Harvard professor Richard C. Lewontin, geneticist, biologist, and social commentator, wrote “Billions and Billions of Demons” for a review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark for The New York Times Review of Books (January 9, 1997) that explained why he and his peers were so committed to an atheistic and materialistic worldview:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

This quote illustrates perfectly how worldviews work: each is born of faith assumptions (”we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes”); each has absolutes (”materialism is absolute”); each excludes the other worldviews that challenge its faith assumptions (”we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”).

So it’s not just Christians who operate by faith, or who have absolutes, or who have an exclusive truth-system; materialists do, too.

Christians can accept the scientific method as a valid system for discovering causes and effects in our material world. We just don’t accept materialism as a totalistic worldview. The biblical worldview says that the material world is real, yet in spite of how things may sometimes seem (like we live in a closed material system), there’s something more than just the seen, material world.

And at Christmas, we celebrate and worship the Incarnation: the God who created the heavens and earth, and everything in them, at a certain point in history took on flesh and became one of us in Jesus Christ — the ultimate Divine Foot in the Door.

It’s become fashionable to say that “religion is the cause of violence, misery and wars in the world” and that society would be better off ridding itself of religion’s bad influence.

In this viewpoint “religion” usually means “Western” religion, which is code for monotheism, which is code for Christianity and Judaism.

But think: What’s the common thread behind suicide attacks in Mumbai and five other places in India this year, as well as 9/11 and the first World Trade Center bombings, piracy around the Horn of Africa, the subway train station attacks in London and Madrid, the Bali bombings, the beheadings of Daniel Pearl and Theo Van Gogh, and many other examples?

Definitely not Christian faith, definitely not Judaism, and definitely not the biblical worldview!

On TV last night, Deepak Chopra (with whom I have strong worldview disagreements) asked a very important question:

Why is this violent streak, spread worldwide, predominantly an Islamic phenomenon?

Here’s part of the answer: Militant Islam legitimizes terrorism to advance its religious vision — to bring the whole world under their brand of Islamic law (sharia). In the militant Islamic mentality, it’s good and proper to kill innocents in marketplaces, especially if they’re non-Muslims — but if Muslims also die it doesn’t matter if it makes people afraid of militant Islam and more likely to submit to them. It’s all about coercion and fear.

Fanatical, gangster Islamic groups often appear suddenly and are almost always described as “new and unknown.” But their multivarious names –like Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Jamaya el Islami, and the so-called “Deccan Mujahadeen” behind the Mumbai atrocities — are a sideshow. The core problem is militant Islam’s political/religious/fascist-like worldview that inspires these groups and those who openly (or secretly) supply them with manpower, money, material and morale.

Thankfully — and this must be stressed — the majority of Muslims do not believe or practice the fanatical, millitant brand of Islam. Unfortunately, a significant minority of Muslims do, or have strong sympathy for it. So it’s not just an internal problem that Muslims themselves must work out without help from outsiders.

Rather, non-Muslims must encourage moderate Muslims to actively and publicly oppose this cancer which is not just in their midst, but, in our increasingly pluralistic world, is potentially in the midst of all of us. Additionally, the rest of the world must sit up, take notice and actively oppose it — or suffer the violent consequences.

To the good people of India, and to the good people of Mumbai particularly:

Our hearts go out to you, your families and friends following the terrible atrocities in Mumbai.

What groteque evil! What an affront to humanity! May God comfort you.

We are in solidarity with you because since 9/11 we’ve been facing the same enemy. (Actually, we’d been attacked quite a few times before that, but people didn’t really start paying attention until 9/11. In addition, we know that for you in India, you also have experienced quite a few similar attacks, several within this past year.)

We have also been stirred by stories of heroism on the part of the hotel staff at the Taj, the firemen who fought the blazes while terrorists were still in the high-rises, the police and soldiers who gave their lives fighting the terrorists.

We hope that those who perverted the minds of those young attackers, and those who funded and trained them, will very soon be rooted out and permanently closed down. Until then, your sorrow is our sorrow, and your determination to bring about justice is our determination.

