Chinese scholars were asked to “look into what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world.” After considering possible military, economic, political and cultural explanations, they concluded that the answer lay in what the Chinese scholars saw as the “heart” of the West’s pre-eminent culture: Christianity.

This comes in interesting conjunction with an NPR story SteveK brought to our attention yesterday: “In the land of Mao, rising tide of Christianity among Chinese.”

Some recent surveys have calculated there could be as many as 100 million Chinese Protestants. That would mean that China has more Christians than Communist Party members, which now number 75 million….

“In China, a lot of so-called atheists treat money as their God,” storms* the young man who is preaching to the gathered crowd. “But only in God’s truth can you find real freedom.”

As Colson also wrote in that same piece,

Still, it’s a powerful reminder of how Christianity transforms not only individual lives but entire societies as well.

For a more extended version of the Chinese scholars’ conclusions see here.

*Having spent more than two months in China, I find the image of a young Chinese man “storming” to a crowd amusingly difficult to conjure up. I could be wrong; two months isn’t that long. Still, it sounds to me like reporter-speak for impassioned preaching.

Share This

Our Christian educational activities may be unprecedented in their scope, but they are unimpressive in their results.

The day we see quizzes and papers become a regular part of Sunday School (we call it school, don’t we?) is the day I’ll begin to think we’re overcoming the very real problem he has described there.

But there are reasons things are as they are. Four of them come to mind.

1. We live in a culture that is unimpressed with learning except that which contributes toward earning a living.

2. Our Christianity is such that we can get along with the little knowledge we have, and feel fine about it. As long as we can ride somewhat successfully through the hard spots in our own lives, we can manage to insulate ourselves from the hard questions others face or that our culture brings to us—and thus we don’t really have to think deeply about much of anything.

3. When life becomes a really rough ride, and making it through successfully becomes really difficult, we doubt that there is any advantage or help to be gained through deep discipleship of our minds. We also doubt that such discipleship would be helpful as advance preparation for future bumps in the road.

In a word, we don’t really believe it’s valuable for the growth of our souls.

4. Where we do confront the questions of our culture, we do so with surface-level thinking. This is associated with number 1. Americans—Christians included—are much more at home with the quick slogan than the carefully considered thought. Furthermore, we think this is the normal and proper way to handle tough questions and issues. I suspect that has to do with being trained by way of political sloganeering and news-show sound bites.

I know of significant exceptions to all of the above, but in general these seem to be characteristic of American Christian culture, and strong contributors to “discipleship without learning.”

Share This

Discussion will be held on the linked page.

Share This

Theist-atheist dialog is made difficult by a certain asymmetry: whereas a sophisticated living faith involves a certain amount of purifying doubt, together with a groping beyond images and pat conceptualizations toward a transcendent reality, one misses any corresponding doubt or tentativeness on the part of sophisticated atheists. Dawkins and Co. seem so cocksure of their position. For them, theism is not a live option or existential possibility.  This is obvious from their mocking comparisons of God to a celestial teapot, flying spaghetti monster, and the like.

For sophisticated theists, however, atheism is a live option. The existence of this asymmetry makes one wonder whether any productive dialog with atheists is possible.

[From Maverick Philosopher: "Some of Us Just Go One God Further"]

His topic is what I have called the Arithmetical Atheism Argument, or the Magic of Misdirection. It’s the atheist’s canard, “everyone’s an atheist, we’re just atheistic about one more God than you.” This amounts to misdirection, in that its apparent reasonability is nothing but illusion. It would be a great argument if it had anything to do with the real question. Its success, however, such as it is, depends on directing one’s attention away from all relevant considerations: for example, “What kind of universe do we live in?” It is the very finality with which such hopelessly flawed arguments are brought forth that produces the asymmetry of which Vallicella speaks.

I expect some atheists to object to his thought that “a sophisticated living faith involves a certain amount of purifying doubt.” It’s not the easiest thing to explain in this format, but he’s right: there is for me a sense of groping toward reality, especially in prayer. Like the Psalms, my prayers are full of questions on the order of, “God, if you’re there, then why … ?” That question ends differently almost every day, for there is so much I don’t understand. I can lean on what I do understand, thankfully, which is enough for now.

————–

While I’m sharing links, I’ll mention a couple more. A new semester is starting soon. Going to college was one of the best things that could have happened to me. For some students it’s one of the worst. Being involved in study and fellowship with other students can make all the difference; it did for me! The Christian Colleges and Universities page has listed their “Top 10 Christian Study Groups,” a guide to getting connected with Christians on campus. A couple of their suggestions are more for high school students, which is fine. I would add InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and Navigators to their list.

