Fundamentalists, Liberals -- We're all Postmodernists

Two events in recent weeks have reminded me how thoroughly postmodern our national debate has become. By postmodern, I mean that people do not agree on what sorts of things must be accepted as cold, hard fact. Or, to put it slightly more philosophically, there are no more firm foundations of knowledge. In earlier decades, most people accepted scientific conclusions as fact. Now, people on both the left and right tend to dismiss science that disagrees with their ideology.

An example of the right’s rejection of science can be found here in Georgia. As reported nationally, Cobb County required (the regulation was struck down) its schools’ biology texts to bear a sticker stating that evolution is a "theory, not a fact." Technically, of course, this is true. But evolution has such overwhelming support among scientists – and even among conservative ideologues like Bill O’Reilly – that it should be considered to be in the same category as "theories" about gravity and relativity.

Right now, liberals may be nodding their heads, agreeing that this is precisely the sort of thing we should expect from delusional, irrational fundamentalists. But we’re not totally different. In another widely reported story, Harvard president Lawrence Summers suggested at a private conference three reasons why top universities have so few women on their math and science faculties. The first two reasons – discrimination and pressures to begin a family during prime working years – were not terribly controversial. The third option he suggested – innate differences between the male and female brain – prompted at least one female scientist to walk out of his lecture and made Summers the subject of widespread ridicule.

Was the ridicule justified? Yes – because of his position, Summers dealt a blow to the credibility of female scientists, even if that was not his intention. Still, researchers have found a host of differences (beyond the obvious) between men and women. According to The New York Times ("Gray Matter and the Sexes: Still a Scientific Gray Matter" – I’d link you, but now you’d have to pay for the story), men and women differ in terms of the architecture of their brains, their average scores on quantitative tests, and even the way they metabolize medicines affecting the brain. The research does NOT prove that men are "better" at math and science then women. (This male struggles to add without a calculator). It does, however, suggest that there are real differences meriting further research.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that scientists did find evidence that men were better than women at math. Or that women were better than men at languages. Could liberals accept scientifically proven, aptitudinal differences between the sexes any more than fundamentalists can accept evolutionary science? Or would our commitment to an unnunaced equality trump the research?

Of course, we should be skeptical of any study that claims that women or minorities are genetically less capable of doing anything. Most of the time, such studies involve subtle bias – and biased "racial science" has been used to justify oppression for hundreds of years. Until we start seeing studies revealing that white men (like me) are naturally "bad" at something, we should be suspicious that prejudice is hiding behind the scientific method.

Still, it’s interesting that Summers’ opponents often skipped the science and went straight to angry rhetoric. Given our history of discrimination, it's understandable. But the righteous indignation present in the responses suggests that liberals take total equivalence between the sexes as a sacred article of faith. That belief – central to who we are and what we believe – will tend to discredit any science to the contrary, a bit like belief in creation trumps proofs of evolution. I'm not saying that evolution and theories of gender difference have equal scientific backing -- they don't -- just that we are all suspicious of science that interferes with what we already believe.

Maybe science will show we need a more nuanced notion of equality. Maybe men and women DO tend to assess problems differently. That doesn’t mean that one gender is better at science than another, but it may mean we solve problems in different ways. Must equality mean that men and women are exactly the same, that we function in exactly the same way? If it "must" mean that -- or else the researchers are misogynists! -- then we share something in common with the fundamentalists.

Like it or not, we’re all post-modernists here.

From the Doubting Uncle

An uncle of mine, who shall remain anonymous, is either agnostic or atheist. He is a great guy, though I fear for any would-be evangelists who knock at his door, as this soft-spoken Iowan would probably take their Bibles, beat them with them, and the ask them to kindly return to the Middle Ages. Or to Texas. Or wherever. (I'm from Texas. I get to say that). Anyway, this uncle is a little pissed about the election, and the good folks here at Mustard Seed (read: me) can hardly blame him.

Clearly, though, we don't agree on religion. So when my uncle sent me an email with a bunch of religion quotes today, I got to spout off. And now that I have a blog, I can spout off to a larger audience. So here goes my attempt at philosophy. I'm not too sophisticated or well-read in this regard, so those of you who really know philosophy, feel free to tell me I'm a moron. Anyway, here's a sample quote from my uncle's e-mail:

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

And here's my long-winded response, edited a bit:

I may take time to reply to specific quotes, but will here only state that all of us live by faith in some way. If you love your children and raise them accordingly, for example, you implictly assume that human life is valuable and worth perpetuating. But why would you assume that? In a world obviously full of suffering (tsunamis, a second Bush term, etc.) is human life inherently enjoyable? For many Americans, perhaps. But to most of the world's people, it's clearly not much fun.

Is human life inherently GOOD or VALUABLE? "Good" and " valuable" imply moral claims that can have no scientific basis. After all, what is life, scientifically speaking, but an odd, self-perpetuating arrangment of molecules? Rearrange our atoms, and we're no different than the dirt (to which we return).

Is caring for children simple evolutionary instinct? Probably at least in part, but taking that position risks your claim to rationality. Just like human brains seem to be wired to resist rationality (evolutionary theory, in your examples) and embrace religion, your brain is wired to mindlessly perpetuate meaningless life. Both, it seems, involve a sort of innate human need or instinct. To have children, to me, implies one of two things: 1) an irrational, unproveable assumption that human life is worth preserving. This is some variety of faith; or 2) a callous disregard for bringing into being a creature that craves meaning that it can never have, at least without engaging in self-delusion. Add in the physical cruelty of life in most of the world, and an atheist might argue that only the relatively affluent (those able to expeience at least sensual pleasure) have any business living.

