Defending Your Faith TWO CALLS FOR MORE MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION OF BELIEF by Victoria Nelson We're a pretty polite crowd here at U.Va. Maybe we don't always force a smile at the dolt from our first-year hall and sometimes we can even forget to stand and hold the door open for that swarm behind us, but we are always pretty careful not to tread on ideological toes. We know that it just isn't right to tell our friends that, actually, this is the proper way to look at something, and we're even somewhat skittish about asking them to defend their views on rational grounds. No, we tell ourselves, it would be unforgiveably disrespectful, not to mention passé, if we were to do so. Therefore we neither challenge each other to think about difficult questions nor do we take the time to sort through long, complex issues. We are all just such busy people. What I'm trying to point out here is the lack of intellectual community among students at the university, especially with regard to religion as a subject for thoughtful discussion and evaluation. There are several factors which contribute to this phenomenon, but I think the least addressed is the secularized atmosphere of public discourse. The most important aspects of study and intellectualism are the acquisition of fact, the search for truth, and the application of this truth to our lives. However, the search for truth has increasingly separated these areas into "science," which addresses fact, and "worldview" (a.k.a., religion and philosophy), which addresses truth and morality. The problem with this separation is the intrinsic need to understand science through the framework of a worldview and to back our worldview with science. There is a basic interconnectedness. At present, however, worldview is a touchy subject because it is so personal. If your worldview is criticized, your lifestyle is being criticized; worldviews have implications for morality. Hence a general unwillingness to discuss and defend worldview. We always tell each other "don't impose your personal morality on me." We fail to realize, however, that we can follow our maxim and still evaluate personal moralities and worldviews. We can remain tolerant without saying that everyone is right. For example, I will always affirm the atheist's right to defend his case, and I will listen to that defense if he wishes me to. However, I will not and cannot, logically, believe that both Christianity and atheism are true at the same time; their premises are mutually exclusive. We must understand that worldviews are not to be assessed in terms of "validity," but rather in terms of truth. Personal truths have no extension outside of their influence on people's lives; only one worldview can actually describe Truth. We must make judgments on worldviews, so why not make an informed judgment? Last week, in this publication, Ben Chadwick expressed displeasure at conversing with others regarding his religion, and he showed disdain for the notion that he could be converted by "some hokey sing-along." I must agree that it is very insulting to the intelligence to be thought of as a mindless being, able to be switched into an entirely different mode of existence without a thought. However, Chadwick's problem lies in the categorical rejection of the idea of addressing this insult. When confronted by Christians, Chadwick fled rather than staying and giving his reasons for rejecting Christ and for accepting Judaism as truth. In fact he regards the questions they asked as "disrespect" rather than as a challenge. Well, my good sir, respect is something that is not automatically accorded -- it must be earned, and I think that rational discussion would earn that respect. If your position is logically tenable and empirically backed, then I think you will be given respect. Blind faith is an awful thing. If you are truly as open-minded to other faiths as you claim, and you are under the impression that Judaism is not backed by anything, then making a comparison of your present worldviews to others should be a regular activity for you. We're all very busy living our lives, but we need to take the time to think about serious issues that entirely determine the way we live. Worldview is of ultimate importance, I mean what if I'm right and you're wrong? Then you're screwed. So don't wimp out --think about it! by Willy Kuruvilla When I first read Ben Chadwick's article in last week's issue of The Declaration, I have to admit that I burst out laughing. As a Christian, I suppose that I'm not supposed to laugh at an article making fun of Christian proselytizing. Nonetheless, I couldn't stop, because Chadwick accurately described what Christian evangelism too often is. Obviously (and I would bet that I'm speaking for most Christians), Chadwick shouldn't have been pestered about the condition of his soul when he was trying to eat dinner. I empathize with the discomfort he felt, because I've often felt the same way. I've seen similar situations -- where Christians are forcing themselves on people who don't want to listen -- and cringed in embarrassment. Please, I can't help thinking, leave them alone. Unlike Chadwick, however, the uneasiness I feel is not due to the act of evangelism itself, but rather to the manner in which it is sometimes done. Quite frankly, I don't think it does anything for the cause of Christ when Christians annoy people who aren't interested. Nonetheless, Jesus' followers cannot ignore his command to tell others about the Gospel (Matthew 28:19-20). Unfortunately, in their zeal, Christians frequently disregard Paul's warning that their actions should be "completely humble and gentle" (Ephesians 4:2). While I sympathize with much of Chadwick's article, I sharply disagree with its concluding arguments, where he shifts from attacking a particular incident of proselytizing to a broad condemnation of evangelism as a whole. Chadwick thinks it's "goddamned disrespectful" to think that one faith is more "valid" than another. After all, he claims that "Judaism and Christianity are both backed by exactly the same evidence ... nothing!" Just a few paragraphs earlier, however, he stated that "my rights end where other people's rights begin." Is that claim backed up by any evidence? If it is, then why can't there be evidence backing up Christianity? If it's not, and if that statement is merely Chadwick's personal opinion, why should anyone agree with it? If morality lacks any basis in reason, why can't "my rights" step all over "other people's rights"? Chadwick wants to make ethical statements while divorcing ethics from the philosophy and theology upon which it's ultimately based. I'm sure that many people disagree with my statements in the previous paragraph. The solution, then, is for us to engage each other in discussion. I believe that there is strong evidence for Christianity, but how will Chadwick know what it is if he rejects all explanatory attempts as "religious prostitution?" To be honest, I have difficulty identifying with Chadwick's conclusion. Religion attempts to answer humanity's deepest questions about life -- purpose, meaning, love, death. Though I'm a Christian, I'm not a Christian because my parents are Christian or because most of my friends are Christian. I'm a Christian because I believe it to be the truth. If you think Christianity is a lie, and you have good reasons to support your claim, by all means, tell me. I don't want to squander my entire life because no one cared enough to tell me the truth. Contrary to what many people might think, evangelism is not about racking up the number of converts on a scorecard. I, for one, don't exult in the opportunity to be called intolerant, an idiot, and a Bible thumper. Evangelism, however, is about genuinely caring for other people, and wanting to tell them about something that has profoundly changed your life. That, I think, deserves some respect.

back to Decweb main