And one more for you who are social networkers. Other than blogging, I’m pretty far behind the times with that. I have a Facebook page, and I spend probably as much as five minutes a week on it. But that’s my flaw, not yours, if it is a flaw. You might enjoy connecting with others at Christian.com.

Share This

First, get set up with a feed reader. Google is one of the most popular to use, and eHow shows how to do it. Other options include:

• Safari web browser for Mac or PC (the reader is included as part of the package)
• Firefox for Mac or PC with a feed reader extension like Simple RSS Reader
• NetNewsWire for Mac (my favorite)
• A host of other options for PC and Mac

There are versions of many of these for iPhone, iPad, or Android phones. On my Android phone I use NewsRob (search the Market). If you know of options for other platforms, please feel free to let us know via a comment here. I don’t know much about what’s available for PCs, since I know better than to use one .

Then all you have to do is subscribe.

The main address is http://feeds.feedburner.com/thinkingchristian/tomg.
For comments the address is http://feeds.feedburner.com/ThinkingChristianComments.

Depending on how your computer is set up, you can subscribe just by clicking the links, or you may need to copy and paste them into your feed reader.

If you want it even easier than that, scroll to the bottom of the right-hand sidebar and sign up for email delivery, sent straight to your mailbox every morning.

Share This

DISGUSTA, Ga. — Attorneys with the National Uncivil Liberties League (NULL) filed suit against Disgusta State University Wednesday on behalf of a counseling professor told that her beliefs are unethical and incompatible with the prevailing views of the counseling profession. The professor, Dr. Julia Charrington, has been told to stop sharing her beliefs with others and that she must change her beliefs to remain on the counseling program’s faculty.

NULL senior attorneys underlined the seriousness of the situation: “Our dearest American liberties are at risk if we won’t let professors impose their anti-religiousness and pro-homosexuality on students against their will.”

Disgusta State ordered Charrington to undergo a re-education plan, in which she must attend “diversity sensitivity training,” complete additional remedial reading, and write papers to describe their impact on her beliefs. If she does not change her beliefs or agree to the plan, the university says it will remove her from the Counselor Education faculty.

Other professors learned of Charrington’s views on religion and homosexual conduct, specifically that:

• Homosexuality is an unrestricted good
• Freedom of sexuality trumps freedom of religion
• Sexual behavior is by no means a matter of accountable choice
• Persons are not born male or female; they become that way by of social conditioning; and especially
• Persons who disagree, especially those who disagree for religious reasons, must not be allowed to enter the counseling profession.

“A public university professor shouldn’t be threatened with termination just for insisting that students drop all their moral values and religious beliefs, but that’s exactly what’s happening here. Simply put, the university is imposing thought reform,” said NULL, through a spokesman-woman-person-whose-gender-had-not-been-quite-socially-settled-yet. “Allowing students to hold their own religious beliefs should not be a precondition for employment at a public university. This type of zero-tolerance policy is in place at far too many universities, and it must stop.”

The re-education plan assails Charrington’s beliefs as inconsistent with the counseling profession and expresses suspicion over her  “ability to demonstrate multicultural competence in counseling, particularly with regard to working with non-gay, non-lesbian, non-bisexual, non-transgender, and non-queer/questioning (nGnLnBnTnQ) populations, as well as religious populations.” The plan requires her to take steps to change her beliefs through additional assignments and additional “diversity sensitivity training.” It also orders her to “work to increase exposure and interactions with non-gay populations. One such activity could be attending the Non-Gay Pride Parade in Disgusta.”

In her defense, Charrington offered the example of Augusta State University, also in Georgia, where—allegedly—her beliefs are not only tolerated but actually required. “If what I’ve been hearing is true, Augusta State has a grand tradition of believing what I believe, and even requiring students to believe the same,” she said. “It sounds to me like they’ve set the standard for barring students’ freedom of religion. If it’s true they can do that, then it’s manifestly unfair for Disgusta State not to let me insist that all students here think only the things I say they must think!”

In case you missed it: yes, if reports linked here are true, there is what appears to be a real story behind this satire. Jennifer Keeton’s alleged experience is too similar and yet quite the opposite of the fictional Dr. Charrington’s.

Also at First Things: Evangel

Share This

As to how that happened, well there are now 1.5 million churches [in Africa] whose congregations account for 46 million people. In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Every year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity. These numbers are very large indeed.

