Saturday, 19 December 2009 by Paul Dubuc.

I’ve had this one in the queue for too long. It’s time to just push it out there.

Can we be good without God? I’ve recently had a very long discussion along these lines with a friend and former colleague of mine over on his blog and in private e-mail. He’s someone who I had come to respect very much in the time when we used to work together. Job changes and a geographical move have separated us for several years, but it’s easy to keep in contact over the internet. We see eye-to-eye on many things. I highly value his technical knowledge and skill and consider him to be one of the most gracious and helpful people I know in his attitude toward others. But we’re worlds apart when it comes to our most basic beliefs. He’s an outspoken and confident atheist. I’m a taciturn, often struggling, disciple of Jesus Christ. Challenges to my beliefs from others have often provoked me to self-examination and searching, especially when they come from friends. Our discussion was lively and passionate but also very civil and respectful. For me keeping those qualities in balance is a highly valued goal, but one that takes lots of patience and practice. It doesn’t come naturally. The particular problem of whether or not our moral reasoning has any adequate grounding unless it is in God as the authority who transcends human opinion and who is the moral architect of the universe has come up for me in personal discussion and in online forums for many years. I’ve touched on the issue in this blog before here, here and here. Two years ago I had the chance to write a short research paper on the subject. I want to leave a link to that paper here for those who might be interested in reading it. I value your thoughtful comments. But there’s also some personal reflection on this that I want to express.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Religion, Personal | Print | 1 Comment »

Sunday, 27 September 2009 by Paul Dubuc.

I recently read an essay in the current issue of The Atlantic by Christopher Hitchens entitled “Cheap Laughs: The smug satire of liberal humorists debases our comedy—and our national conversation.” Hitchens’ complaint with liberal humorists like Al Franken and Jon Stewart seems to be that they are as ideologically bound as their right wing counterparts. Their satirical wit employs a double standard that belies the inconsistencies and foibles of reigning liberal politicians while continuing to hold chastened conservatives up to scorn. I could be wrong. Hitchens doesn’t seem to make his point clearly, but he seems to want to hold liberal humorists up to a higher standard than others, and seems dismayed at the way some of them are being compared favorably with Mark Twain or Walter Cronkite.

Then, while cleaning out some old magazines, I happened to read a column in the April issue of Touchstone by J. Daryl Charles called “Wasted By Watching” (sorry, it’s not online at this time) about what I think is one of the most important books I have ever read.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Politics, Religion, Books | Print | 1 Comment »

Sunday, 18 January 2009 by Paul Dubuc.

Quite by accident yesterday I came across a reprint of New York Times columnist David Brooks’ editorial “In Defense of Death” in the Columbus Dispatch. It’s a tribute of sorts to Richard John Neuhaus, a theologian and Catholic priest who died on January 8. Neuhaus was the editor of First Things, “The Journal of Religion, Culture and Public Life.” I was a regular reader of that journal for the first several years of its publication and came to value the unique and intelligent, if often controversial, perspective of its writers on the role of religion in public life. Neuhaus book, The Naked Public Square, though somewhat of a rambling and disorganized read, was very important to me in my early thinking on the relationship between religious belief and public political discourse. It helped me realize that there can and must be a defensible and sustainable middle ground between the extreme positions that would favor either theocracy or an entirely secular state and that most of the freedoms we take for granted in this country depend upon maintaining that balance. In the last several years my primary concerns have been drawn to other things but I have been glad to be able to browse back issues of First Things occasionally on their web site. One of those other concerns of mine has been how people of faith come to terms with, and conquer their fear of, the inevitability of their own death. Brooks’ editorial is an awe inspiring account of how this happened in the life of Fr. Neuhaus. It’s well worth reading. So is Neuhaus’ essay, mentioned by Brooks, “Born Toward Dying.”

[Edit: 22 March 2009] Christianity Today recently published a remembrance of Neuhaus’ life in the March 2009 issue. You can find it online here.

Posted in People, Politics, Religion | Print | 1 Comment »

Thursday, 26 June 2008 by Paul Dubuc.

“If only atheists were the skeptics they think they are.”

This article presents an interesting challenge to nonbelievers and believers alike, I think. Based on some of the published thoughts of the great mathematician and thinker, Blaise Pascal, Edward Tingley makes an interesting point about skeptics who claim to be interested in the truth about God. The real seeker for truth will follow the path wherever it leads. Tingley says that most skeptics abandon the search when the material evidence runs out, but base their conclusions of the unknowability or nonexistence of God on just the same lack of evidence that they claim believers base their faith upon. They “prefer their own commitments over reason.”

That belief in God is not irrational (contrary to reason), and shouldn’t be so, is a fairly easy position to defend and one that is conceded by many thoughtful nonbelievers. The real issue is that logical argument based on empirical evidence (that which can be perceived by the five physical senses according to the methods of the physical sciences) does not compel belief. Unbelief is also a rational position and a simpler one since it supposedly doesn’t rely on conjecture, but limits itself to the more tangible possibilities of natural science. But the question true skeptics should be asking is, “What reason do I have to subordinate the possibility of God’s existence to the powers of my senses?” If the search for God reasonably leads beyond material evidence into the ways known only by the heart, committed seekers are bound to follow. But rather than facing the facts, many atheists and agnostics unwittingly and irrationally limiting their choices to those that suit them:

We are told we should face the facts. Well here they are: The only world in which strictly empirical evidence is the road that we should take in our views about God is a world in which God either shows himself by such evidence or simply does not exist. Those are the options that the agnostic and the atheist like, and it is because they like them that they never pay any attention to the further fact that accompanies these: God might await us down another road. There are three options, not two.

