Beyond the Atheism-Religion Divide


Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris -- they continue to make the bestseller lists with their strident critiques of religion, which they consider to be both insipid and dangerous. Harvey Cox, a theologian and author of one of the 1960s biggest sellers -- The Secular City -- offers a different view.
Cox appears on Krista Tippett's Speaking of Faith and shares his view of the current state of the religious world. Back in the 60's, when he wrote The Secular City conventional wisdom on the part of sociologists and other observers was that religion was heading for the margins. The secular city was on the road to dominance. Science not religion would be the dominant voice. Four decades later religion is still very much with us. While the New Atheists seem to have tapped into the angst of many observers of the bad side of religion, their critique isn't anything new nor is it especially sophisticated.
Cox finds a more cogent conversation partner in the late Stephen Jay Gould, his late Harvard colleague, who wrote of the religion-science conversation in his book Rock of Ages. This selection from Gould's book was read for the audience. I think it speaks well of the possibilities:
Reader: I'm not a believer. I am an agnostic in the wise sense of T.H. Huxley, who coined the word in identifying such open-minded skepticism as the only rational position because, truly, one cannot know. Nonetheless … I have a great respect for religion. The subject has always fascinated me, beyond almost all others (with a few exceptions, like evolution, paleontology, and baseball). Much of this fascination lies in the stunning historical paradox that organized religion has fostered throughout Western history, both the most unspeakable horrors and the most heartrending examples of human goodness in the face of personal danger.
I believe with all my heart in a respectful, even loving, concordat between the magisteria of science and religion … on moral and intellectual grounds, not a merely diplomatic solution. [This] also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions residing properly within the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution. This mutual humility leads to important practical consequences in a world of such diverse passions. We would do well to embrace the principle and enjoy the consequences.
Note the highlighted portion of Gould's statement. I find that very helpful and enlightening.
This conversation with Cox, which I've listened to twice already, is worth attending to. It suggests fruitful areas of dialogue between religion and science and many other fields. Cox talks about how at Harvard there are important conversations going on between scientists and religious studies people. Harvard has introduced a moral/ethical component to their undergraduate curriculum -- which has led to Cox's teaching a course on Jesus that attracts hundreds of students every year.
One thing that Cox said that stuck with me was the fact that there is this sacred/secular pendulum that seems to swing back and forth -- correcting one over reaching moment or another. Where we're at right now is what is interesting to consider. Have we become tired out by religion -- especially the strident sort? Only time will tell. In the meantime -- listen to the conversation here.

Comments

Popular Posts