Post 179--Faith vs Reason?

Trying to catch up a bit after the long absence. So, another gem for you to ponder today, this time mostly my own.

Today’s subject is hardly new for me or, for that matter, for you. You’ve read similar stuff in earlier posts on this blog, but I return to the subject for two related reasons. One is that secular folks seem never to understand the point I am making today. Even secular friends with whom I’ve had long and deep discussions on this particular issue never seem to comprehend. I’ve been wondering whether this is simply because they cannot or because simply refuse to admit. The second and related reason for returning to the subject is that, because of what seems intransigence on the part of seculars, it has become one of my favourite subjects. I love to challenge seculars on this score, because their view on the subject is the dominant one in our secular society. Our whole society is run on basis of it. That is to say, our whole society is run on basis of a myth!

The subject?  The old saw of REASON VS RELIGION.  Now, you may not be philosophically inclined and kind of crinch at the sound of this topic. But, you know, whether you’re philosophical or not, your life is lived according to the stand you take on this subject. Your stand may be held subconsciously; you may not be aware of it, but it shapes your life.  And the fact that it most likely is subconscious, that makes it worse. In fact, it means you don’t know what you’re doing or why.

John Krakauer published a book back in 2004 by the title of Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith. It’s a book about violence within the Mormon community.  He used this story as a demonstration of his conviction about reason vs religion. In his Prologue he wrote:

Although the far territory of the extreme can exert an intoxicating pull on susceptible individuals of all bents, extremism seems to be especially prevalent among those include by temperament or upbringing towards religious pursuits.  Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a crucial component of spiritual devotion.  And when religious fanaticism supplants ratiocination, all bets are suddenly off. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything. Common sense is no match for the peace of God—as the actions of Dan Lafferty vividly attest.

There you have it: “Faith is the very antithesis of reason,” while “injudiciousness” is “a crucial component of spiritual devotion.” Well, I am a man of faith and of spiritual devotion, but none the people here in Vancouver’s West End who know me and have observed me have ever accused me of injudiciousness or of being unreasonable—except two.  And this West End, in case you don’t know area, is thoroughly secular in its culture and mentality. Secularism is the very air we breathe here.

Now I don’t know anything about Krakauer’s life, but I suspect he is pretty ignorant about the role of religion, that he has never spent much time with religious people or in religious institutions. He has never read serious religious books or listened to lectures, including dialogical ones.  If he has religious neighbours or colleagues, he avoids talking about it and, perhaps, avoids them altogether.

But, you know what the real and even more tragic problem is? It is that Krakauer does not even know himself!  He, like seculars in general, thinks that he is a person of reason and not of faith—but that is the grand myth of secularism. Who has ever proven that the philosophy that puts reason at the top is true?  Has been proven?  No one. That itself is a matter of pure faith.  A person living by reason is one living by faith in reason, believes as much and as fervently as the overtly religious person.  And indeed, with the fanaticism of secular believers in reason, all bets can indeed be off, such as the killing of the most vulnerable of all humans, namely babies. That’s the ultimate of extremes and of cruelty. Society’s having become accustomed to it does not make it less extreme or cruel.  And if extreme behavior is the product of religion, well Krakauer has just condemned his own faith in reason.

 I’ll try to get back to Krakauer and similar people over the next few days. In the meantime, ponder where you fit in this faith vs reason thing.

Well, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.   

Post 169--The Roots of the Islamist Crisis

To begin with: a disclaimer. The document below is about a book I have not read and have never even heard about till just a few moments ago.  However, I used to be member of its publishers, the Book of the Month club, and I was always impressed with their selections. So, I take the chance on the strength of their reputation with me. However,  many books have been written about these kinds of subjects and all too many try to reduce the basic reason for or cause of our current Islamist--in distinction from Islam--problem(s), that I am skeptical about all of them, including this one. Many point to one cause and try to convince us that that's the basic or even only cause. If we can solve that one particular cause, then we're done and the chaos will be a thing of the past. I myself have written an 8-volume series about Christian-Muslim relations in Nigeria. You can find it on my website   < www.SocialTheology.com/ islamica.htm >.  During the course of my 30 years in Nigeria and of my years of research, I have come to the conclusion that there are a number of causes that worked together to create our present situation.  It is not all due to Islam; Western imperialism has contributed no small proportion. So, though I am thus skeptical about the book offered below, I do suspect it lays its finger on an important component of today's crisis. So, I decided to draw your attention to it. A confession: During the course of writing the above, I suddenly wonder whether this Book of the Month is really the same as the club that used to have that name.  Who or what is "Intercollegiate Studies Institute?"  Well, if they are someone else than what I first thought, they have only themselves to blame for taking on a name that can cause confusion. Check them out for yourself--but do read the book.  Here goes:                                                 ============== The Manchester and London Bridge terrorist attacks have reignited the debate over Islamic radicalism. But you’ve probably noticed that the terms of the debate haven’t changed in years; pundits on all sides rely on the same talking points. That’s why I’m so grateful for Robert Reilly’s eye-opening book The Closing of the Muslim Mind. Reilly goes well beyond the simplistic analyses we always hear. He reveals that our contemporary crisis can be traced to a heated battle within Islam itself, waged a thousand years ago. It was a battle over the role of reason—and the side of irrationality won. This was, as Reilly writes, “one of the greatest intellectual dramas in human history.” And we’re still feeling the reverberations today. I’m excited to make Reilly’s masterful work the Book of the Month so you can purchase it at a special 30% discount. As National Review notes, The Closing of the Muslim Mind is a “brilliant and groundbreaking” book that “should be read by anyone who wants to understand one of the most fundamental causes of conflict in the twenty-first century.” Roger Scruton, widely considered the greatest living conservative intellectual, calls Reilly’s book “lucid and fascinating.” Please pick up your copy today. This book will change how you understand the Islamist crisis. Best, Jed Donahue Editor in Chief, ISI Books