If the Southern Baptists’ 2007 statistics are right and 70% of Christian young people are leaving their home churches between the end of high school and the end of college — then it follows that churches are failing their young people.

Why?

Unfortunately, the message a lot of young people get from their church homes is “perform and conform.”

The “perform” part comes in social, cultural and behavioral expectations and approval. If on the outside you can “put on the act” and do what everybody else is, you’re fine and that’s the end of it. As a result, many young people develop a double life: one suiting their parents and authority figures; and an entirely different one for their peers.

Just at that point in life where youthful idealism, integrity and honesty ought to be kicking into gear, the church provides precious little space (room for discussion) for those things to happen.

The “conform” part comes in appeals to “just believe” and “don’t ask too many questions” — ignoring or having impatience about dealing with the tough issues — treating the tough issues as if they aren’t important enough to address or think about. You’re trained not to rock the boat regarding any of the denominational, social and cultural baggage that comes with any church community.

It’s tragic that just at that point in life where young peoples’ minds are awakening to the wonders of nature and ideas — at exactly that point the churches abandon the field. Rather than walking through the big ideas with young people, most of them leave how young people are going to integrate their faith with adult thinking up to chance.

Now, humans are social, and any human institution or grouping is going to have group behavioral norms and a common ideational foundation. This includes churches. So we shouldn’t fault churches for being human organizations.

On the other hand, when churches lay “performance perfection” standards on young people, we conveniently ignore and effectively contradict what the Bible teaches: that as humans, none of us measures up. All of us have sinned, compromised, and fallen short of God’s intentions for us. That’s why we need God’s grace through Christ in the first place.

And when the church becomes a place of conformity to a long list of belief standards, we conveniently ignore and effectively contradict the fact that, while there is a white-hot core of Christian faith, our church or denomination doesn’t have a monopoly on the truth and that we can learn much from other Christian traditions. We also effectively negate what I think is one of the most important verses in the Bible:

“Do not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind…” (Romans 12:2).

What can be done?

We need to foster an environment where people can safely talk about the big questions that all worldviews ask and about how Christian faith relates to these questions. We need to respect these questions because they are part of the human condition — no matter which religious or philosophical tradition they come from.

That adverb “safely” is important. If we close out discussion too quickly, we’ll continue to convey the message that Christian faith is narrow and brittle, not broad and expansive.

This has been my motivation for writing the two books below:

• Blah, Blah, Blah addresses the issue of pluralism and tolerance (How can Christians claim to have the Truth when there are so many other truths out there?).
• The Late Great Ape Debate addresses the challenge of evolution and science (What are the four Christian responses to evolution and why are they so different?).

I hope they can serve as resources for you.

Here are a couple of online resources that might be useful to you for sharpening your understanding of the biblical worldview compared to the alternatives and/or for teaching advanced worldview studies.

1. PBS’ “The Question of God” based upon a popular course taught at Harvard taught by professor Armand Nicholi that contrasts two worldviews: that of Sigmund Freud and that of C.S. Lewis.

In the PBS special, C.S. Lewis represents the “faith/religious” perspective (which for Lewis is the biblical worldview) and Freud represents the atheistic perspective.

2. Slates’ “Meaningoflife.tv” which is more topical, asking questions about God, evolution, consciousness, free will and the problem of evil — and having one critical thinker address each problem.

In Slate’s series of interviews, the respondents on camera are leaders in their various fields, all of whom believe that evolution is true. Most of the respondents do not affirm the personal, communicating God of scripture — but some of them (like John Haught, Owen Gingrich, Lorenzo Albacete and John Polkinghorne) do.

For further thought and discussion: In the biblical worldview, an essential aspect is affirming a personal, communicating God who has revealed himself through scripture and preeminently through Christ. Haught, Gingrich, Albacete and Polkinghorne go that far. However, be cautioned: you might want to consider taking some of the things these respondents say with grains, or shakers, of salt.

This is a historic night. America has elected its first black president.

