More facts and values

This hearkens way back to the old facts and values post in May. I just can't let go of the topic! Here is a link to a great article published by Newsweek that explains research by atheist Sam Harris that shows that "facts" and "opinions" are processed the same way in the brain. In other words, our brains essentially don't do much distinguishing between the two. The author of the article quotes Harris as saying, "belief is belief is belief."

This is a big deal for Harris because he wants to dispute the idea that religious belief is something special and different from other ways of believing. Ironically, I would love to cede him that point, if only to make another of my own. I think this research helps to prove, more importantly, the point I was trying to make a while ago about the accepted divide between facts and values: it simply should not exist!

"Facts" don't belong in a special category of their own, as uninterpreted or unmediated statements. Everything is filtered through the unique belief system of the individual, whether it is a statement like "the sky is blue" or one like "Jesus has risen from the dead." So, the perhaps unintended effect of Harris' research is to continue to dethrone the place of epistemological privilege for science. "Science" as a system that rests on bare, uninterpreted facts, is a falsehood. Atheists like Harris now must descend to the same level as believers in any other belief system. As he said: "belief is belief is belief," whether that belief is in pink unicorns, Jesus rising from the dead, or the red-shift of light from far away stars. Welcome to the level playing field!

Postmodernity

Back to the old facts and values post: let's say you agree that the fact-value dichotomy is not a healthy one for Christianity. Chances are, if you are reading this, you probably have no problem with sticking Christianity in with the realm of "facts." Later, I'll get to why I think that's a bad idea. But, for now, let's assume that fact-value dichotomy is a bad one. What's another option?

Well, the key here is calling into question the idea that some statements can be made or held to be true without the personal involvement of the individual. This is the whole idea behind the realm of "facts." Like I was getting at in the last post, these statements are not supposed to depend on any personal characteristics or circumstances of the person who holds them to be true. Ideally, that stuff shouldn't matter. A fact is just as true today for a person in the U.S. as it was for a person 150 years ago in Africa. The idea behind a "fact" is that you kind of get a free pass as a person, whether you are making a claim about physics, Christianity, parenting, weight loss, or whatever. If something can be established as a "fact," you don't have to be personally involved with that idea. Why would you? It's a fact - not an opinion.

There are a couple of problems with this way of thinking: 1) it avoids issues of belief, faith, and assumptions which are crucial to the process of humans knowing anything, and 2) it obscures the fact that all of our historical situatedness (ethnicity, socioeconomic status, history, age, gender, etc.) colors the way we look at the world. I'll just come right out and say that these are assumptions in and of themselves. I don't know that I could "prove" them, any more than anyone else could prove that value-free statements like "facts" exist. But, let me give a few reasons why I think that this is a better way to understand the world, and then say what that means for Christianity.

First, I think it's a more honest way of looking at the world. We just cannot escape the reality that our ways of seeing and understanding things are completely colored by all the unique stuff about us like: the place where we grew up, the culture we grew up in, the values of our parents, and so on (along with the factors in the previous paragraph). Let's just acknowledge and accept this instead of fighting against it by trying to suggest things that can be known and stated without personal involvement and perspective of some sort.

Of course some people will want to try to come up with short propositional statements that can be supposed to be "true," no matter what personal factors may exist. There are a couple of problems with that for Christians, the first being whether or not we want the deepest truths of who we are and what we believe reduced to propositional statements. Is that the way the scriptures came to us? Of course not. They came as letters, poems, stories, visions, and prayers. Do we want to take the richness of those genres and reduce their "truth" to propositions? I hope not. Likewise, Jesus did not write a book (full of short propositions or not). Instead, he founded a community. There has to be something here for Christians in the way that they understand "truth."

Another way to understand this is to think about it in terms of language. When I try to read the Hebrew scriptures, I start to recognize how much language is an unseen part of the way I view the world. Very little exists that can be translated "straight across" from one language to another. Every translation is an interpretation of some sort, no matter how small it might be. So, the idea of culture-free, value-free facts starts to break down around issues of language and translation.

So, what does this mean for Christians? I think a few things:

1. For those who have stubbornly held to the view that the Bible must be a collection of facts - I say that this view must be abandoned. First and foremost, as I've tried to show above, the notion of what commonly qualifies as a "fact" is a bad one (something supra-cultural that can be universally known and held as "true" for all people and usually expressed in propositions rather than narrative or poetry). Don't reduce scripture to that. It's not what it's meant to be. If you do reduce scripture to that - it will disappoint you. You will have to do all sorts of mental gymnastics to get it to fit into that category, and it doesn't belong there anyway.

