- Dolce
Demographic Deities
Posted by Fr. David in Fr. David's Blog
Saturday, May 2. 2009
Demographic Deities
A Reply to Robert L. Sharp’s “Talking about Religion”
By Fr. David Thatcher
I found myself perplexed as I read Robert L. Sharp’s opinion piece, “Talking about Religion” (April 25, 2009). On the one hand, Mr. Sharp has enough interest in the topic of religious faith that he would bother to write about it — even “with extreme trepidation.” On the other hand, he ends his column describing himself as neither agnostic nor atheist, but rather as an apatheist – an invented word, playing off the word apathy, meaning one who does cares not about the matter of God. So, Mr. Sharp writes about religion and God, but doesn’t really care about it or people who do. How one puts these two things together with any degree of seriousness? Surely matters of God, faith, and culture are serious questions. Nevertheless, Mr. Sharp’s statements on these things are quite public, and whatever his personal journey has been, he is worthy of a response.
Mr. Sharp’s criticisms of religion and such are, actually, cultural criticisms. He doesn’t directly address the matter of whether or not any particular religion’s beliefs are true or not, other than to cavalierly brush such aside by defining faith as beyond evidence of any kind — that it is always simply blind faith. (I’m not sure why Mr. Sharp felt the need to cite a Professor of Electrical Engineering in this; many have tried to define faith in such a manner.)
There are two assumptions about such an approach to faith, neither of which is, in the end, defensible. First, while I am not expert on world religions, as a pastor of the Orthodox Christian Church I can assure Mr. Sharp and his authorities that Christianity in fact makes claims about truth — and wants to be judged on this basis. Faith is no mere leap in the dark; there are reasons to believe in the gospel. . . . .
The Christian Faith is an historical religious faith, and has the audacity to base its teachings on historical things like the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. In the writings of the Christian New Testament, St. Paul claims that if Jesus wasn’t actually risen from the dead, then “we are of all men most miserable” (I Cor. 15:18-20). The Apostle Peter claimed that “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:15-17). Similar statements from the New Testament can be found in I Tim. 1:4 and 4:7, and perhaps most interestingly at I John 1:1-3. Christianity does not teach about free-floating ideas or symbols of God. There is a faith-factor, of course, that creates a bridge of commitment to the claims of the Christian Faith, but that does not eclipse the reality of reasons to believe. If that is not so, one wonders why, for example, a longstanding atheist and philosopher like Anthony Flew, repudiated atheism late in life after many debates.
The other assumption is Mr. Sharp’s remarkable naiveté (being such a man of the world) about the nature of science and modern ways of knowing. Mr. Sharp wants only pure knowing, untainted by faith assumptions, and thinks that modern science offers that. Unfortunately, Mr. Sharp has mistaken science for scientism, a religious-like commitment to so-called objective truth. I’m afraid that such swooning embrace of science-only-as-hard truth won’t stand up today. Major philosophers of science, from Thomas Kuhn’s Structures of Scientific Revolution to Michael Polyani’s Personal Knowledge, demolish such mythologies of scientific understanding. All constructs of knowing involve human will and interpretation — in essence, faith. In fact, it’s safe to say that two of Mr. Sharp’s intellectual darlings — Karl Marx’s musings on religion and the human condition, along with a contemporary sociologist — are especially vulnerable in this regard. I don’t suppose Marx’s secular utopianism or the latest U.N. analyses of secular culture are immune from bias or some level of faith, are they?
I find Mr. Sharp’s reliance on Karl Marx quite baffling, especially given his onetime career as an officer in the Navy. I assume that Mr. Sharp fought with honor for our country, but it is hard to imagine doing so while under the tutelage of a thinker who spawned the greatest enemies of our Republic. Further, Marx’s barren secular ideology paved the way to the greatest holocausts and atrocities known to modern man in the Gulags of Soviet Russia, repeated in various ways in countries under the sway of communism. All the flaws and tragedies of the Christian religion pale in comparison to the devastations committed in the name of Marx. If religion is an "opiate of the masses," then atheistic utopianism is the bane of humanity.