Post 103--The Bible in Abbotsford Public Schools

Bible Belt, Right and Left

Today (March 31 2016) the local CBC news programme featured an item about Bibles in the Public Schools in Abbotsford, a city some 70 km east of Vancouver, nestled in the centre of BC’s so-called “Bible Belt.”  To me, I hasten to add, that is a title of honour even when the BC secular media use it largely with scorn, though I do sometimes cringe at the right-wing orientation of the place. I do not understand how Christians, let alone a Christian community as a whole, can be right wing, even when that is a rather common occurrence in much of North America. Which is not to say, I prefer left wing. In no way. That’s often worse than right. I want Christians to be independent of both of these orientations and just be themselves, be Christian. This means that sometimes they will sound right, at another, left, but usually creatively different and free from both. I am tempted to shout, “The plague on both of your houses!”  But that would neither be very kind nor Christian. Christians don’t wish a plague on anyone.

Bibles in Public Schools

So, what is the issue according to CBC?  The Abbotsford School Board is promoting the distribution of Bibles among its students. These Bibles are offered free of charge by the Gideons, a business people’s organization that distributes free Bible, all over the world, especially in hotels. If you use hotels, you must have seen them tucked away in a drawer.  The Board does not force them on the students. The latter are given consent forms for their parents to sign. The students of those parents who approve are given the Bible in the principal’s office—nothing public; all very private.

Objections to Bibles in Public Schools

Some members of the public are voicing objections. These include notions such as Bibles not having a place in Public Schools or the system should not use up public funds for religious purposes. The Bible may be free, but the progamme’s administration takes time and money, public time and money. According to the programme’s anchor,  Andrew Chen, the complaint was initially delivered by the Humanist Association. 

Secular "Neutrality"

These objections are exactly what I expected, for they are the classic reaction of secular minds to religion; in BC, especially to the Christian religion. The general attitude is that to be neutral one must leave religion out of public affairs, including education. To be neutral means, well, simply to be secular!  And to be secular means to exclude religion, exclude belief systems. 

Secularism Just Another Belief System

The problem is, of course, that secularism itself is a belief system that is based on a view of reason that constitutes faith in reason’s ability to know all and to fix all. The truth of that has never been proved but is simply accepted as “common sense” that is beyond questioning or doubt. So, when secularists want to push out what they consider religion, we really have a case of one belief system (secularism) ousting other belief systems. It would be exactly the same if Roman Catholics or any other faith system were to demand the ouster of all others, including secularism. The Humanist Association is actually demanding the status of establishment state religion at the expense of every one else, something that, I would have thought, our insistence today on pluralism would never even allow us to think about.   

Secular Establishment

Pluralism leaves room for everyone and resists any group seeking establishment rights and privileges. Unfortunately, the earlier Anglican establishment of BC has been replaced by a Secular one with many government privileges, especially in the educational sector. Secular says: Everyone clear the deck; we take over. We are the only rational neutral people around!  What a myth. What blindness.  The blindness? Inability and/or refusal to recognize their own faith-based orientation towards autonomous reason. Every religion in BC, to the best of my knowledge, is open about its being based on faith. It is only the Secular faith that will or cannot acknowledge its base. It is simply blind to it. Closed minded. It is caught in a narrow tunnel vision.