I believe his count of churches may include only Roman Catholics. I say that because of the context surrounding that quote. The Center for the Study of Global Christianity reports an estimate of 390 million Christians in Africa as of five years ago, which is consistent with what I’ve read elsewhere.

Share This

It’s gonna be tough to overcome Christian anti-intellectualism as long as you think that things like Noah’s Flood and humans descending from a single specially created pair are reasonable ideas….

Gee, I thought intellectualism had something to do with following the truth wherever it leads. But you are just unwilling to do it in the cases I mentioned, and similar issues, as is much of conservative evangelicalism. Not only do they disagree with the overwhelming and basically simple physical evidence, they often make a huge public stink about it, and try and get their pseudoscience into the public schools. If you want to know why many think that conservative evangelicals are anti-intellectual, there’s one huge reason, and no one will have any good reason to think otherwise until evangelicals change their tune on this.

Nick is doing advanced work in biology at an excellent university. He’s an intelligent man. Nevertheless he is wrong to say that the question of intellectual presence revolves around one belief on one point. Now, I would not call him anti-intellectual just for that. One ill-advised position does not make a person globally “anti-intellectual.” Yet on that very point we seem to disagree, for he makes it clear that anti-intellectualism can indeed be an all-or-nothing thing, based on how one issue: how views origins. “You think YEC is credible?” he asks. “Bam. There goes your credibility with the wider intellectual culture.”

What does it mean to be anti-intellectual, anyway? It’s not the same as not intellectual, as in the case of those who lack capacity for scholarly pursuits.  It’s also not about whether one knows a lot. Less apt or educated persons could be pro-intellectual, just as I’m in favor of excellent architecture or baseball-playing, neither of which are my strengths. It’s not just about being wrong; all the greatest thinkers have been wrong about some things—especially the scientists. No, to be anti-intellectual is to be opposed to things such as learning, study, and knowledge, taken broadly and deeply. (I’m intentionally avoiding the term intellectualism, by the way. It’s not a simple antonym to anti-intellectualism, it’s freighted with other connotations, and it’s not the topic here.)

So suppose there’s a Christian believer who thinks it credible to thing there was an original created couple (Adam and Eve). What is it about that position that signals opposition to study or to knowledge? Nick seems to think that just to consider anything outside the evolutionary party line a “reasonable idea” is to reject all reason. But that translates to, “If I’m to be a thinking person then I must think only what the authorities tell me to think.” That won’t fly.

Nick uses the phrase “they disagree with … the evidence.” It sounds as if thinks the evidence could speak without thoughtful persons interpreting it. I wonder if that was a matter of careless wording, or if he really thinks that. To consider God’s specially creating an original pair isn’t disagreeing with evidence, because this evidence isn’t of the class of thing that one could disagree with. It’s not necessarily rejecting evidence, either. It is (or at least it could be) holding a different view on that evidence, such as,

• I’m not a specialist in this field, so it would be irresponsible for me to take a firm position on what the evidence means, or
• I see the evidence and the force of it, but I also see conflicting evidence in philosophy, nature, and/or God’s word, which I don’t think “the authorities” have fully accounted for. Therefore I cannot accept their word as final.

Which of those is opposed to study or knowledge?

Nick also says “Gee, I thought intellectualism had something to do with following the truth wherever it leads.” That definition is far too loose (“something to do with”). Better to turn it over: “Refusal to follow the truth wherever it leads is a sign of anti-intellectualism.” But it’s only a sign, it’s not the whole story. I’m not committed to following every single truth to its ultimate destination. I’m not worried about chasing down the Bacon-Marlowe controversy until it’s been settled. For reasons already stated, I’m also not committed to taking the authorities’ word that science (whatever that is) has landed upon the final truth on origins. That would be a counter-intellectual move.

What then about “conservative evangelicalism” making “a huge public stink about it” in the public schools? Apparently for Nick, conservative evangelicalism is defined as those Christians who are making a huge public stink about this. Actually, most conservative believers pay evolution no attention whatever, and of those who do, only a few are trying to influence public policy. Of that group, even fewer are being stinky about it. So it’s not “conservative evangelicalism” making the stink he thinks he smells. Or if it is, then by his definition I’m not a member of conservative evangelicalism. Some Christians do raise a stink, admittedly, but though they are very visible they are also relatively few. Even if they were bastions of blithe stupidity (which would be true for an even smaller subset), that would not make the real body of conservative evangelicalism anti-intellectual. (NIck says later in that paragraph that evangelicals “need to change their tune on this.” If those evangelicals to whom he is referring did that, I doubt he would notice any more than he has taken notice that the Discovery Institute isn’t trying to get evolution removed from school curricula.)