In a world in which God both exists and hides, relying upon conclusive evidence is the way to be wrong about God. Reason delivers three options, but the agnostic and the atheist are not listening to reason; they hear only the options they like, and simply pick the one that suits them.

… It is not true at all that he cannot believe without evidence; he has already done so, having arrived at his commitment to evidence without evidence. Evidence is not his only vehicle of locomotion, and he should admit it. He should notice what his heart is already doing for him, when he lets it.

The whole article is well worth reading and thinking over. I really haven’t done it justice here. But I said at the beginning that this article presents a challenge for believers as well as unbelievers and I want to say something about that. This isn’t something explicitly stated in the article, but I think it’s true because many believers have a tendency to limit their understanding of God by confining it to beliefs with which they are most comfortable. Many Christians, especially those who like to indulge the unbelievers in debates over the evidence, fall into the trap of confining their commitment to God to rational beliefs. They too prefer to spend most of their time below the tree line, content with a relationship with God that fits well with their own understanding and desires rather than follow the ways of the heart up toward the summit, “onto the icy slopes out past the limit of concrete evidence” where our footing is less sure and the risks to our comfort are greater in pursuit of the reward of intimacy with God. There is no passion to know God, only to know truths about Him. We need to follow our hearts where our heads can’t take us.

All this is no excuse for irrational religion. Our rational faculties are a gift from God, meant to be used well. They serve to guide the heart, but they have limits that the heart is able to surpass. If we choose to follow God only within those limits, are we really much better off than the unbelievers? Pascal had a brilliant mind and was also a passionate believer. We can learn as much from him as the skeptics can.

Posted in Religion, Christianity | Print | 4 Comments »

Friday, 31 August 2007 by Paul Dubuc.

Given a fair reading, this book will be an eye-opener for some, and an encouragement to others. I hope there’s no cause for cynicism or gloating. Keep in mind that this is a broad brush, “big picture” kind of book. Brooks is careful to point out that his study is not predictive of individual behavior, but measures influential factors on a large scale. Subtitled America’s Charity Divide: “Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters“, this is fascinating and well documented study of correlations between charitable giving and things like religion, sociopolitical and economic views, family structure and work ethic. Brooks finds a very strong correlation between religion and giving; not just giving to religious charities but to secular ones as well, giving time and money to help others. Conservatives were much more charitable as a group than Liberals owing largely to a difference in philosophy on who is responsible for caring for those in need. Those who place less responsibility on government are more generous with their own time and money. The working poor tend to give a much larger percentage of their time and money for helping others than any other group. Charitable values are largely passed on by example from parents to children in intact healthy families. Brooks also draws some interesting comparisons of charitable activity in the USA and Europe. He finds that where government becomes more of a caretaker, people become less charitable and less prosperous. Brooks finds a strong correlation between charitable activity and the economic prosperity of a country, seeing trends that discourage personal giving a worrisome. Many commonly held stereotypes are contradicted in this book. Brooks was very surprised to see his own findings contradict the assumptions he had going in to the study. I came away from the book feeling encouraged that there are a lot of good people in this country who ought to get to know one another better. I highly recommend it.[Edit 19 January 2008] An interesting review of this book from Books & Culture can be found here.

Posted in Politics, Religion, Books | Print | No Comments »

Tuesday, 17 July 2007 by Paul Dubuc.

ThinkChristian has an interesting item citing a Wall Street Journal editorial about the “New Atheists,” and the recent publication of their popular books attacking religion. Author Peter Berkowitz does a fine job of showing how some very intelligent people—like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens—can be as passionate and ill-informed about religion as some of those they criticize. As the author points out, the strongest arguments against religion offered by these atheists are nothing new and have been wrestled with, and commented upon, by many believers for centuries. Instead of responding to what the best religious thinkers have believed and written about these things, they argue as if all that thinking and writing never existed. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Religion, Books | Print | 3 Comments »

Tuesday, 26 June 2007 by Paul Dubuc.

PBS recently aired a very interesting documentary that explores the concept of the “Wall of Separation” between Church and State, its history and relationship to the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. I think that, on the whole, this is a fair and balanced presentation. It offers a needed corrective to the extreme separationism that has dominated our church-state legal relations over the last half-century. So the program has come under some harsh criticism from those who favor that extreme as well as some gushing praise from those who feel they’ve been persecuted by it. You can search the Web for opinions, but there’s a good summary and response to the feedback in the PBS Ombudsman Column, “Is That Church-State Wall Just a Metaphor?“ I share this program’s point of view and I think it describes a delicate balance that must be maintained for our society to stay healthy. The program hasn’t been aired widely yet. Call your local PBS station and ask for it. The DVD is available here.

Posted in Politics, Religion | Print | No Comments »

Thursday, 21 December 2006 by Paul Dubuc.

I missed its first airing on PBS so, at my brother’s suggestion, I recently checked out a video tape of the Frontline special “Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero” from the public library and watched it. I’ve seen other programs related to the events of 11 September 2001, but this one is particularly interesting to me because it deals with the role that religion played in those events and in the lives of those who were most effected by them. Questions that many Americans considered abstract, theoretical or of little relevance suddenly became very real and important on that day. This presentation is very well done and is worth watching and thinking about. So I’ve been thinking about it since watching it. I’ve thought quite a bit about the questions it raises before that Sept. 11 and in the years since. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Religion | Print | 2 Comments »