Poser--An Exceptional Pluralistic Humanist

However, not all Humanists think this way. I was once member of a multi-faith group that included three Humanists, one of whom was a former leader of the Vancouver Humanist Association, the late Ernest Poser. In fact, he was the founder of this group and Chairman till he became terminally ill. His idea was to encourage the teaching about all major worldviews in BC’s public schools, including Humanism!  Not proselytism or “evangelism,” but to help students understand each other and, later in their adult years, as neighbours. Why do my neighbours behave as they do? The answer is often found in religion. So, Poser reasoned, let’s teach that stuff in the public schools to enhance mutual understanding among the citizenry. However, he did admit that he did not find much support among his fellow Humanists, but still enough for them to provide our low-level budget for a few years, however grudgingly. Poser and I became very close friends; I loved him dearly, though we deeply disagreed with each other.

My All-inclusive Pluralistic Solution

My solution to the Abbotsford “crisis” is, like Poser’s, not to ban religion from the schools. That’s impossible; it is already there in the form of Secularism. And Secularism occupies all the space,  every square inch,  to indoctrinate students in its worldview. That space needs to be shared with everyone—Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Humanists, Atheists, Animists, etc. That’s the only way to be pluralistic, but it will require Secularists to open their eyes to their own belief system and admit it for what it is. Of all the religions, they are probably the most blind to themselves.    

Post 87 –Remedy for Religious Fundamentalism?

Remedy for religious fundamentalism?  Who would have the nerve to make such a proposal? Seeking a remedy for such a wild societal phenomenon?  You’re in for a bit of lay philosophizing. Hope you’re up to it?

Some behind-the-scene stuff here. Originally I made a typographical error in the above paragraph. Instead of “seeking,” I wrote “seeding”  so that the sentence read “Seeding a remedy….”  Now wouldn’t that be wonderful? We just go out, buy a bag of seed, put it in the spreader and there it goes throughout the society, slowly germinating and sprouting the “remedy” flower till it has taken over the entire field.  Wouldn’t that be nice? Alas, only a typo!  Not even a dream, though it almost germinated one in me!

One of my favourite columnists in the Vancouver Sun, Michael Den Tandt, had the courage—or should I say “nerve?”-- to suggest a remedy, using the title of this post I borrowed from him, but without the extension “…is clear.”  His full title: “The remedy for religious fundamentalism is clear” (Boxing Day, Dec. 26, 2015).  Wow!  This is something we’ve all been waiting for: a clear remedy for this scourge of fundamentalism. I could hardly think of a more appropriate Christmas gift, even now that we are into January 2016 with Christmas long behind us.

For those of us who are writers, there is enough in Den Tandt’s column to fill a good-sized volume with comments, reactions and alternatives. I will have to be very selective to keep this down to an acceptable blog post length. It’s possible that I will have to use two posts even to say the minimum, but that would not be the end of the world, at least, not of my world. So, Michael, I’m going to think along with you a little and make some suggestions as well as ask some questions. I do this in the framework of appreciation for your courage to even dream of a remedy of so intractable a global scourge.

Den Tandt’s remedy? In his words, “It is, simply, ecumenism.” That term means, again in his own words, “the notion that people of faith, and indeed agnostics and atheists, have far more in common than they sometimes wish to believe.”  My association with Humanist Atheists has taught me that this is a typical perspective of that group of people. In fact, based on my association with them, I consider that part of the core of Humanism and Atheism. Taking that away from them would be similar to taking Jesus away from Christians or Muhammad from Muslims. You end up with an empty shell. 

Jesus observed that a tree shall by known by its fruit. We know that there are many kinds of trees, each with its own fruit. Now trees have certain basic things in common that mark them as trees. They have roots, stems, branches and, often, leaves and, usually, fruit, though not necessarily edible. Without those they are not considered trees. Though they share certain structural features, their root structures vary, bark is different so that we can identify them as this or that kind of tree. Their leaves look and behave differently as does their fruit. Trees, yes, all of them, but still they are very different from each other, used for different purposes ranging from shade, decoration,  construction, canoes, nesting, food all the way to burning. All trees, yes, but how different from each other.  By their fruit, including their various uses, you will know that it is this tree or that tree. Anyone who can’t tell the difference between a Western apple tree and an African baobab would be looked at askance.                           

Every society is undergirded by a worldview that gives it shape and values. Most members of a given society are hardly aware of that worldview; they just assume it as their “common sense,” but it affects both their thought patterns as well as behavior.  In fact, it creates their culture. Part of that worldview is the dominant religion of the culture. Yes, behind every culture lies a religion of some sort. That is to say, a more or less coherent set of values and ideas by which the  people guide their lives and form their social structures and to which the people have given their hearts. All of this means that you can learn something about a people’s religion by analyzing their culture.

It may be that the above was more true in the past when most cultures tended to be cohesive mono-cultures and mono-religions.  This situation may be breaking down into groupings within a given culture so that today one finds more worldviews next to each other in any society. Nevertheless, the dominant cultures of the world have religions behind them, religions that have taken on a large variety of shapes, values and beliefs that undergird the societies.

Now, can you possibly believe that with, say, Chinese or Indian cultures being so different from Western cultures, the roots of these greatly different cultures are one and the same? If the fruits of two or more trees are widely different, can you argue that the trees are one and the same?  If you did, people would not take you seriously. These cultures are different because the underlying religions are different from each other. The fruits from all these different cultures are different because the religions are different.

Dogmatic insistence that these religions are basically the same is just that: dogma, ideology, in this case modern Humanistic , Secular or Atheistic ideology or religion. Adherents of these movements will ward off any argumentation countering that dogma as much as any Christian will resist arguments against Christ or a Muslim against Mohammad. We all defend the values, philosophies and beliefs that constitute the core of our hearts and minds. Den Tandt is really expressing a major core value of one of these three close buddies, Humanism, Secularism or Atheism—or all three.

I am tired of having to mention all three of this triad all the time. I am going to refer to the whole gamut simply as “Humanism,” realizing full well not all adherents are Atheists. This will also hold for the next post.

Now, I’m all for the tolerance and peace Den Tandt is really after and I honour him for trying to help us solve a major problem of our time.  Absolutely. However, that should not be based on the faith of one of the many religions, in this case, Secular religion or worldview. He is really interpreting the entire range of religions from his particular secular dogmatic view point. And that's alright, as long as he recognizes the legitimacy of others as well. His remedy is undergirded by another core component of his worldview or religion, namely that his is the only rational or scientific one. And if I may be politically incorrect, most adherents of his Humanism, deep down, have contempt for all the other religions except their own and basically think of them as nonsense. I would hope this is not true of Den Tandt, but there is a sign in his column that would make us think that this might be the case, but that we’ll examine in the next post.

As a closing aside, there is one other religion that thinks of all religions as being the same, namely Baha’i. Baha’i members I know tend to be very sweet and amicable people; most of them have none of the hard pride that tends to mark Humanists—or condemnation. I suspect the reason for the difference between these two perspectives to be that the Baha’i come out of a non-Enlightenment context, a context they share with all non-Humanist religions, whereas Humanists have faith in reason which has harder edges and less room for emotion or affection.  

Post 70--Born Again

You’ve come to expect a mix of religious and so-called “secular” topics from me. I’ve explained the reasons for that more than once. It is simply that they are not two separate areas or regions so much as that religion underlies all subjects; it serves as their substratum.  They do not exist as separate entities so much as the religious infusing and shaping everything else. 

And so, today we jump from the topic of water consumption to that of being born again. The reason for my concern for the economics and ecology of water consumption is precisely because I am born again. Of course, reason, observation, experience, etc., all play a part as well, but the direction in which they lead you is ultimately decided by your value system, your worldview, your beliefs and, finally, your religion, i.e., your ultimates. If you are truly born again, then water issues must concern you, for they are so basic to the life of your neighbor throughout the world.

Born again. In the minds of the average writer in the Vancouver Sun (VS) this is about the most vicious pejorative you can use to describe Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, especially their American versions.  Once you have described Evangelical or Fundamentalist action as the result of being born again, you no longer have to take it seriously; it is guaranteed to be wrong, damaging, anti-social, ridiculous even. Nothing further needs to be said.

But what is this thing called “born again?”   Let’s go back to the original reference to it in the Bible:

Jesus Teaches Nicodemus

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. ² He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

³ Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.^[a]”

⁴ “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

⁵ Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. ⁶ Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit^[b] gives birth to spirit. ⁷ You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You^[c]must be born again.’ ⁸ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit” (John 3).

It must be admitted that Jesus’ explanation is not too clear to our modern way of thinking, but one thing is clear: It is necessary if we wish to see the Kingdom of God.  It is not just something nice, not just icing on the cake of salvation; It is a necessary condition.  Without it you cannot see the Kingdom of God; without it, you cannot be a Christian. That’s pretty drastic. 

Since the early history of Christian theology, scholars have widely discussed the meaning of being born again. I hope to take you through some of that in the next post.  However, it is no wonder that it is unpopular with the secular crowd. The need for it is the human condition, which, according to both the Bible and Christian theology, is totally distorted.  May I say the word?  Sinful!  Stronger still, dead in sin!  There, I’ve said it. Phew! Now that ain’t pretty and it’s not going to raise my popularity with my favourite VS writers, most of whom I appreciate and read regularly. 

No wonder that proud mankind is offended by this evaluation of human nature. And no wonder most folk try to evade its truth by poking fun of it and castigating it for its association in our minds with extreme fundies in the southern USA. In terms of the West, it has been rejected in principle ever since the Renaissance centuries ago and by the subsequent philosophical developments through rationalism, secularism and post-modernism.  It is offensive, humiliating, demeaning. It is one of the reasons the dominant worldview in the West rejects it outright and pokes fun of it.