2. For those who have no trouble sticking with the system and then saying: "scripture isn't factual - but the point is its values anyway" - you are not off the hook either. The problem is that you have still bought into the same system that is stuck worrying about facts (as defined above). Scripture likewise is not just about a good value system from a loving, forgiving God. That's essentially the reduction that takes place for the values people: once you have given up caring about whether or not scripture is factual, you are more or less free to take or leave what you want - depending on whether or not it fits with your value of love. Don't like the idea that God asked the Israelites to kill the children of their enemies - oh well. Don't like the idea that there actually could be a hell? - forget about it. Don't like the idea of God condemning homosexual practices? - just ignore it. The point is not whether the values people are right in their views on those issues - it's more about them writing off scripture because it doesn't conform to their values. There is no wrestling with the text, or being challenged by the incredibly wild, bizarre nature of God. Instead, the wrestling ends before it begins because it doesn't line up with the values of the reader.

I guess after writing all this I need to write another post about the nature of scripture, and how this fits in with the facts-value divide. Well, that'll be for another day.

A final aside: although I think it's a minority opinion, you can see some scientists realizing some of the stuff I was getting at in this post as well. If you are interested, check out this article on "biocentrism." It's kind of the physics and biology version of what I am talking about here.

Facts and Values

For a long time now, Christians in the U.S. have been caught in a cultural system that has emphasized a few precious dichotomies, like: fact vs. value, public vs. private, and others.  This cultural system is known as "modernity," and some have already heralded its demise.  Yet, many people remain caught squarely in its grip.  Sometimes it's tough to say whether it's coming or going.

Part of how it works is that the world is split into two realms: the realm of facts and the realm of values.  This realm of facts is full of statements that can be objectively known by anyone who is thinking rationally, regardless of age, gender, or ethnic or cultural considerations.  These statements (or facts) are true regardless or circumstance or viewpoint.  They are to be publicly taught as the truth for all to know.  While some many differ on their interpretation of these statements, their existence as "fact" is not up for discussion.  Maybe something like "the sky is blue" or Newton's laws of motion would fit into this realm.

The other realm is the world of values.  This realm is full of statements or ideas that each person is free to hold as his or her preferences.  These values differ for each person, and are not to be taught publicly.  They belong to the private realm.  For example, I could believe that LOST is the greatest television show ever made.  This is my right as a modern person - to hold that as one of my values.  I could believe that blue is the most beautiful color, or that Christianity is the best religion.  But, those are my private values, not public facts that everyone should also hold as true.  Each person is free to choose whichever values matter most to him or her.  One person prefers sports cars, waffles, and buddhism, while another likes SUV's, cereal, and atheism.  You can have wonderful, enriching discussions about these values, but people pretty much hold a tacit agreement with one another that they don't encroach into the realm of "facts."

This is the cultural system that Christians have had to deal with for quite a while now, and they have accomodated themeselves to it pretty well by developing a couple of responses to the given dichotomy.  The first one is to accept the fact-value dichotomy, and then attempt to assign Christianity to the realm of "facts."  This has largely been the fundamentalist/conservative evangelical response.  They are well aware that it is not good enough to accept a position for Christianity that sticks it purely into the realm of private choice.  This is clearly insufficient for the Lord of the universe who makes unimpeachable claims on the lives of men and women.  So, the realm where Christianity belongs is the realm of "facts."  Thus begins the preoccupation with facts that has characterized conservative versions of Christinity in the U.S. over the past 100 years or more.  The Bible has been read against this backdrop, leading to the many facted positions regarding inerrancy, the positions of young and old earth creationism, and many more.

The other side of this system occasionally comes up when someone is faced with the many issues regarding scripture that don't really have a good explanation.  For example:

• Issues regarding creation and evolution
• Historicity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis
• Issues of authorship and redaction in the OT
• Whether or not millions of Israelites really wandered around in the desert for 40 years
• If those Israelites really conquered Canaan the way the OT describes
• Whether or not there really was a King David

And many, many more.  That list doesn't even touch the other issues that can drive a person away from his or her faith.  So, what happens if you accept the fact-value dichotomy, and you once believed that Christianity belonged to the realm of "facts," but you are faced with evidence that no longer allows you to believe that?  A lot of these people have no other choice but to then believe that Christianity is false.  If it properly belongs in the realm of "facts," but it isn't "factual," then it clearly must be a lie.  These people become embittered atheists, and many are committed to trying to show Christians the errors of their ways.

The third option is to accept that Christianity belongs in the realm of values - not facts.  This is where the more liberal versions of Christianity have ended up.  They don't spend time worrying about whether or not millions of Israelites wandered around in the desert for 40 years, or who wrote the Pentateuch.  Really, why would you, if Christianity is really about having a good set of values to guide you?  Values such as love, forgiveness, and doing good for others.  Their readings of scripture tend to emphasize interpretations that are the least likely to offend others in their culture.  Thus, they are pretty accepting of many practices that more conservative Christians would consider to be "sin."  This version of Christianity has abandoned any hope of Christianity having anything to do with truth that is valid for all people - not just the individual - in favor of accepting the latest whims of critical views of the Bible.

There are variations on each of those themes, but in the land of modernity, those are pretty much your choices.  Do you like those choices?  I don't.  I think I found a different choice that is a little difficult to describe, but I'm going to give it a shot in the next post.  Basically, it has to do with not accepting the rules of the game.  What if the fact-value dichotomy is a bad one to start out with?  What does that mean for Christianity?