I have often observed the audaciousness of the American religion, of which conservative, evangelical fundamentalism is the most boundless in its drive to know beyond belief. Why must we transcend faith with near certainty? Perhaps it is our will for religious freedom, not for the self, but from other selves that drives our fundamentalisms. Regarding the American religion, and the title of this book, I realize that it could take courage to be an atheist, which makes me think of Kierkegaard and his poignant question: "How does one become a Christian in the age of Christendom?" What special remnant exists in a nation where gallup informs me that 70% of us pray to Jesus?
Geisler and Turek have compiled an impressive argument that ranges from scientific, textual, philosophical, and moral defenses that make up a new kind of apologia for evangelicalism. Though many would regard evangelical Christianity as a kind of faith, the authors have formulated a rational defense that renders their conceptions of science, philosophy, morality and the Bible nearly certain.
To be sure, modern day secularism is an easy target in America, since I remain convinced that very few of us are actually secular. To that end, sometimes justifiably, the authors portray atheism as a kind of bankrupt philosophy that has no basis for objective morality and truth.
"If God exists, then there's ultimate meaning and purpose to your life. If There's a real purpose to your life, then there's a real right and wrong way to live it. Choices you make now not only affect you here but will affect you in eternity. On the other hand, if there is no God, then your life ultimately means nothing. Since there is no enduring purpose to life, there is no right or wrong way to live it. And it doesn't matter how you live or what you believe--your destiny is dust."
This revealing paragraph does not describe a thought-out atheist, but the author's conception of what atheism would lead to. Where would Geisler and Turek be without their certainty? "Your destiny is dust."
In a way, I feel sorry for them. The authors build for us a rational universe based upon a Newtonian--or even an Augustinian model that pretends--whenever possible, that the last five hundred years did not happen. Reducing Emmanuel Kant and David Hume to self defeating simpletons, the authors trash the depths of secularism through a wide general survey, that aches for clarification. One struggles to get through a book like this. It nearly defeated me as I began to realize that the devil was always in the details of these wide sweeping judgements. The more I read the more I began to realize that Science and Reason had become gigantic metaphors for a Bible that contained no words. Instead only half digested grunts and yearnings of certainty and moral authority were all that remained, which could mindlessly impose themselves on anyone who would sanction this shallow relief from critical thinking.
Geisler and Turek find atheism to be vacuous because it lacks moral objectivity. I wonder if either have ever read Bertrand Russell or Ayn Rand? Rand in particular is interesting since Christian Evangelicals often share her conservative fiscal conceptions of rational self interest. John Galt could be a Christian speaker at the Suburban Christian Business man's Prayer breakfast.
After reading I don't have... I began to imagine a Christian moralist, sitting comfortably in his Church discussing the plight of American secularism and the decline of foundational ethics and morality, while the Marxist Atheist is dolling out soup in the inner city, with no "objective basis for his beliefs." Since conservative evangelical ethics are similar to Ayn Rand's objectivism, it is almost funny to contemplate how Rand wouldn't be caught dead in a soup kitchen.
The discussion on Science and Evolution wore me down, and after a while I began to realize that both Evolution and Creationism have an anxious relationship to one another. Their development can be traced as literary scheme that is anti-thetical in some ways to the other. Perhaps much can be learned and unlearned from scientists in both camps.
On the section of Biblical inerrancy and the historical Jesus, I am left cold by the Author's certainty which goes beyond speculation, to almost sheer fantasy. I am beginning to realize that "inerrant" does not describe anybodies actual experience in reading the Bible, which is a biblia or anthology of Jewish books that first and foremost contain language. The Bible is written with real words and a human being has the unique ability to decipher and evaluate them if she chooses to. Geisler and Turek offer to decipher those words for us, so that we need not read the Bible, or read a book on Evolution or Creation Science. They will do it for us, and thus they will convince the convinced.
No comments:
Post a Comment