Into the World--Chapter Three: Today's Warring Intellectual Context

Contents
Prologue and Abstract
Chapter One: Introduction
Chapter Two: The Layered Gospel Context

Chapter Three: Today’s Warring Intellectual Context
Chapter Four: A Perpetual Warring Intellectual Context
Chapter Five: A Primer—The Bible’s Broadest Theme
Chapter Six: The Voice of Conscience
Chapter Seven: The Voice of God
Chapter Eight: The Message of the Cross as Supreme Answer
Chapter Nine: The View from Enlightened Self-Interest
Chapter Ten: The Challenge from Kantian Autonomy
Chapter Eleven: The View from James’ Radical Question
Chapter Twelve: The View from Sartre’s Bad Faith
Chapter Thirteen: Kierkegaard’s Challenge to Intelligibility—First Part
Chapter Thirteen: Kierkegaard’s Challenge to Intelligibility—Second Part
Epilogue


[Note to readers: Since I grant the challenge to the meaningfulness of religious language contained in reductionistic views such as Dawkins', Hitchens', and Asimov's below, perhaps I should expect to be critiqued by Christians who have taken "the Wittgensteinian turn" in which the subtle contexts and uses of language are given ample consideration. I acknowledge that reductionistic critiques of religion are often simplistic. Nevertheless, it is my sense that the Wittgensteinian turn is a form of the God of the gaps defense of religion and theology: For just because reductionism at present is too crude to account for the sublties of language, it does not follow that, when better developed, the human sciences will not do so. Let me also say that if it turns out that my fear concerning the Wittgensteinian turn is false, that that has no bearing on what follows. I have simply taken a different turn, and one that hope will be judged on its own merits.]

Jesus’ claim that he came into the world to testify to the truth implies a domain of truth beyond the world. The Prologue of The Gospel According to John says that the Godhead itself is that “realm” and that Jesus is to be identified with the Godhead. Now that is a large claim. We can get a better view of the present intellectual climate toward such claims by considering the following exchanges about the possibility of a transcendent realm.

The British magazine Prospect bestowed the title of England’s leading public intellectual on Richard Dawkins in 2004, and Dawkins may be the most famous atheist in the world today. He is also famously vehement in his unbelief. According to an article in Discover magazine, verbal jousting broke out between Dawkins and Brown University professor Ken Miller during a symposium at the New York Institute for the Humanities. Dawkins prompted the jousting when he challenged the legitimacy of Miller’s traditional Christian beliefs.1

One might well be surprised that two eminent scientists who both believe that evolution provides the sole scientific basis for teaching natural history would come to loggerheads over religious belief. Haven’t many scientists and religious authorities been telling us for years that science and religion answer different questions and so do not conflict? In fact, Ken Miller, author of Finding Darwin’s God, is one of the scientists who have been telling us that: “I will persist in saying that religion for me, and for many other people, answers questions that are beyond the realm of science,” he told Dawkins.2 And he added, “I regard Genesis as a spiritual truth. And I also think that Genesis was written in a language that would explain God that was relevant to the people living at the time. I cannot imagine…Moses coming down from the Mount and talking about DNA, RNA, and punctuated equilibrium. …”3

According to the Discovery article, “Dawkins, at the far end of the table, almost levitated out of his seat with indignation. ‘But what does that mean?’ he demanded, voice rising. The audience rewarded his indignation with combustive applause.”4

It seems that “positivism,” the notion that there is nothing cognitively meaningful to be said beyond the realm of science, resonated with the audience—despite the fact that the notion fails by its own criterion (positivism is a philosophical view, not a scientific one). Nevertheless, Dawkins did pose a worthy challenge, best stated in question form: If religion does not supply meanings that can be understood within a scientific framework, within what meaningful framework are we to judge its statements for veracity? Bluntly, how can Jesus meaningfully be “the truth” for a Christian like Miller?

So we are back to the big question. And it poses the critical challenge to a religious person who wants to affirm a truth outside of science’s purview. Thus—without endorsing the “combustive” applause Dawkins’ query received, which suggested a prejudiced crowd—a fair-minded critique of the exchange will acknowledge that Dawkins’ challenge requires a good answer.

We can deepen the question by looking to another forum comprised of intellectuals who were considering—among other topics—the roles of religion and science in the public square. The forum, sponsored by the on-line magazine The Nation to discuss “The Future of the Public Intellectual,” included comments similar in substance and tone to those exchanged between Dawkins and Miller. According to Yale University professor Stephen Carter, “There’s a tendency sometimes to have an uneasy equation that there is serious intellectual activity over here, and religion over there, and these are, in some sense, at war. That people of deep faith are plainly anti-intellectual and serious intellectuals are plainly antireligious bigots—they’re two very serious stereotypes held by very large numbers of people. I’m quite unembarrassed and enthusiastic about identifying myself as a Christian and also as an intellectual… …[though] there are certain prejudices on campus suggesting that is not a possible thing to be or, at least, not a particularly useful combination of labels. … And yet, I think that the tradition of the contribution to a public-intellectual life by those making explicitly religious arguments has been important…”5

As if to confirm the sense of war between science and religion that Stephen Carter noted, columnist for The Nation and forum participant Christopher Hitchens proposed, “The first [task for the public intellectual], I think, in direct opposition to Professor Carter, …[is] to replace the rubbishy and discredited notions of faith with scrutiny…”6 Hitchens went on to say that “This is a time when one page, one paragraph, of Hawking is more awe-inspiring, to say nothing of being more instructive, than the whole of Genesis… Yet we’re still used to [religious] babble.”7 Then, quite interestingly in this context, Hitchens said, “…I think the onus is on us [as public intellectuals] to find a language that moves us beyond faith, because faith is the negation of the intellect…”8

Note the clashing claims about religion made by Hitchens in this forum and Miller in the previous one. Here Hitchens claims that the role of the intellectual—as epitomized by the scientist Stephen Hawking in his estimation—is to take us beyond the anti-intellectualism of religious “babble.” Miller, by contrast, believes that religion answers questions that take us beyond the realm of science.

Yet another exchange will help us focus on the kind of answer needed to make a responsible choice between these conflicting views. Celebrated British television personality, David Frost, used to host a show on which he interviewed famous intellectuals. During the interviews he would sound those who were atheists on the reasons for their unbelief. In an address to The National Press Club in the United States he told the following story as his “most embarrassing moment.”9

Famed atheist and science fiction writer, Isaac Asimov, had rebutted all of Frost’s attempts to gain a concession for theism out of him. In a last ditch attempt to get one Frost implored, “But isn’t it possible that there is something out there that we just don’t know about?”10
Asimov replied, “Yes, but then we just don’t know about it.”11

The moral of the story is that it’s a bad idea to stake one’s belief in God on an empty claim. To the point at hand, if Miller’s contention that religion answers questions beyond the realm of science cannot be given some substantive grounding, his view is no better than Frost’s—and Jesus’ claim to have come into the world to testify to the truth is empty. We would be forced to agree with Nietzsche that Pilate’s famous question is the only saying that has value in the New Testament.

CHAPTER THREE NOTES
1. Stephen S. Hall, “Darwin’s Rottweiler,” Discover, Vol. 26 No. 9, September 2005, p. 55(www.discover.com/issues/sep-05/features/darwins-rottweiler).
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid, p. 56.
4. Ibid.
5. Quoted in “The Future of the Public Intellectual: A Forum” in The Nation, February 12, 2001 (www.thenation.com/doc/20010212/forum).
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. David Frost in a National Press Club address from March, 1990 (as recalled by the author, who heard the address over National Public Radio: no recording of the address is available).
10. Ibid. Asimov was quoted by Frost.
11. Ibid.

This entry was posted by Tracy Witham. Bookmark the permalink.

15 thoughts on “Into the World--Chapter Three: Today's Warring Intellectual Context”

  1. I think part of the problem is what we understand by "the world". An atheist who thinks he's a scientist, such as Dawkins, would lump us human beings in with the rest of physical matter in the world and draw no distinction between us. And to be fair, why wouldn't he?

    But if we are created in God's image, there is something about us which is not of the rest of the world. And just perhaps we can use that something to judge the veracity of a statement which cannot be verified using scientific logic.

    Of course, Dawkins would then ask how we can know we are created in God's image in the first place, since we cannot verify this scientifically. But there is a way of proving that we are created in God's image - not in an argument, but in practice. We could act we are.

  2. Hi Tim,

    I agree that if we are made in the image of God, there ought to be something distinctive about that "image" to help us understand the cross as the truth to which Jesus' life and death testify.

    As I began working on this project I combined that conviction with the idea that that "something" must define us too, making something about the cross the key to seeing our true selves as well as to seeing God truly.

    I think you will enjoy seeing something concrete and definitive emerge from those vague convictions. Had you lined up the texts that put this "something" in focus, I'm guessing that you could have written the coming posts.

    Thanks for reading!

    Tracy

  3. RB, thank you for the insightful and intriguing discussion.

    Dawkins is winning the debate. I haven't seen a good rebut to his arguments. I would love to see someone put him on his heels, but I've only seen him 'speaking to the choir.' I look forward to seeing where this is going.

  4. topher,

    Dawkins, in addressing the question "What is man?" endorses the quote "...all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are worthless.." (First paragraph of The Selfish Gene) Ironically, I will use Dawkins' view to defend mine, if push comes to shove. I'm recalling 20 years ago when I read Mere Christianity--so the precise quote escapes me--but Lewis conjectured there that with the gospel God allows us to choose the next step in our evolution. My approach is to make that choice definitive and compelling as the foundational existential question posed to humanity. Since science can't answer existential questions, to the extent that "man" has a choice in answering the question Dawkins posed, it can only provide background information on the question, not answer it. It will be fun to show that Pilate's, "Behold the man." provided a definitive answer to a question science can't answer almost 2,000 years before Dawkins endorsed the view that only science can answer the question without appeal to superstition.

    Dawdins is pinned in by two uncomfortable facts. First, we do ask existential questions, and second, the message of the cross is one of only two possible answers to humanity's core existential question. Are we to ignore our core existential question? Are we to delude ourselves that science can answer it, when it is clear that it cannot?

    Dawkins does (tepidly) endorse a bit of mythmaking later in The Selfish Gene, but it would be a long left turn to go into that now.

    I think you'll enjoy the upcoming read.

    Tracy

  5. "Daw[k]ins is pinned in by two uncomfortable facts. First, we do ask existential questions, and second, the message of the cross is one of only two possible answers to humanity's core existential question. Are we to ignore our core existential question? Are we to delude ourselves that science can answer it, when it is clear that it cannot?"

    My questions to you would be:
    1. Specifically, what is our core existential question that you speak of?

    2. Is science trying to answer that question?

    I look forward to the discussion.

  6. topher,

    To 1., I just ask you to stay tuned.

    To 2., if science is what scientists do, then the answer is highly individual. Whether it's mistaken for science to try to answer that question would depend in part on how one defines 'science," and in part on what one means by trying to answer it. Certainly it can provide background information and so help define the scope within which an informed and honest answer must be situated. But beyond that material/teleological, is/ought, fact/value, physical/metaphysical, etc. divides loom, and the veil of ignorance retreats with respect to some questions, but it seems never will retreat with respect to others. In particular it is hard to see how a judgment rendered with respect to how one believes things ought to be can be adjudicated by science. To even think that there can be a true or false about such (beyond a highly relative individual true or false) implies a metaphysical dimension to being that science cannot enter. (Kant's so-called moral argument for the existence of God establishes that, if nothing else.)

    And existential questions are also informed by teleology, value, metaphysics, plus individual preference and tradition, etc. in addition to "science." Dawkin's minds the divide pretty well, for instance by introducing "the benignant idea that...nice guys can finish first" with the concession, "...if we must have myths..." (p. 233)

    More directly he wrote:

    "I am not saying how we humans ought to behave. I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all too numerous, who cannot distinguish...what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be..." (p. 3) Well said, I think.

