Atheism is So Last Year

There is an interesting opinion piece in today’s Sydney Morning Herald in which Gerard Henderson suggests that popular atheism is not nearly as radical or dangerous as some of it’s chief protagonists like to think it is. Here’s a brief excerpt:

The Age columnist Catherine Deveny mocks Christianity without an attempt at scholarship or analysis. She cannot concede that some of the finest minds in Western civilisation were followers of Christ. Nor can she demonstrate how it is that able politicians such as Rudd or Costello are mere fools when it comes to their religious beliefs.

Knee-jerk atheism is predictable, boring, unadventurous and common. Investigating religion for yourself and not treating those who profess a faith as deluded simpletons is new, exciting and sophisticated. Actually, it’s not that new. But it is exciting and sophisticated. Read the whole piece here.  Also, check out this other opinion piece in today’s Herald to see a philosopher at work. Pun intended.

How Public Ought Apologetics Be?

Justification is addressed to those who disagree with us, and therefore it must always proceed from some consensus, from premises we and others publicly recognize as true.” – John Rawls, ‘Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical’ (1985)

When procrastinating philosophy students compile their lists of the best philosophers of the Twentieth-Century John Rawls is often one of the first names mentioned. He re-established political philosophy as an important area in Anglo-phone philosophy separate to simply applied ethics, and attempted to give western democratic liberalism its most solid foundations. His works have been quoted in significant Supreme Court decisions in the United States, and in 1999 he was given a medal by President Clinton for reviving America’s faith in democracy – not many philosophers can claim that one! I ramble like this because Rawls is often painted as a philosophical bad-guy: the clean face of political liberalism which distracts you from the exclusionary, exploitative and elitist tendencies of western democracy that movements like Marxism and Feminism so convincingly exposed. Over the last year I have been reading Rawls, and have been surprised to find an extremely rigorous and historically aware thinker, just as interested in ridding liberalism of its flaws as providing a defence of it.

Of great importance to Rawls is the way which people communicate with one another publicly. Since people of all different religions, philosophical beliefs, ethnic backgrounds and worldviews will be members of a society, Rawls insisted that they need to settle on some sort of neutral way to communicate. Debate about and justification of institutions which affect all citizens – such as law and government systems – cannot be done through reference to disputable religious, philosophical or moral premises since those who are affected by these won’t necessarily share these views. Rawls did not think that you could keep all disputable claims out of public discourse, but wanted to rope off a section – the political – where reasonable people addressed each other merely as citizens, putting to one side other parts of their respective belief systems. It is Rawls’s ultimate hope that through this an authentic, stable and enduring community will emerge.

The above quote is an example of this idea in Rawls. It brings to mind a thought about Christianity in the public sphere, specifically about apologetics, and the way in which Christian’s debate, disagree, and attempt to persuade others who don’t share their faith. Rawls held that on matters of political importance, citizens should aspire to speak to one another in a neutral ‘political’ language, which was able to be intellectually followed and understood by others. In one sense, this was motivated by pragmatic concerns. Pragmatic, as this neutral language would be better suited to elicit agreement from others rather than a language loaded with an ideology and worldview.

My question is: should Christians, for merely pragmatic reasons, aim to debate, disagree and communicate with others in the public arena in a publicly accessible language – employing premises and concepts which are comprehensible by those outside of the faith. In my experience, Christians are not quite sure about this. They are caught on the horns of the dilemma of holding that the beliefs of the Christian faith are true, and at the same time recognising that often when you begin a conversation with people by stating ‘God did…’, ‘In the bible it says…’, ‘The resurrection of Jesus means that…’ you will not get very far.

Lately, I have seen two different approaches by Christians, both in opinion pieces written for the Sydney Morning Herald in the last year. The first was a defence of the Christian position on abortion, and a prescription that Australian society amends its laws so to be in greater harmony with this. Controversial premises where drawn upon, religious concepts were deployed, and Christian morality was prescribed in Christian vocabulary. The second was an explanation of the Christian view of marriage. The author deployed no explicitly Christian vocabulary, instead discussing his thoughts about the universal human need for love and security, and the common desire to build something together with another person, and how this expressed itself in his relationship with his wife. This second author had the aim of convincing people about the value of marriage, a belief he held as a Christian, but then communicated this is a neutral way. Both were written by Christian ministers from Sydney.

Do you think that either of these approaches is better? Do you agree with this point I’ve skimmed and appropriated from Rawls: that Christians should seek to communicate their faith and beliefs to others in a way which proceeds from commonly held premises and intelligible concepts? Or do you think the project of trying to escape your worldview, and write neutrally is futile, or perhaps even deceptive?