The theme for the remainder of the term is "Faith and Reason". You will remember, some of you, that I have invited you to volunteer, or to nominate someone else, to speak on this topic. We have three confirmed speakers so far. I invite others. Otherwise, I will preach on.
I would like to begin today by reading the opening words of a very small book called "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. This little book, which is only one of many in the recent genre that I call evangelical atheism, has caused quite a stir. These opening words will help you understand why. Here is what Sam Harris says:
"You believe that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus is the Son of God, and that only those who place their faith in Jesus will find salvation after death. As a Christian, you believe these propositions not because they make you feel good, but because you think that they are true. Before I point out some of the problems with these beliefs, I would like to acknowledge that there are many points on which you and I agree. We agree, for instance, that if one of us is right, the other is wrong. The Bible is either the word of God, or it isn't. Either Jesus offers humanity the one, true path to salvation (John 14:6) or he does not. We agree that to be a true Christian is to believe all other faiths are mistaken, and profoundly so. If Christianity is correct, and I persist in my unbelief, I should expect to suffer the torments of hell. Worse still, I have persuaded others, and many close to me, to reject the very idea of God. They too will languish in "eternal fire" (Matthew 24:41). If the basic doctrine of Christianity is correct, I have misused my life in the worst conceivable way. I admit this without a single caveat. The fact that my continuous and public rejection of Christianity does not worry me in the least should suggest to you just how inadequate I think your reasons for being a Christian are."
After reading such an opening salvo, one hardly knows where to start in reply. But it is important to reply for two reasons. One is that this kind of attack on Christianity is increasingly common among academics and intellectuals who have, for very understandable reasons, come to see religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as the main enemy in the perceived culture wars. Anyone who claims to be a believer needs to understand these charges and be able to respond to them. Second, these kinds of disagreements, when taken seriously, help thoughtful people grow. And that is our purpose here.
Perhaps it is not new for you, if you are a person of faith, to have your faith attacked by your teachers and your peers. But I expect it is. The critics of faith are right in saying that in our country it has generally been considered impolite to criticize anyone's religious beliefs in public, no matter how absurd those beliefs are. And the result, they say, is a nation - and a world - where religious pathology has been allowed to spread more or less without challenge.
There are of course three events that are primarily responsible for the new public, intellectual criticism of religion. The most powerful, of course, is 9/11, where all of us saw the horrifying consequences of religious fanaticism. But instead of seeing this as fanaticism, some have seen it as the essence of religious belief - and therefore all religious belief is seen as suspect at best and pernicious at worst. The second is the political alliance between the present republican administration and a certain kind of naive Christian faith. People who have been outraged by some of the decisions and policies of this administration have noted, correctly, that the president has made very public his allegiance to a certain kind of Christianity, and they assume that this kind of Christianity represents Christianity as a whole. Therefore they reject the kind of unreflective faith they see exemplified in public as the only - or at least the dominant- kind of Christian faith. And thirdly, of course, is the specific contest between creationists and evolutionists, a false battle if ever there was one -- but one that has attracted tremendous publicity and has given people the impression that they must choose sides.
To answer these charges, we must admit several things, from a perspective of humility (as Peter says). But humility does not weaken the reasons for our beliefs; instead, it simply proposes them non-defensively. Here are some.
First we must admit that most of us are Christians - or Jews or Muslims or Hindus or atheists - because of the way in which we have been raised. Just as we speak English (or Spanish or French or whatever) because we were taught it from birth, so also we are taught a fundamental orientation toward the world that is the essence of religion - or secularism. We may modify this outlook as we grow up, but we are usually formed by it in a fundamental and inescapable way. Just as it is silly to have arguments about whose family is better than another or which language is better than another, so it is silly to have arguments about which religion is superior to another. Our allegiances are usually primal, and all the intellectual superstructure we erect to support such arguments are usually absolutely unconvincing to a person from a different orientation.
I said usually. Just as there are people who learn another language and prefer to use it, there are people who convert to another religious, or non-religious, perspective. This does happen. There are reasons for such a change that have more to do with expediency or preference than with truth, even though the convert to another language or another country or another religion will often attempt to justify the decision on the basis of truth or superiority: doesn't French just sound better than English? Isn't a francophone able to express subtleties of reality far better than an anglophone? I am content to let persons who think so think so.
Second, we must admit that all of us retain and develop our religious beliefs - or non-religious beliefs - just so long as they are valuable to us. Perhaps the value may be slim: they may enable us at a minimum to enjoy certain family rituals or holidays. Or they may provide the rock-solid core of reality that we adhere to desperately in times of raging storms. Or, for persons of an intellectual temperament, they may be valuable as systems of thought. But if a belief of any kind ceases to be useful or valuable, it becomes a tool in the chest that is rarely if ever taken out. This is true of all kinds of beliefs - religious, scientific, cultural, whatever. So when we examine our own beliefs, or those of others, we should be aware that these beliefs that are being advocated by ourselves or others are deemed valuable and useful. That is why we must respect the beliefs of others, even if we do not agree with them. Perhaps we can not see their value; perhaps we will come to see them, perhaps we never will. But it is impossible for anyone to truly embrace and maintain a belief that has no value or usefulness in the person's life.
And finally, because this is a brief sermon --- let me answer Mr. Harris particularly and quickly. I concede that there are some Christians - perhaps many - whose beliefs he accurately describes. But they are not my beliefs. I know that I am a Christian because from earliest youth I was taken to Sunday School and told some preposterous things, and some valuable ones. As I have grown up, I have sorted out which are which. Like St. Paul, when I became a man, I put away childish things. I believe that the Bible is a very valuable book; we try to describe its special value to us and our community by saying that, for us, it is the word of God. We would be hard put to describe precisely what that means. People who try to say precisely what it means - that it was dictated by a supreme being to certain writers - do not usually convince me that they know what they are talking about. I am perfectly content to say that it is a very important, very useful, supremely valuable book, and that this supreme value is what we mean - or what I mean - when I call it the word of God. And Jesus? I like him. He speaks to me with unique power He shows me who God is. If God is not like Jesus, I am not particularly interested. Might I be wrong? Yes, but I am willing to take the risk. And the afterlife? Eternal bliss or punishment? I leave that to the God whom I know in Jesus Christ. It is common for Christians - and others, even Mr. Harris - to make pronouncements about ultimate fate and eternity. Arguments about such subjects are silly. Instead, let us discuss what gives us hope. After all, that is the only reason for having a religion - or no religion - at all.
copyright © 2007
Richard R. Crocker