Later in the discussion Nick tries to moderate his position:

People who believe in YEC deliberately (rather than being raised in it) have decided to ignore the physical evidence and believe their particular reading of Genesis, evidence be damned. And that’s anti-intellectualism.

It might be instead the ability to consider contrary evidence, coupled with an informed decision to weight it differently. I’m not a specialist in this field, so maybe I’m wrong, but I think that might be healthy openness—even if it’s wrong; for wrong ≠ anti-intellectual.

This I do know. Nick has chosen (he was presumably not raised in it) to make one issue an absolute arbiter of anti-intellectualism. If all it takes is clinging stubbornly to an indefensible position to qualify as anti-intellectual, well, feel free to regard this tu quoque as intentional. Nick, you’re doing exactly the kind of thing you say makes a person anti-intellectual. But that’s Nick’s approach, not mine. I wouldn’t apply the term “anti-intellectual” to him globally, as if it were true of his whole person—even though he thinks it can be applied globally not only to individuals but to all of evangelical Christianity. I do not say that Nick is anti-intellectual. I do say, however, that this particular erroneous position of Nick’s is anti-intellectual, in that it is narrow, scientistic, parochial, and wrong—on the very topic of anti-intellectualism.

What difference does this make in the end? Does it matter that Nick Matzke thinks evangelical Christianity is tarred with anti-intellectualism on his narrow basis? Only in that it represents part of the problem of Christian anti-intellectualism, with which I started this whole discussion in the open letter. You can find real scholarship in the church. If you look elsewhere among Christians you can find anti-intellectualism. Somewhere off on a tangent you can also find a distorted picture of alleged Christian anti-intellectualism, such as Nick’s version here, which is a problem of an entirely different sort. Christians won’t regain the high ground by acquiescing thoughtlessly to the ruling authorities. Our intellectual future is bound up in much, much more than the creation/ID/evolution question. The last thing we want to do is accept intellectual rules like Nick’s, because the game they define is at best a tiny piece of what matters. We have much larger work to do than that.

Share This

I write like
Dan Brown

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

I’ve never even read Dan Brown. Please, God, don’t let it be true that I’ve ever written anything like,

Overhanging her precarious body was a jaundiced face whose skin resembled a sheet of parchment paper punctured by two emotionless eyes.

And I really hope I’ve never committed anything like these other monstrosities.

The website doesn’t say what Dan Brown and I have in common. I doubt it analyzes for clunky constructions, and I’m sure it knows nothing about our theology. I wish it meant something about my potential sales!

I got this from David Heddle, whose analysis came out much more favorably. He probably didn’t know how bad it could turn out for me, so I think we can still be friends.

Share This

“On every level there was something lacking,” said Kirsten Palladino, who took Maria’s surname after their wedding in June 2009. “We didn’t see any couples like us. The language was all he and she, bride and groom, please your man.”

The Times (which, like another national paper, clearly wants this to be true) tells us same-sex weddings are on the increase, and the rest of the world is adapting.

But as more states legalize same-sex marriage, and the weddings take root in American culture, the marketplace is responding with a growing number of new companies, services and publications aimed directly at gay grooms and lesbian brides. Equally Wed, published in a state where same-sex marriage is outlawed, is among a crop of Web sites that are filling the void left by conventional bridal publications

Are same-sex “weddings” really taking root in our culture? To some extent, yes. While legal battles continue, this article tells us that 70% of daily papers “now carry same-sex wedding announcements.” The source for that was the not-terribly-objective Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. Though the Times links only to GLAAD’s home page, supporting data (or something like it) can be found: a list of papers that say they would accept homosexual announcements. On the same page, though, with a bit of digging (and using recent figures on the total number of papers in America), one can also discover that 77% of newspapers have never done so. Is that a sign of a new movement “taking root”? Not much, but some. The Times has overplayed it, as usual, but still we ought to recognize it for what it is.

The article goes on to mention same-sex couples being featured on the Today show, “under pressure from gay rights groups.” Is something taking root or is it being forced upon us? Two bride’s magazines have recognized same-sex couples as part of their market, but

Both magazines played it straight, focusing on menus and decorations, with no mention beyond the obvious of the couples’ orientations…. because it must appeal to a broad base, Brides does not plan to spotlight same-sex weddings in any deliberate way or to document their sociological evolution.