Actually, the cultural impacts of the Christian Faith on Western Society have been powerful and largely positive. Perhaps Mr. Sharp should acquaint himself with different sociologist: Rodney Stark’s stuff, especially The Victory of Reason. It is no accident that the Christian West nurtured freedom, capitalism, glorious music, the university, and even science itself. Even those successful secular European nations of the Pew study have an undeniable heritage of Christian Faith, even in their post-Christian decline. These countries were the beneficiaries of millennia of Christian life and ethics. Isn’t this the way? Secularism owes whatever successes it can claim to its Christian roots and culture, yet trumpets as if it stands alone.
In the end, Mr. Sharp will believe as he will. How is it that, as a young man, Mr. Sharp found classic forms of Christian prayer and worship so distasteful? Why is rending to God His due in a “sacrifice of praise” so onerous? It is indeed sad that Mr. Sharp abandoned the banquet of Christian Faith and humanism in exchange for the pottage of the fleeting fancies and fads of nihilistic unbelief. I pray that Mr. Sharp will reflect on these things with fresh eyes and, perhaps, with a trepidation grounded less in causing a stir and more in seeking the center of all existence in an Almighty and living God. Oddly enough, as little as Mr. Sharp thinks of God, it is Christianity’s conviction that God loves him — and indeed all of us — in a way far surpassing all imagination.
I appreciate your response. For a writer, worse than being reviled is being unread.
I was disappointed not to have more reaction to my observations, say, from mainstream denominations, but I guess they are too busy with bingo and such.
You seem to have a subtext that one should not contemplate religion if not religious. My graduate degree is not in theology, but I have an abiding interest in the eccentricities of world religions and cultural traditions. What one can learn from history has been a continuing hobby.
For instance, it is fascinating how archeologists have confirmed much of ancient physical history, and how Mithraism was an inspiration for virgin birth stories. And how Napoleon, ever curious, crossed the Red Sea in 1799, and so on.
But being apathetic is about people’s choice of odd beliefs; that’s their choice. But there is an interest in those beliefs. It’s more like an entomologist studying bugs. Interesting for intellectual curiosity’s sake, but one doesn’t want to BE a bug.
Selective references are fun and can go on forever, e.g., I’ll see your Anthony Flew and raise you Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris. We learn from others, but in the end, we must have our own opinion.
And I recognize logical inconsistencies. To leap from an observation that people cling to religion to assuage their miserable lives to throwing them in the gulag is just silly. Or that a professor of engineering isn’t qualified to have religious opinions. This is the fallacy called Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.
Quoting the Bible is a source of literary interest, but as an argument, it is another fallacy, that of Circular Reasoning: “It must be true, it’s in the Bible.” “What makes you think so?” “Because it’s in the Bible.”
I remember a psychology class where the professor observed Jesus came with a nice simple little message, and organized religion has built this grand superstructure all over it to the point of making the message all but disappear. Special clothing, incense and funny hats are good fun, but what’s the purpose beyond intimidation?
It is clear that man is entrepreneurial and religion is a good business. Probably the first priest appeared when the first man could hunt and gather enough for two. Christian religions alone probably have tens of thousands of denominations, all of which purport to be the one true faith.
“Of course mine is the true one; it’s mine!”
And the amazing part is all of them are telling their flocks there is an invisible man in an invisible place that requires an intermediary and won’t be happy unless they give them money.
Thanks for leading me, an ardent philologist, to a new word, Antiphons. To quote one of your co-religionist friends of mine, “There is always a tendency to ‘go through the ritual’ and not really focus on the message.” I guess the robotic nature of the exercise is what put me off.
So, don’t be perplexed, it’s just that the evidence isn’t convincing.
I thought maybe my comment wouldn’t be posted. That it has been, reflects well on your confidence in your message.
Thank you, Robert Sharp