Time for a couple of shout outs. Dr. Al Mohler is doing an excellent series on Christian Morality and Public Law. I particularly liked his post which exposes three secular myths. Keith Plummer of The Christian Mind references Mohler and makes some good points as well about the myth of neturality: here and here.
Bottom line: there is no such thing as a religiously neutral worldview. If you are anti-religious, then your religion is anti-religion. If you claim to have no worldview, then you have the "no worldview" worldview.
I heartily agree with Plummer who says we must "we must view worldview formation and analysis as a vital part of the church's disciple-making task. Unless we teach believers how to think in wholes and recognize how individual beliefs emanate from larger systems of thought, they will be less equipped to 'destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God' (2 Cor. 10:4-5). "
Regarding the secular myths. I found the first two counter-arguments to be deeply unconvincing. In both cases he pre-supposes that religion *is* significant, and hence anything that doesn't address it is in opposition to a significant thing and therefore not neutral. Very true, if you assume that religion is significant.
A quick clarification is needed here: Religion is deeply significant in that it influences peoples' lives enormously (which is why I largely agree with his third point). But the significance I'm talking about is that of actual fact; religion is only important in that sense if it's true (i.e. a god exists), otherwise it's just a bunch of stuff that some people think.
So he seems to be characterizing secularism as an absence of belief, which is ridiculous. By that reckoning Christianity is anti-religious, because it denies the existence of no god but Allah with Mohammed as his profit, which is a religion. Secularism doesn't make itself anti-religious just because it doesn't take religious views as authoritative, any more than it's anti-flat-earthist if it doesn't take their views as fact. Now if it denied facts it would be anti-whatever-came-up-with-that-fact. Hence there is some justification in describing the current administration as anti-science (though I wouldn't overplay that).
Posted by: Paul | May 04, 2005 at 12:50
Jeff:
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
- Rush, "Free Will"
Question, however. What is the religion of a two-year-old? What is his worldview? Are you arguing that a two-year-old actually has a stake, and cannot be neutral?
Posted by: tgirsch | May 04, 2005 at 16:46
What is the relgion of a two year old?
Simple. The religion of ... it is all about MEEEE! :-)
I think two year olds have a worldview -- don't you? They have learned some critical things about the world, in fact. I would argue they are realists. They have a sense of right and wrong -- although they definitely need a lot of training in this area as I am sure Kevin will attest :-) They are not the most abstract thinkers on the planet -- but they are pretty good concrete thinkers.
The effects of the Fall show up quite clearly at two -- but so does the image of God. They are rational and begin to employ logic -- which is part of God's image that we share. E.g. Mommy is either paying attention to me, or mommy is not paying attention to me -- but she cannot be both paying attention and NOT paying attention to me at the same time -- law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle.
A. The goal of life is to make me happy.
B. Having a fire truck will make me happy (even if Billy had it first)
C. Therefore, it is right to take the fire truck.
Deductive, syllogistic thinking. And, unfortunately, terribly pragmatic and utilitarian. Logical, just bad moral reasoning :-)
Welcome to parenthood.
Posted by: Jeff | May 05, 2005 at 11:21
"I think two year olds have a worldview -- don't you? They have learned some critical things about the world, in fact. I would argue they are realists. They have a sense of right and wrong -- although they definitely need a lot of training in this area as I am sure Kevin will attest :-) They are not the most abstract thinkers on the planet -- but they are pretty good concrete thinkers.
The effects of the Fall show up quite clearly at two -- but so does the image of God. They are rational and begin to employ logic -- which is part of God's image that we share. E.g. Mommy is either paying attention to me, or mommy is not paying attention to me -- but she cannot be both paying attention and NOT paying attention to me at the same time -- law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle.
A. The goal of life is to make me happy.
B. Having a fire truck will make me happy (even if Billy had it first)
C. Therefore, it is right to take the fire truck."
I am not so sure about this, honestly (well, except the training part:) ). Two year odls and youngers don;t have a concept of "other", and so they don't really have a view of antyhing - -everything is pretty much an extension of themselves. If thats the case, then its hard to argue they have a worldview -- since a worldview implies a a way to deal with the world outside you. two year olds and younger don't think like that, I think its mor eliek this:
1)Wanna be happy
2)Firetruck by that bigger thing that looks kinda like me is cool!
3)Since its cool, it would make me happy, so I should have it
The concept of other doesn't really enter ito it until they get to about three or four. Child psychologists have done really, really interesting work on this subject. Up to a certian age, you can show kids a room with a table and a cookie and a person and a two buckets. You can have the person leave the room, then put the cookie in one bucket. When you ask the kids where the othe rperson thinks the cookie is, they will invariable point to the right bucket, since they saw where it went and they cannot really understand the fact that other people are not them.
Posted by: kevin | May 05, 2005 at 16:30
"The concept of other doesn't really enter into it until they get to about three or four."
I just saw a show on separation anxiety -- which sets in well before the age of three. This would indicate, to me at least, that the two year old is keenly aware of mommy and where she is (and when she leaves).
I have heard of studies that indicate that the bonding between mommy and baby occur very, very early in life.
I guess it is academic -- but a two year old does have a view of reality -- even if it is not well developed. They do have beliefs about how the world is -- "I am hungry" -- "look, there is mommy" -- "someone took my toy and that really ticked me off" -- "having toys makes me happy" etc.
Posted by: Jeff | May 05, 2005 at 16:57
"which sets in well before the age of three. This would indicate, to me at least, that the two year old is keenly aware of mommy and where she is (and when she leaves)."
But only to the extent that the toddler thinks of mommy kinda liek you think of your arm. They just don't have a concept of other people as other people. So they cannot really go through the thought process you laid out above - they aren't being selfish, becasue ti is literally inconcievable to them that there is anyone else's feelings to be concerned about, becasue there really isn't anyone else.
Posted by: kevin | May 06, 2005 at 19:00
I like the quote from Plummer about needing to think in wholes. Too often when I hear evangelicals talk about issues inside the church or in the broader culture the level of discourse is quoting a Bible verse. For some people this may work in terms of their daily walk with Christ, but it also means having a very thin understanding of God's Word and the Church's theology. To use a concept related to but different from Plummer's "whole," it seems we would do well to encourage Christians to learn the Christian story. When we know the larger story well, our own stories fit within the larger story and make sense. Obviously there is more to it than that, but this is a way forward to help the Christian community to a more robust lived theology.
Posted by: Glenn | May 09, 2005 at 16:10
Agreed, Glen. Yanking verses out of the Bible doesn't get us very far -- and in fact, can be used to justify just about anything (which you will see some of the commenters on this site do all the time).
Good hermeneutics is indispensible.
Posted by: Jeff | May 09, 2005 at 18:16
Yanking verses out of the Bible doesn't get us very far -- and in fact, can be used to justify just about anything (which you will see some of the commenters on this site do all the time).I assume you're referring to me, at least in part. But that's precisely why I do it -- to underscore the point that scripture doesn't get us very far. Christians throughout history have (mis)used scripture to justify all manner of wrongs. So scripture doesn't seem to be a useful tool for figuring out right or wrong. That's exactly the point I try to make when I cite scripture.
Now if you would be equally critical of people who cite scripture to make points you otherwise agree with, we'd be getting somewhere. :)
Posted by: tgirsch | May 16, 2005 at 18:02