That “broad base” represents that large part of American culture where SSM is not taking root, evidenced by most of the country’s opposition to it. The Times’s language on that is interesting, to say the least:

Equally Wed, published in a state where same-sex marriage is outlawed, is among a crop of Web sites that are filling the void left by conventional bridal publications.

“Outlawed,” it says. Where I live in Virginia, bank robbery and kidnapping and burglary are outlawed. You can go to jail for those kinds of things. SSM is simply not recognized; it doesn’t happen. “Outlawed” is inaccurate and tendentious. Once again, our “paper of record” shows us how it’s done. (This is not the first time this has come up.)

Part of what seems to be taking root, though, is a kind of outlaw mentality.

It is not lost on the Palladinos that despite the assertion in their publication’s name, they were wed and continue to live in one of the 41 states that prohibit same-sex marriage. But it is the very absence of state approval, they said, that made their own vows so meaningful and inspired the spirit of their magazine….

Equally Wed can seem driven by conflicting impulses. On the one hand, it is devoted to making same-sex weddings seem ordinary, providing the same obsessive attention to floral arrangement and cake design as bridal magazines. On the other, it celebrates the distinctive, norm-flouting nature of gay unions and guides participants through their specific challenges….

“There are no rules,” Kirsten Palladino said. “We can look to the history of straight weddings and take what we want and leave what we don’t.”

No rules? I want to take that and run with that a bit, since it has to do with the subtext coursing through this and most other reporting on SSM. What about the rule that tells the rest of us we need to accept all this as right and proper? There are rules we’re expected to follow, though they come out of a no-rules relativistic culture; the main one being that we must toe GLAAD’s and the Times’s line on this. SSM is on the rise, and if in moral relativism there are no rules, it follows that there are no rules against SSM. But because there are no rules, and thus there are no rules against SSM, apparently they think it follows that there is a rule against believing there’s a rule against it.

These are some of the recent trends.

Cross-posted at First Things: Evangel

Share This

Dear Colleague:

We have work to do if Christianity is going to reclaim the intellectual high ground. Chances are it’s not entirely the same work you’ve been doing.

Share This

Kenneth Howell

What outrageous, blind, blazing irony!

Kenneth Howell was told after the spring semester ended that he would no longer be teaching in the UI’s [University of Illinois] Department of Religion. The decision came after a student complained about a discussion of homosexuality in the class in which Howell taught that the Catholic Church believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.

And just what led to his firing? An email to the department head, Robert McKim, including:

“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing,” the student wrote in the e-mail. “Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.”

[From Instructor of Catholicism at UI claims loss of job violates academic freedom | News-Gazette.com]

To “contribute to the public discourse and independent thought” just might mean to “not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain [religious/epistemological/philosophical] orientation.”

Could McKim not see that?

Via First Thoughts

Share This

[From Following a Trend, YMCA to Become Simply ‘the Y’ - NYTimes.com]

Share This

What shall we say about this, especially the mayor’s remarks? I don’t recall it being illegal to talk about one’s faith outside a “designated free speech area.” I wonder what name you give to public places surrounding such a zone. Maybe, “designated First Amendment-free zone.” The city of Dearborn has published a letter explaining their position on this.

For those of us with limited access to the facts, it all remains to be sorted out. It seems odd, though, that Dearborn would not have returned this group’s video equipment to them. The city clearly wants not to be condemned for their actions (see the title of their letter, linked above). If they did nothing wrong, they have been taking unusual pains to hide the evidence thereof.

Now, even though I’ve been building a friendship with Nabeel Qureshi, one of the Dearborn Four, since last November, I don’t know enough about the circumstances there to be convinced their evangelistic methodology was the best. Other Christians I respect strongly, especially Josh McDowell, have been developing positive relations there while also sharing Christ. I’m suspending judgment on that while we all wait for further information. But there is another issue in question here, which is liberty and the rule of law.

With respect to Mayor O’Reilly’s comments, I wonder especially what law there is against “motives” that “violate the spirit of the Constitution.” What were this group’s motives? How does the mayor know them, and how does he know that he knows them? Usually we infer motives from what people say and what they do. This group has not provoked controversy in other Muslim-centric venues, only in Dearborn, where in 2009 (based on video testimony) it seems it was others besides themselves who escalated the confrontations. How do we infer evil motives from that? They’ve said they came for respectful, peaceful dialogue. How do we infer evil motives from that?

Motive and intent are relevant when an actual crime is being contemplated or has been committed. They form part of the distinction between first-degree murder and other lesser crimes. They are obviously relevant to laws against conspiring to commit a crime.

