Most people on whatever side of the political, cultural, and religious spectra today assume social conservatism and concomitant political action is motivated purely by religion. But this is not true, and social conservatives [have] failed to make this crucial point. Our “no” to things like abortion and same-sex marriage is rooted in our “yes” to fundamental natural truths about the human person and the human community accessible by reason.
Why, then, is it mostly religious people — not just Christians, but also Jews and Muslims and others — who advocate social conservatism, who protest at clinics, who run charities serving those in crisis pregnancies, and stand up for authentic marriage?
The answer: Religious people are the only ones remaining who really believe in the categories of reason and nature. What passes for reason in the secular world is a cold copy of the authentic thing that devolves into irrationality and nihilism.
[theological explanation of John 1:1 omitted for brevity]
Faith and reason are thus complementary in historic Christian understanding. In terms of a Venn diagram, the circles would overlap. I often ask my students: “‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Truth of faith, or truth of reason?’” Just because God forbids something doesn’t mean it’s not also a rational truth of nature.
Or take abortion. The Bible says precious little about it, as pro-abortion folk point out. But this is a point in our favor, actually. We don’t oppose abortion because God simply said so in an arbitrary fashion as the voluntarists would have it. Rather, we oppose abortion because it is unnatural and irrational. Unfortunately, many Christians — protestant, Catholic, evangelical — are unaware of the complementary nature of faith and reason, and so frame their arguments in passionate religious terms, and thus play right into the modern faith and reason split, enabling the marginalization of social conservatism as something merely religious and doing subtle damage to the pro-life, pro-marriage cause.Before class on Thursday, Dan and I were talking and he made the point that he deliberately didn't use any religious language when introducing the Marriage Amendment, because that would only push people's buttons without making a positive contribution to the debate.
And yet, was he doing that strategically, simply not talking about it, or was he not motivated by scripture, as this poster suggests should (?) be the case?
The reasons religious people site their Christian moral values, is because these are the only values that truly matter. There are other reasons to validate their points, but most find them a lesser point of argument. Fornication and adultery are sins, but not completely illegal.
ReplyDeleteThere are those who say, "God said it, I believe it, and that makes it true." This is a bit of a misnomer, the truth is, "God said it, that makes it true." It doesn't really matter if you believe it or not.
Dan purposely avoided religious language. He was following a prescribed attack that has a broader appeal. For those who feel they are truly doing God's work, to not give God the credit is self serving.
I think that removing the argument from the moral realm is a mistake for them. I think that the vast majority of people who fall on the conservative side of these issues make a moral rather than a rational choice when committing to their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI'm having trouble making sense of the third paragraph, his "answer". "What passes for rationalism in the secular world is a cold copy of the authentic thing that devolves into irrationality and nihilism." This contains a normative statement about what the "authentic thing" of reason is, as well as assigning some kind of transcendent value to reason in a way that, from what we have learnt, is very unconservative. For those reasons his suggestion is unsatisfying. He is making an epistemological argument. The modern consensus on such things is largely empirical, though admittedly with heavy tones of rationality influencing the process. Science, for instance, only becomes recognized once observations confirm the ruminations. The author would like us to rely entirely on rationalism (ie- ideas that make sense, but exist only in the world of abstraction inside our heads). In some ways, he is right, religious people are some of the only people left who consistently do that. They are used to founding their beliefs on something that remains entirely unsupported. Why should we expect them to stop once the argument is no longer blatantly theological?
The problem with this, however, is that couching their argument in terms of the secularly rational, as opposed to the theologically rational, well begin to push the narrative in which the argument is being held more in the direction of the current epistemological consensus. In other words, even though the new argument is less than scientific, it may be a movement in that direction. And sooner or later this new analysis will begin to show its flaws.
For instance, a counter to an assertion in his last paragraph, where he says that abortion is unnatural and irrational. It has been recorded in the anthropological literature that many groups of hunter gatherers will induce miscarriage through the ingestion of certain herbs, or even commit infanticide, when the family or larger group is not in a material position to care for the newborn. Uhoh its beginning to look less unnatural..
But then coming form a conservative position, these people are savages, and in no way do they represent what is "natural" for humanity. Its not like they live in the closest possible modern equivalent to our evolutionary environment or anything.
Some more philisophical talk..
Any account of the world that thoroughly attempts to rely on experienced or observable fact (though we take this on faith to some extent as well, trusting our senses and so on - id rather trust my senses than a mythical superbeing, but I suppose its really all just up to your personal comfort level with such things) quickly becomes very relativistic. While we can verify specific events with near certitude, the broader and more provocative normative statements that arise only through the use of rationalism are impossible with empiricism alone. Thus "it is unnatural and irrational" can never under any circumstances be proven either true or false with any kind of certitude through empirical means. We can cast doubt, as I attempted to do above, but it is good to be skeptical of statements with such normative intent.
I suppose what that paragraph is attempting to argue is that the closer we get to actual truth (and its not transcedant, its a best current understanding) the more relativistic we become. This is something that I would expect conservatives to deplore. Their epistemology would then center more heavily on rationalism and the psychological comfort of transcendent truths.
Daniel DeCarlo
I believe that Dan was making a very strategically brilliant political move that is often difficult for a conservative to remove from his own points of view.
ReplyDeleteMainly this can be seen in any conservative argument regarding social "injustices" world wide wherein radically conservatives call upon the morals and values of a higher being who in denied any and all rapture to individuals who debased or disregarded his suggestions to man on Earth. Stereotypically a Tea Party member will invoke the bible or God and suggest that because of the moral implications laid out by the religious institutions, creating laws that infringe upon those values is a caste of destroying American "tradition and cultures."
But I think in the current political atmosphere, what Dan did, was absolutely brilliant. In the thought that one would utilize provisions outside of the religious spectrum to identify a social problem and solve it as a fiscal issue, the target can be laid not only as a religious social concern, but it can also attach itself to the idea of fixing the economy and building a more appropriate society. It also allows Dan to stay above to political fray and offer answers that aren't contingent on a religious moral, but instead it can be identified as a societal issue with social implications.
With this argument he can reach out to his socially conservative base, while also appealing to reasonable men and women who see the issue as a societal concern involving economic suggestions wherein society can improve as a whole. It also avoids the negative gay rights implications in which Dan can look like a politician looking to solve our economic crisis by improving on and supporting a system that has proved to be a success in the past.