Right Reason

I’m experimenting with some different themes, so please bear with my while Say Hello to my Little Friend goes through some visual changes.

While I keep you waiting for the next podcast episode (within the next couple of days, I swear!), this is a letter I wrote to the paper a few months ago. It was pretty long, and predictably they didn’t publish it. It was a response to this piece by Bob Brockie (be sure to hold your nose when you read the piece in that link, it’s a stinker!).

My response follows:

Fundamentalism and science: strange bedfellows

Fundamentalism is alive and well in the clash between religion and science. Its hallmarks are not difficult to locate. First, there’s the general carelessness about factual details when it comes to preaching for one’s cause. Bob Brockie (ironically in the name of sticking to the evidence) fudges both the date of the establishment of the Royal Society and is painfully sloppy in detail. He portrays the founders of the society as cool rationalists like himself without time for religious nonsense, showing no awareness at all of the deep religious faith of men like Issac Newton (who also, by the way, was deeply involved in occult studies and alchemy – oh the rationalism of it all). He also may want to brush up on his Latin. The slogan of the Royal Society, “Nullius in Verba” does not mean “take nobody’s word” as Dr Brockie alleges. It translates to “On the words of no one,” which is actually an abbreviation of a quote from Horace: Nullius addictus judicare in verba magistri. Translated, this is: “Not compelled to swear to any master’s words.” In practical terms it referred to the freedom to form opinions and reach conclusions that were not politically correct. The irony is almost amusing here. But why worry about accuracy? Just preach that sermon!

Another common fundamentalist phenomenon is mindless sloganism without serious reflection on the consequences of those slogans. Dr Brockie does not disappoint here either, urging all science classrooms today to refuse to take anything on anyone’s word, believing only things that they have confirmed via experiment. Gone are the textbooks, history lessons and teachers. To place stock in such things is unscientific, Dr Brockie urges. The trouble, of course, is that not only is nearly all of our knowledge gained by taking the word of others, but for us all to believe that the only way to gain knowledge of the world is by experiment is itself a claim that Dr Brockie is asking us all to take on the basis of his word. Fundamentalism is often self refuting in this way, for it is ultimately grounded in ignorance, bigotry and anger or fear, rather than reason.

Lastly, fundamentalism cultivates ignorance of “the other side” and the tendency to lash out with uninformed attacks regardless of the facts (if one is even aware of them) because the attacks serve the holy cause and “rally the troops” as it were. He assumes (without much by way of evidence) that there is one view out there called “creationism” that can be simplistically equated with “biblical Christianity,” apparently unaware of the spectrum of points of view held by many conservative Christian individuals and organisations on questions like the age of the universe, the role of intelligent design in the origin of species and so forth. He carelessly lumps together different organisations simply because they are Christian (in spite of their different views on science), he makes a blanket claim that literally “no rational person” – none at all – could believe in things like life after death or answers to prayer (in spite of the fact that Isaac Newton, cited by Brockie, believed in these things wholeheartedly). The wholesale denunciation of so many geniuses in history and the modern age is inexcusable, but understandable as a symptom of a fundamentalist approach to life: You’re either with me/us, or you’re not merely wrong but stupid.

Fundamentalism is as active now as ever, and in the name of reason it should now – as always – be opposed in all its forms.

Dr Glenn Peoples

For all those interested, here’s a debate that took place on September 9 2008 between Frank Turek of crossexamined.org and Christopher Hitchens, who has been getting the occasional mention here lately. The subject of the debate – what else: Does God Exist?

Enjoy. 🙂

Just a quick note on something that happened today:

I’ve been following with some interest the arguments about California’s proposition 8 that defined marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, ruling out same-sex marriage. One disturbing development that has emerged is the wave of personal harassment, vandalism and even death threats that some conservative Christians are receiving by those who opposed proposition 8 and the religious convictions of many who supported it. For a couple of examples see here or here, for plenty more, as they say, “just google it.”

And then what should happen, but I get an email from an atheist with whom I’ve had some email exchanges recently, who wrote to me just for the purpose of saying, and I quote: “Funny how it’s always the religious who send the death threats.” He wasn’t talking about proposition 8, he was saying this because of a court case involving evolution where a judge received threats purporting to come from the opponents of evolution.

Funny how it’s always the religious? Is this the point where I say “funny how it’s ALWAYS THE ATHEISTS” who make untrue and stupid generalizations at points in history where the headlines scream at them just how wrong they are”?

But no, that would be to make a generalisation, I admit. Still, it did make me shake my head in disbelief. Nice going, Edward. There are none so blind.