But this has more the flavor of a bad Western movie plot line:

“I’m locking you up for disturbing the peace, Smith.”

“What for, Sheriff?? I was just sitting and talking peaceably with the bartender here.”

“Sure, but you knew when you rode into town that Big John is here, and Big John wants to pick a fight with you. You came here just to stir him up.”

“Is that right, Sheriff? How does that work, then? I’m sitting here as peaceful as can be, and I’m doing nothing wrong. Big John wants to pick a fight with me, and for that, you think I’m the one disturbing the peace?”

“That’s right, Smith.You came to town wanting to get Big John to pick a fight with you. That makes it your fault, clear as day, and that’s why I’m putting you behind bars.”

What’s wrong with that scene? First, the peace was not yet disturbed. Second, if it were to be disturbed, it would be Big John who would be doing it, not Smith. And third, the Sheriff claimed he knew why Smith came to town—and he made that the cause for arrest.

If we are going to have elected officials in this country who think they can decipher motives that way, then we’ll have elected officials who will think they can have us arrested based on what—their impressions? or their telepathic abilities?

As for violating the “spirit of the Constitution,” what on earth does that mean? Probably whatever anyone wants it to mean. Suppose, though, this group actually did go there to stir up trouble by talking about their religion. I don’t think so, but suppose they did. Where in the Constitution do we find a “spirit” violated by that intent?

I don’t know what’s in Mayor O’Reilly’s mind, but I know where his words could lead, if he or anyone else took them seriously: arrests made without any actual crime in view, just on the basis of some mysteriously interpreted motive, or for violating some privately inferred “spirit” of the Constitution. What do you think—could the rule of law survive?

Share This

NAYQGHAHJB5E

Share This

And so atheists really exist on the same superstitious plane as Thomas Aquinas, who tried to prove by logic the possibility of creation “ex nihilo” (from nothing). His eventual explanation entailed a Supreme Being standing outside of time and space somehow endowing it with existence (and interfering once in a while) without explaining what caused this source of “uncaused causation” to be created in the first place.

This is—or should be—grade-school stuff, but many of the New Atheists seemed to have stopped thinking since their early grade-school science-fair triumphs.

[From The rise of the new agnostics. - By Ron Rosenbaum - Slate Magazine]

Need I spell out the problems here? Or are they too grade-school obvious?

The most difficult thing about it all is figuring out how he could get anyone to publish it.

More interesting yet is the way Rosenbaum closes out the piece. It’s quite consistent with the theme of the whole:

Wilkins’ suggestion is that there are really two claims agnosticism is concerned with is important: Whether God exists or not is one. Whether we can know the answer is another. Agnosticism is not for the simple-minded and is not as congenial as atheism and theism are.

The courage to admit we don’t know and may never know what we don’t know is more difficult than saying, sure, we know.

As Errol Morris put it in the conclusion of one his epic multipart New York Times examination of anosognosia—not knowing what we don’t know:

We have “the desire but not the wherewithal to make sense of experience. One might easily forsee that this would lead to unending unmitigated frustration and suffering. But here’s where self-deception [and] anosognosia … step in. We wouldn’t be able to make sense of anything, but we would never be aware of that fact.”

Like I said, it’s complicated. But the world has suffered enough from oversimplifications. The agnostic moment has come.

Theism and atheism are both for the simple-minded, he thinks. I won’t defend or even comment on atheism in that respect. But I’ll note that Rosenbaum has provided further evidence he’s never read Aquinas. Or Calvin, or Augustine, or maybe even Lewis. Nor does it seem likely he has spent much time in any decent theological library.

And theism is for the weak-willed, too, he says. That would come as quite a surprise to a lot of Christians.

Share This

Is it possible that some future genius will discover an alternative that supplants Darwinism as our framework for understanding life? Will we ever look back on Darwin as brilliant but wrong?

Is it a crack in the Darwinist monolith? Maybe. But not, alas, much of a nod in the direction of Intelligent Design. It begins,

Last year, on the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species, Darwin’s stock soared higher than Apple’s. It’s 2010—time for a market adjustment.

The philosopher Daniel Dennett once called the theory of evolution by natural selection “the single best idea anyone has ever had.” I’m inclined to agree. But Darwinism sticks in the craw of some really smart people. I don’t mean intelligent-designers (aka IDiots) and other religious ignorami but knowledgeable scientists and scholars.

SciAm still can’t say “religious” without adding something like “ignorami.” Too bad for them, I’m afraid.

Share This