    I like honesty and clarity, which is to say that I greatly appreciate Dawkins, despite the fact that I fundamentally differ with him.

    Thanks for the good questions, and stay tuned.

    Tracy

    BTW: I see that in the absense of spell check I need to review my comments better...

  7. First, I have to read this blog with dictionary.com opened in a side window. ha. I think reading these posts would be good training for any high school student taking the SAT.

    "To even think that there can be a true or false about such (beyond a highly relative individual true or false) implies a metaphysical dimension to being that science cannot enter."

    Like you said, the definition of science is personal. That being said, I would argue that science enters metaphysics and vice versa. With each new discovery in neuroscience, our understanding of reality is deepened. The brain, which creates our sense of reality and existence, is being explored and understood in new and exciting ways. By exploring the perceiver of existence, I think we explore existence itself.

  8. topher,

    You have me smiling.

    There is a sense in which modern physics has almost eliminated the "physical" as it is ordinarily thought of (I think of Hawking's, and John Wheeler's and Paul Davies', popularizations of physics and cosmology). In that case one could argue either that the metaphysical/physical distinction is outmoded or that the physical has been evacuated in favor of the metaphysical...

    I'm going to have to think about the terminology. Perhaps scientific/spiritual gets to the point I had in mind better--and yet it has its own set of problems. But it would serve to highlight a core difference between a reductionist and a theist, that the theist thinks that there is just such a dichotomy, where the reductionist does not.

    As to progress bridging the phenomenal/noumenal divide, I'm skeptical. I think Wittgenstein cogently pointed out that empiricism and solipcism are the same thing viewed from different points. The circle grows, but it nevers transcends itself.

    Well, I'm afraid that there will be a real sense of whiplash when we return to scriptural analysis in the next post!

    Thanks again for your interest.

    Tracy

  9. Hello Tracy,

    I enjoyed reading this post. A couple of comments: With only reading your excerpt of Hitchens, I offer an elaboration of what he may have been trying to say. The reality (what we know) of the origins of the cosmos and man are just as awe-inspiring and wonderfully beautiful as any creation myth. The fact that we are made up of elements forged in the great furnaces of stars--We come from the stars! The question Hitchens and Dawkins ask is: why invoke the supernatural for things we have a physical explanation for?

    Secondly, even metaphysical concepts like morality and religion have a physical basis. I mean, their origins can be explained. The fact that we ask these questions can be explained (see Boyer's "Religion Explained").

    Furthermore, morality can have a rational basis. To quote Pinker in "The Blank Slate": "Morality as an internal logic and possibly an external reality, that a community of reflective thinkers can elucidate, just as a community of mathematicians can elucidate truths about number and shape."

    Lastly, I side with Dawkins and his ilk in seeing science (as your source of knowledge or epistemic metric) as being incompatible with a belief in a relational God. If God is frequently causing things that wouldn't otherwise happen, then we might as well forget about getting at truth via science, because science is based on determinism. Dawkins, I feel, would have little quarrel with anyone who believed in a God who did not interact with world.

  10. Hello Tracy,

    I enjoyed reading this post. A couple of comments: With only reading your excerpt of Hitchens, I offer an elaboration of what he may have been trying to say. The reality (what we know) of the origins of the cosmos and man are just as awe-inspiring and wonderfully beautiful as any creation myth. The fact that we are made up of elements forged in the great furnaces of stars--We come from the stars! The question Hitchens and Dawkins ask is: why invoke the supernatural for things we have a physical explanation for?

    Secondly, even metaphysical concepts like morality and religion have a physical basis. I mean, their origins can be explained. The fact that we ask these questions can be explained (see Boyer's "Religion Explained").

    Furthermore, morality can have a rational basis. To quote Pinker in "The Blank Slate": "Morality as an internal logic and possibly an external reality, that a community of reflective thinkers can elucidate, just as a community of mathematicians can elucidate truths about number and shape."