I’m thinking of the Declaration of Independence, the Civil War, the words of Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech, the Civil Rights movement.

What a great country.

Worldview lesson: The Bible says to pray for those in authority. Time to start praying for Barach Obama and his transition team. There are many challenges ahead.

California’s Proposition 8 is about defining marriage as between one man and one woman. It is intended to overturn a judicial decision to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

Proponents of Proposition 8 and traditional marriage typically produce several arguments:

1. The theocratic argument: Civil law should enforce religious law. Since God has clearly shown us in scripture that marriage is between one man and one woman, therefore this view of marriage should be the law of the land.
2. The traditionalist or Natural Law argument: Civil law should reflect moral law. Since marriage has never been about homosexual unions, and since the great weight of tradition across thousands of years and many cultures points to marriage as between one man and one woman, and since God’s law in scripture reinforces this view, marriage should continue to be defined as between one man and one woman.
3. The negative social consequences argument: Society benefits from heterosexual marriage because it gives the best environment for the raising of children, society’s greatest resource for the future. Same-sex marriage, by definition, cannot produce children and therefore child-raising is not primary on the same-sex marriage agenda.
4. The religious liberty argument: If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, then the state will make Christians and others who object to homosexual marriage on moral grounds second-class citizens, will try to force on public schoolchildren the idea that homosexual marriage is okay, and will start to put legal pressure on religious groups to accept homosexuality. This has already happened in Canada and Massachusettes.

My evaluation: #1 is a bad argument. The biblical story has a brief period in which theocracy was the order of the day, but in no way is that normative for all times and places. Also, it goes against the principle of religious liberty ennunciated in the 1st Ammendment of the Constitution. #2, 3 and 4 are much stronger.

On the other hand, proponents of same-sex marriage argue that:

1. The rejection-of-religion argument: Religion should be a private affair and have no influence in law and the public sphere.
2. The changing-religion argument: Religion should change with the times; although traditional heterosexual marriage is taught in the Bible, there’s no reason we should look at that ancient view as normative for today.
3. The equality argument: All citizens should be treated exactly equally, thus eliminating the need for the state favoring traditional marriage.
4. The civil liberties argument: Marriage is a civil liberty and that the state should not discriminate against homosexuals.
5. The anti-racism analogy: Having the state favor traditional marriage is like favoring one race over another.

My evaluation: #1 is a flat-out rejection of the biblical worldview and very prejudicial against people of faith (Why should they alone not take their deepest convictions to the public square?). #2 completely rejects responsible biblical interpretation, re-interpreting the Bible according to the whims of the day. #3 rejects the obvious fact that the law should recognize differences between people, such as that between men and women. #4 states that marriage is whatever we want it to be; there’s no rational reason that this argument cannot be applied to polygamy, polyandry or other multiple-partner combinations. #5 confuses the good thing that the civil rights movement accomplished and improperly applies it to same-sex marriage.

What we have here is a classic clash of worldviews. The homosexual agenda and same-sex marriage may look innocuous, but in fact are religious bigotry in action, are profoundly antagonistic to the biblical worldview, and ultimately work against religious liberty.

For more reading:

Pro Prop 8

• Same-sex marriage threatens religious liberty.
• Same-sec marriage challenges religious liberty.
• Christians lose when gay activists win.
• Same sex marriage,  censorship, and the separation of church and state.

Anti Prop 8

• Book Review (Dec. 2007), Everything You Know About God Is Wrong.
• Gay Rights, Gay Marriage, Homophobia.

In this past Sunday’s Los Angeles Times’ letters to the editor, Stanley R. Moore of Claremont wrote a response to Gregory Rodriguez’ article “That Need for Opium” (October 6) that made a whole lot of sense.

It was also a fine example of worldview analysis.

The first thing you need to do in any worldview critique is identify guiding assumptions. Moore quickly identified two:

• the assumption that religious faith cannot be grounded in evidence;
• that therefore, religious faith must have a psychological basis that, from Marx and Freud, always turns out to be fear.

Moore says, “Both, methinks, are painfully condescending.”

