in the most secular states.
Individuals choose to act ethically or not, regardless of their religious world view. There's no evidence that religion improves morality - in fact, one could make a strong case to the contrary.
Post a Comment
<< Home