Although I'm no philosopher, I can think of at least one consistent atheist option -- sort of an existentialist position. As I understand it (and I may have it wrong), you must order your life around an sense of meaning that you choose, then will yourself into believing. Otherwise, life remains unliveably absurd. Again, perhaps. But is your own willful delusion really any better than the "delusion" you inherit from your parents?

My point is not that you can prove God. You can't. But most of us live by faith that some things are just true -- freedom is good, oppression is bad, human life is valuable. Believing those things involves irrational assumptions -- faith. Of course, you can always declare those things meaningless delusions, too. Life may be meaningless. But then you may as well drop your work for the Democratic party, your concern about the direction of our country, your worries for the environment, etc. After all, the destruction of all human life, scientifically speaking, would just be a relatively minor rearrangement of atoms.

Blame America First?

Conservatives love to talk about those who "blame America first." The real problem is with those who believe that America is inerrant.

I was reading Charlotte Hays, the conservative blogger at beliefnet (www.beliefnet.com), who was blasting people who criticize the U.S. for being stingy with foreign aid. Just a bunch of blame-America-firsters! Her column reminded me of the critics of the 1960s anti-war movement -- America: Love it or leave it.

For Christians, such attitudes are worse than ridiculous -- they are flat out idololatry. Sound extreme? Consider that idolatry involves giving one's highest regard to something that is not God. Then consider how conservatives tend to view America in the world. When have you ever heard them criticize our military actions? Our foreign policy? Our take on the U.N.? We may debate within our borders, but as far as the world is concerned, we're inerrant. When we intervene abroad, we are never invaders. No -- we're agents of God's will on earth.

But wait. Isn't God alone perfect? As almost anyone's theology holds, America is a nation of sinners, as is any nation. Is it reasonable to think that a nation of sinners acts perfectly in the world? Of course not. Conservatives, however, act as though our collective national will (at least when Republicans are voting on it) is synonymous with the will of God. And here is where idololatry comes in: When we equate our national will with the divine will, we confuse the United States of America with God.

Actually, my Vietnam example is apt. Because America can be trusted to act sinlessly, out of sinless motives, in things like war, war protestors are not just against America. They're against God!

This sort of idolatry is not new. Ever since John Winthrop spoke to his fellow colonists about a "city on a hill," American society has sustained a belief that we are a New Israel, a people chosen by God for a special purpose. This distinctive view of America, however, is not Biblical or Christian. It's an ideology that has been used to justify our own selfish purposes -- from the slaughter of the Indians to the recent invasion of Iraq.

People who cripe about "blaming America first" have it wrong. We on the left blame America sometimes -- when we think our nation has gone astray and needs repentance. The options are not just "love it or leave it." If we love our country, we treat it as we would a friend -- when we see it go astray, we act to steer it back on course. That means protesting, crititicizing, complaining. Sometimes, that means blaming America. It may even mean being unpatriotic. What it certainly means, however, is being Christian.

The problem lies not with those who "blame America first," but with those who "blame America never." By making America inerrant in world affairs, they confuse the flag with the cross, and thus violate the first commandment: You shall have no Gods before Me.

(Note: Those of you who have read Stanley Hauerwas will know that this draws on him. Consider this a shout-out - or maybe just a citation)

A Flaw with the Christian Left

I do not often listen to Christian music. This is partly because I associate it with the glib, shallow Christianity of the "All right, everybody clap for Jesus!" variety. For me, that sort of casual familiarity -- as if Jesus were a rock star or a motivational speaker or an attendee at an AA meeting -- fails to do justice to the mystery of God. But last night, driving to an Atlanta-area coffee drinking establishment, I stumbled onto a Christian radio station (93.3, I believe). They were playing a band I recognized -- Caedmon's Call -- so I listened. The chorus had something to do with being in the hands of the potter.

It was one of the more worshipful moments I've had in a while.

So why am I somewhat embarrassed to write about a "worshipful" moment? Because I'm afraid my liberal friends will read it. "Worshipful" smacks of evangelicalism, of hand-raising, gay-marriage-banning, and -- perhaps worst of all -- of anti-intellectualism. I mean, worship? Wouldn't it be more productive to hold another "dialogue" about race relations? Or about interfaith issues? Jeez, if you get sucked into this worship stuff, won't you wind up handling snakes, speaking in tongues, and voting for tax cuts for the rich? It's a slippery slope.

NO. It's not. And I don't know many people who really believe that. So why does it feel that way? I think my fellow Christian progressives and I have allowed conservative Christians to claim worship as their private property. It has to do with identity. They raise their hands and cry when they worship. We are not them, so we cannot. We meditate. We light candles. We dig incense. We get into chants and medieval prayers and songs. Of course, there's nothing wrong with any of that. But can we allow ourselves to experience the cathartic release of worship -- a loving surrender to the almighty, mysterious God? By defining ourselves against conservatives -- and, hence, against worship -- we strip ourselves of part of the rich experience of faith.

In the car, though, listening to the radio, I found an evangelical song that gave me a moment of worship. It was a reminder of my connection to a loving God who does not require me to vote Republican or confuse the flag with the cross. It was a reminder that conservative and liberal Christians worship the same God, even if we both find ways to mangle God's will. And it was a reminder that worship -- emotional, surrendering worship -- is an activity appropriate to all Christians, not just conservatives.

I pray I remember that. And I pray that my cohorts on the Christian left remember that we, too, worship a mighty God.

Greetings

If Jesus says the poor are blessed, why do Christians bless them so little? Why do Christians favor programs that hurt the poor at the expense of corporate interests? Why do we, as a whole, prefer tax cuts to after-school programs? Why do we support infants until they are born but rail against welfare mothers after they give birth? I believe in a Jesus who blessed the poor, following a long prophetic tradition of inveighing for the rights of the dispossessed. That, at least, is the goal. I'll see you soon.