Then Moore offers this very insightful paragraph:

People of faith believe for the same reason a person holds to any worldview — it makes sense of a wider range of our deepest experiences. The view that religion is ultimately grounded in fear is thus just as much an article of “faith” as any. And less cogent, for it fails to consider the possibility that faith appeals not to our weaknesses but to our strengths, that believers believe not because their fears are soothed but because, like hearing a great piece of music, they have been awakened, emboldened, “suprised by joy.”

This is a great point. I love how it dramatically shifts the value of faith in God from the negative to the positive.

One very slight quibble: I’d put it in more of a both-and than an either-or way. In other words, I would want to say that the biblical worldview best addresses both the universal human experience of fear (the death, judgment angle) as well as the universal human aspiration experience (the desire for meaning, belonging, contributing angle).

Thank you, Stanley R. Moore, for your observations from Claremont, the “mount of clarity.” May many more Stanley R. Moores arise!

Pope Benedict XVI recently said that the world’s financial system is ‘built upon sand.’

He quoted Jesus Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7:24-27, which distinguishes between builing your life upon “the rock” or building your life upon “sand.”

Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.

The pope elaborated:

He who builds only on visible and tangible things like success, career and money builds the house of his life on sand. . . We are now seeing, in the collapse of major banks, that money vanishes, it is nothing. All these things that appear to be real are in fact secondary. Only God’s words are a solid reality.

An observation

People often misunderstand this kind of statement. They think that the Bible, the pope, and Christians in general are, by definition, impractical because they devalue “this” world or treat it as if it is of no account.

However, this is not an accurate understnding of what the Bible really teaches.

The biblical worldview recognizes the reality of two worlds: the physical/material and the spiritual/immaterial. Furthermore, the biblical worldview says that “this” world (the physical/material) is temporary, while the spiritual realm is eternal.

In other words, “this” world is important because it is the world in which we live out our spiritual commitments. The spiritual world takes priority over “this” world; the eternal trumps the temporal; but the temporal world is still very important!

Now, when the Bible (or Christians) are emphasizing the priority of the spiritual, the language used sometimes sounds like a negation of the physical/material — as if the spiritual is everything and the physical/material is nothing.

This language problem is compounded by the worldview/philosophical belief that the spiritual is pure and good, but the physical/material is corrupt and bad — a belief comes from Greek philosophy and blends of Greek philosophy with Gnosticism. But it definitely is not what the Bible teaches!

On the contrary, the Bible teaches that God created the physical/material world and that it is good (see Genesis 1). God also gave humans authority to be creative and take dominion over the physical/natural world. This would include social contructs like societies, cultures, and financial systems.

Financial systems include human ingenious creations like money (from shells to dollars to digital computer sequences) and credit. We could call this “paper.”

So financial systems are not in themselves inherently evil. In fact, they can bring about much good — the streamlined exchange of goods and services; education; providing for the poor; and many other examples.

Rather, the abuse of financial systems - through greed, short-sightedness, placing material concerns as superior over spiritual, lack of wisdom — is evil. The Bible is very clear: all human systems can be (and in the real world are) perverted by sin, which essentially is putting our ultimate loves and loyalties in the wrong place.

Ultimately, if we trust in riches, we’re builing upon sand because they are temporary and they are not a worthy goal in and of themselves. We’re put here on earth to learn to trust God and to show it by loving our neighbor in practical ways (that are very likely going to involve money).

What insights does the biblical worldview give us when financial markets collapse, or come close to collapsing as they have this past week?

1. We get a real, emotional gut check. Are we trusting our money more than God?
2. We have the opportunity to consider the eternal vs. the temporal.
3. We get to sort out what we love.
4. We have to decide what to do about our anxiety.
5. We have to re-examine what prudence, wisdom and ethics in finances mean.
6. We need to consider justice issues: not just what’s good for “the economy” or “the banking system,” but the average American citizen. Any thought of golden parachutes for the wealthy men who got us into this mess must be resisted tooth and nail.

What’s your opinion?