    Lastly, I side with Dawkins and his ilk in seeing science (as your source of knowledge or epistemic metric) as being incompatible with a belief in a relational God. If God is frequently causing things that wouldn't otherwise happen, then we might as well forget about getting at truth via science, because science is based on determinism. Dawkins, I feel, would have little quarrel with anyone who believed in a God who did not interact with world.

  11. One comment pecs:

    I don't think science precludes a belief in a relational God. For one, science is not based upon determinism. Determinism (Newtonian physics) is the large scale average of what is really occurring at the quantum level, which is probabilistic. Secondly, does a relational God have to frequently cause things that wouldn't otherwise happen? If a relational God has been in existence since the beginning, then isn't she as much part of nature as gravity? I would argue that she is in everything and everything is in her.

  12. Hello topher,

    Sure science is probabilistic. Besides mathematical logic, I'm not sure we know anything for certain. Science works much like the courtroom: gather evidence, reach a consensus verdict that has the highest probability of reflecting the truth. And yes, uncertainty is reflected at the quantum level. There is, for example, a chance that I could walk through the wall of my office, if you work out the math. But chances are, I'll smash my face. The fact that science is probabilistic does not detract from its epistemic value, IMO. From the little I know about epistimology, probability is well grounded there.

    "Secondly, does a relational God have to frequently cause things that wouldn't otherwise happen?"
    This is a huge reason as to why we pray. We expect God to enter into the world and fix something that is broken. The Bible is full of God interacting with the world in this fashion. I don't think Lazarus would have been raised from the dead, if the world was left alone. Or the Red Sea parted, or the disciples speaking in tongues etc etc. One of the most commonly held Christian beliefs, that the Holy Spirit is at work within us, changing our character into one more like Christ, requires that God be interacting with us, affecting the cause and effect of the natural world.

  13. Hello Tracy,

    Another interesting post. As someone who has lots of sympathy for deism and plenty of skepticism for organized religion, I will disagree slightly with Asimov's statement. First, a quote that had a profound effect on me years ago: "It is the difference between the unknown and the unknowable, between science and fantasy - it is a matter of essence. The four points of the compass be logic, knowledge, wisdom, and the unknown. Some do bow in that final direction. Others advance upon it. To bow before the one is to lose sight of the three." The rejoinder to that quote is that fantasy and imagination are what enables us to theorize about the unknown and find knowledge.

    Since Ockham's razor, science has been the clear victor between what are often called competing knowledge traditions. The main distinction is that although both are concerned with truth, religious truth is a way of coping with the unknowable, while science is a way of discovering what is unknown. Each is transcendent but in partially different areas and in very different ways. Scientific and religious communities are typically not willing to cede any turf to each other, except under the strictest terms of one being subservient to the other. The best way to reconcile them, in my opinion, is to limit science to objective questions of how and religion to subjective questions of why.

  14. Hi pecs,

    My purpose in this post is to grant the challenge that scientism poses for religion. So it wouldn't make sense to try to rebut your points... Tomorrow's post transfers that challenge to a scriptural context, and in the post after that we start digging our way out of the hole. Stay tuned.

    topher,

    It is rare that anything is ever settled in disputes between religious persons and skeptics. Too much supposition is involved. The challenge of positivism to explain precisely what religious language means and why it matters, in terms that a scientist must respect, may be the best route to a productive dialog. The question that I will be trying to answer could be stated, "Can a Christian explain the claim that Jesus came into the world to testify to the truth in a way that meets the challenge of scientism?"

    I don't quibble with your points. It's just that I'm up to something different here.

    And step2,

    I like the quote and your rejoinder. It reminds me of James' main concluding point in The Varieties, that a person's "overbeliefs" are often the most important and interesting things about her (paraphrase). Too often we forget that--and I suppose that at this point I seem to be forgetting it. After all, I just told pecs that my purpose in this post is to grant the challenge of scientism. I'm sorry to have to once again ask a reader top stay tuned... But the order of topics in the chapters was carefully worked out.

    I appreciate the comments!

    Tracy

Leave a Reply