Osler's Razor

In response to my piece in the Star Tribune last week, Sean Cahill (a sharp UST law grad and former student of mine) sent me some thoughts that I thought merit broader reading:

1. Moral/Religious Conversation in America

A. Liberals/Secular Society's Need, But Failure, To Be Fluent In Moral Thought/Beliefs

My greatest disappoint in liberal society is it willingness to ignore thousands of years of philosophy and theology in light of a political agenda. I think anyone who has spent serious time reading St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, or C.S. Lewis realizes that the questions and answer posed by Christianity are not easily dismissed or ignored. However, many liberals absolutely refuse to engage with these thoughts...and in many cases, it is because they cannot. Many simply are not fluent in religious language, much less moral language. If you put a devout Christian (or any member of faith), a moderate person of faith/secularity, and an avowed atheist into one room and ask them to talk morality- it is like ships passing in the night. No common grounds, no common language, no common starting points. We need to find that common language. I'd argue that the language needs to be based one steeped in the language of traditional norms and that the non-religious must learn it.

But why the place the burden on non-religious rather than the religious? I'd argue that since non-religious movements are trying confront "traditional" notions, they bear the burden of proofs, so to say. As the ones pushing for change, I believe that they bear the burden of presenting their case in terms which address the principles and concerns of the traditional. Traditional norms are not without their validity because they have offered some sort of stability and reasonable governance of society. In addition, their values are legitimate- if God does exists, there is definite reason to be concerned with his thoughts on the matter. Liberals need to be able to discuss how they appreciate and have considered those traditional norms and why their liberal is not completely removed from other valid norms. There is a fantastic book called, Imagined Communities from a historian named Benedict that highlights that new governments/social movements must generally claim the heritage of an early community to be considered legitimate. By adopting the mantle of a previous community, the new movement shows that is based on something that once was legitimate, but lost. I think this an essential part to advocating a new idea because it validates our human experience and previous trials. By grounding a new thought in an old idea- we both validate the traditional and empower the new. That being said, in the current issue, I think "queer theology" is just emerging from its nascent beginnings and is struggling to develop itself. Where academics are struggling, it is no surprise that average people are without the language to deal with the issue. In summary, the language may not be there yet...but maybe once we can do that, the issue will much more quickly resolved

An important distinction, however, is the difference between the militant scientist/atheist and the moderate, average person on only engages in superficial or generalized discussion. The militant refuses to embrace moral/religious language on the basis that it is founded and derived from a fantastical (in the derogatory sense) story or imagined construct. Consequently, the language and thought process itself is flawed based on a mistaken (or assumed) first principle- God exists. In contrast, the militant scientist's insistence on proof, evidence and objective measurements is naturally abhhorent to persons of faith. The refusal to even consider the other side's evidence or language of explanation pretty much ensures that any attempted discussion is dead on arrival.

On the flip side, I think philosopher's tend to be a bit more forgiving given that philosophy has tried to play with concepts of a "first mover" and the nature of non-physical existence. (I.e., "Cogito,ergo sum." or its Chrisitan predecessor from St. Augustine: "Pecco, ergo sum"). Maybe we all need to be a little more like philosophers and not activists.

However, I think most people cannot approach religious discussions because they don't have the tools. From lack of language of itself (i.e.,even a working, comprehensive definition of the idea of "faith" is hard to come by) to an inability to withhold our personal convictions (and interepreting disagreement as personal affronts), people are quite unable to speak on the issue at all without considerable frustration and pain. The few chances we take in offering controversial opinions is often met with derision and anger because we are neither understood in our offer nor understanding of a response. I.e. "I think gays are entitled to equal rights." Response: "Thats because you failing to consider God's intended purpose." Counter: "God's 'purpose' is an archaic notion that has no place dictating modern policy." In three lines, everyone is offended because we can't listen and respond in terms that are not offensive to the other side. Again, a common, respectful approach is required, but not presently embraced.

Also, most people do not have time or desire to commit to this type of discussion. "I'm just going to think what I want, and leave me alone" sort of mentality. As a society, we need to acknowledge that we are being confronted with dramatically different ways of viewing and understanding our human existence. No one can afford to sit on the sidelines. If anything, we all need to practice and live argument so that when someone from the opposing side speaks, we can at least understand and respond.

B. Greater Need For Acknowledgment and Articulation of Atheist/Secular Morality

A common problem with dealing with atheism and/or secular morality is there are little resources or persons who can present an organized, rational articulation of an atheist morality. I'm not saying it does not exist, but it does not have the benefit of 2000 years of human history to write down. Serious efforts need to be taken by atheism/secularism to develop its own moral system. For starters, I think one needs to start with a valuation of the human person and the human experience. Indeed, if our goal is "equal rights," it seems necessary that an atheist principle must espouse why there is a need for rights at all. Again, I'm not saying such explanations do not exist, I just contend they are neither readily available, widely shared, or commonly known. And without it, the religious have nothing to engage or compare itself with.

Conversely, members of faith needs to at least appreciate that atheism/secularism is not practically evil. While we may disagree fundamentally, that does not mean that we cannot find common practical grounds to share and espouse. This is sort of a "ends matter, means do not" type argument. By at least, turning to practical similarities (i.e., violence is bad), we can at least attempt to craft reasonable laws and/or mores.

C. Science Is At Its Limit In Issues of Sexuality

With respect to human sexuality, there is a lot of new questions posed by science that do not have answers. Transgender issues and experiences raise troubling questions that shatter assumptions about physicality, the nature of gender, and morality associated with perceived gender roles. Yet, no answers can provided! We have yet to explain why transgenderism or homosexuality occurs in nature, its effects, or the consequences it has on others who are exposed to it. (I.e., the notion of "gay parents=gay kids."). There is a huge vacuum in science. Like homosexulaity, where the religious cry out: "Disordered Love!!"; scientists are left to respond: "But it seems okay, practically...." without a whole lot of evidence. Dealings with love, emotions, and attraction are still fairly mysterious to us, I'd argue. Until science can provide some evidence on its own terms (i.e. objective, measurable data) or atheist system of values/philsopgy , the conversation will be inflammatory and derisive.

2. Who Is Talking? Academia, Not Media Punditry, Needs to Step Up and Actively Participate

I'll give you kudos for this one. I think you're unique in your approach that you're willing to take a public stance on issues and reflect on them in an open forum. More academics need to do just that- reflect in public. With the growing rise of individualistic media, larger media corporations are abandoning principles of neutrality. (The debate whether "neutrality" existed at all is a whole other question...) Regardless, with the rise of position-drive media, there is a greater need for experienced "thinkers" to serve as examples of reasonable, thoughtful consideration. Pundits don't serve as examples of moderation or exemplify how a general citizen may approach and weigh an issue; they merely offer catchy phrases and snarky bullets that are easily repeated. What we need are conversations in which a person can both validate and empower both sides of the issue. Instead of find ways to shoot down one side, commentators need to find ways in which they can acknowledge and co-opt opposing principles.

In short, reflection, meditation, and conversation are not celebrated or exhibited methods to approaching an issue. In a world dominated by definitive, bombastic headlines, "Maybe" has no place. We should be turning to reasoned consideration rather than popularist advocacy to answer these issues. Otherwise, we end up isolating everyone and no one wants to get together at all to do anything constructive. But then again, when has "shut up and listen" ever been popular?