Now that the pre-election madness is over, the podcast will be swinging back into action. The next episode will be on the “argument from atrocity,” where some argue that we should all reject Christianity because of its involvement with atrocities in history like the inquisition or the crusades.

Stay tuned!

Tomorrow on November 8th New Zealand voters will decide who will govern this country for the next three years. In the last few blog entries I’ve given a fairly good idea of where I stand and the kind of government I would like to emerge from that election. Today I will not say anything at all about that. What I say today will hopefully have relevance well beyond the New Zealand election. It is as relevant for us as it is for the recent American election and Canadian election (whenever that is) as well as any other country’s election.

I know what I want in a government, but I also know that political salvation is not merely wishful thinking, it is idolatry.

Although I have my disagreements with the late Cornelius Van Til as I have mentioned in a previous podcast episode, when he was right, he was right (and while I’m at it I may as well add that A = A). In a slightly different but related context (namely that of philosophical ethics), Van Til made this pronouncement:

“There is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy”

(Christian Theistic Ethics).

In this context, “theonomy” means deriving our standard of right and wrong from God, and “autonomy” means deriving our standard of right and wrong from ourselves, either individually or collectively.

The election has the potential to do some good for our economy, for our levels of (un)employment, for the overall financial wellbeing of New Zealand families and their incentive to better their lot, for the way we treat the environment, to provide us with greater choice when it comes to education, along with many other things. But that’s it. That’s all it will do and that’s all it can do. Some of those things, I am sure, really are more in keeping with a Christian outlook than others, but let’s be realistic. The next government may be tougher on crime, but it will not and cannot overcome the self serving spirit, answering only to itself. It might punish revenge, but it cannot curb hatred or malice. It might give money to families, but it cannot make them good families, make them wise in how they use that money, give parents the mind to love and raise their children as they ought, give children the wisdom to follow their parents’ instruction, or cause parents to be faithful to one another. It might tax people to the hilt, but we might end up with resentment and envy rather than a caring society that wants to look after its poor. It might cut taxes, but it cannot cause people to value what they earn and exercise godly stewardship with what we are provided with. It might give us freedom of religion and the ability to serve God with no fear of censorship or government reprisal, but it cannot do a thing to cause us to actually serve God at all. This is what I think is wrong with many laws that we already have in New Zealand. They exist because of the hopeless delusion that they can actually make us better people. This is not the role of our government. That is the role of the Holy Spirit.

The next government, I hope, will allow us more freedom to follow God and to not serve or enable an agenda that is contrary to our faith. But in our country, that is as much as we should think that we can ask or expect. There are people for whom, as far as I can tell, politics is their religion (making it ironic that they think that religion and politics have nothing to do with one another). Placards and megaphones replace pulpits and pews, but the actual form their religion takes is immaterial. They labour away under the illusion that by screaming, shoving, waving and voting as they are, they are ushering in the kingdom of God (albeit with a different name). What else is there for them to look to? If values are not enshrined in the law of the land, then they are not enshrined at all, right?

No government, prime minister, president, congress, parliament, queen or king can be the messiah that some people are looking for in this election. The consequences of rejecting theonomy in the broad sense that Van Til meant are tragic. His view, and mine, is that human rule-making vacillates and changes, having no bedrock foundation and is often a product of whatever group of people happens to hold power. What is constant, what is based in fact, what is the measure of our endeavours, is the word (in the sense of the will or decree) of our creator. What we ultimately need can never be delivered by our government, it can only be given to us by our God because of the work of His Son. This is as true in a free market liberty loving society as it is under an oppressive communist dictatorship. For those familiar with the work of Augustine, we should not invest our life and aspirations in erecting the city of man in the hope that it will give us what the city of God promises.

I want a good government. I really do. In fact I think a government that knows its limits and realises that it is only the law of God that provides a moral framework within which all of us operate (either in line with it or in rebellion against it) is better than any other. But a government is just a government. If you look to it the way so many starry eyed, expectant voters are when it comes to tomorrow’s election, you will be let down. You will either realise that you’ve been let down when the government fails to deliver that which you most need, or you will not realise it at all, and you will replace God with an idol, thinking that it has given you that which you most need.

In a democracy, a good government does not ultimately make a better country. This is to put the cart before the horse. The fact that we live in a democracy means that a good country produces a good government. They come from among us, and we vote them in, remember? Whoever wins this election, let’s work on a better country – that is, better people – so that we will have a better government. And that is something that the government simply cannot produce. This is the task of the Church and it takes the power of God.

The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of humanity.

Ecclesiastes 12:13

Glenn Peoples