Acid Test

The Donatist wing of US fringe fundamentalism is likely nodding sagely to itself after the passing of Pentacostalist snake-handler Jamie Coots. Obviously he was no true apostle or he would have survived the bite.

Perhaps the Church of England should adopt a new litmus test for clerical worthiness?

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

The Role of Reason in Religion, Briefly

Over at Facebook there's a discussion raging about the recent debate between Bill Nye "the Science Guy" and Ken Ham of the "Creation Museum." Some have given the palm to one or the other, or the palm to the face, as in "Why did Nye agree to this and dignify young earth creationism as if it were science?" However, I think the most instructive thing about the debate is that it displays the difference not between science and religion (which is why it may have been unwise for Nye to engage in it) but the difference between science and phoney science, and between true religion and mere dogged belief, what is sometimes called fideism. Ham is guilty of both phoney science and false belief. Does that sound harsh? Let me say more...

The most telling point in the "debate" came when both interlocutors were asked what sort of evidence might change their minds about Evolution or Young Earth Creationism respectively. Nye gave a list of possible pieces of evidence and said that were they presented he would have to change his view. Ham hemmed and hawed a bit, but essentially said that no evidence could cause him to change his beliefs. That is the problem with his view in a nutshell. His "truth" is unrelated to any "facts." And that's neither science nor religion, but folly.

For facts can stand without "truth" but "truth" cannot stand without facts. A faith that fails to take account of reality is based not just on a lack of evidence (which is one thing) but a denial of evidence, (which is falsehood). As Hooker said, Scripture is intended to supply those revealed truths that cannot be derived from nature. That means both that truth can be learned from nature, and that "revealed" truth cannot contradict what is learned from nature. It is a matter of a reasonable faith versus a kind of blind acceptance of the false. Ken Ham's statement that no evidence could convince him that his "truth" is mistaken is not Christian doctrine, at least as Hooker understood the interplay of reason and faith, which is how I understand it.

Here's something from a higher authority than me, if you like, though I don't think the level of authority makes it any more true: Pope Benedict XVI stated, "The Catholic Tradition, from the outset, rejected the so-called 'fideism,' which is the desire to believe against reason. Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd*) is not a formula that interprets the Catholic faith." (General Audience, November 21, 2012)

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
________________
* My note: "I believe because it is absurd" is attributed to Tertullian. Though he did indeed go off the rails with his ultimate reliance on private revelation, it is fair to say that this attribution is out of context, as he was employing a rhetorical device to show how the scandal of the cross was not, in fact, a scandal.

Thought for 1.23.13

Political fundamentalists read the Constitution in the same way that religious fundamentalists read the Bible: without context. While claiming to be faithful and literal, their understanding often wanders very far both from the text and its original intent.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
Thinking particularly of those who imagine a militia was designed to attack the government rather than to serve it...

Thought for 02.20.11

Why is it so often the case that people who offer the challenge, “Where in the Bible does it say X?” are conservative Christians who should know perfectly well where in the Bible it says X but apparently don’t know, and who when shown where in the Bible it says X immediately try to explain it away is irrelevant, immaterial, and unimportant?

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG