Jim Pace

Is an orthogonal approach the hope of the future?

August 2, 2010 | 8 Comments

I am a fan of something that is loosely referred to as an “orthogonal
approach” applied to intensely debated social and religious issues.

So I was excited when I saw that Adam Frank, an astrophysicist from
the University of Rochester invoked it in a discussion of the ongoing
debate between science and religion. And while Frank, who would
consider himself a “strident atheist” and myself, a convinced follower
of Jesus, have a number of key points of disagreement, I liked the
overall trajectory of his article.

At least at first. His take was that we need to try to not fall into
the same “us versus them” pattern that can so often derail the
discussion. That by thinking “orthogonally” we can put a right angle
in the discussion and come up with something that is entirely new.

Then I ran across what I run across almost without fail in discussions
with those who would consider themselves commited scientists and
atheists. The issue that comes out and is seemingly not even noticed
is the baseline belief that those with religious belief are more
against the discussion than those without religious belief. That the
religious, with my experience being obviously as a follower of Jesus,
have behaved more poorly in the discussion than our counterparts.  Essentially, this is more of the same thing.  Pointing the finger across the aisle.

Yes, I liked how Frank mentioned Einstein’s concern about fanatical
atheists who were as intolerant as their religious counterparts. And
yes I liked how he talked about our need to approach a discussion that
can often be conducted on one axis (my side has value or yours does)
more orthogonally. Not just shoot for a middle position, but take a
right angle on the axis and create something different. Adam, I was
with you.

Remember, this isn’t about what the conclusion is, as I doubt Frank
and I would agree on that, but rather how we can pursue a new kind of
conclusion without devolving into the trench warfare of past
generations.

But, then it happened. And it was going so well.

“Of course the point must always be made that in domains of
politics and policy strident atheists are infinitely more tolerent and
less damaging than the gang hanging out at other end of the
spectrum.” emphasis mine

It isn’t even that I am bothered by his opinion on the matter. It is
the “Of course” that starts that opinion off. That “of course”
approach is what is so frustrating for me.

It seems inevitable that when I, as a Christ follower, enter into a discussion with a
scientifically oriented atheist, the presumption is that I am
likely a knuckle-dragging holdover from an earlier evolutionary stage (which they likely figure I am against.)   My experience is that almost every
conversation that I have with atheists who hold the scientific method in
high regard, rarely investigate whether their hypotheses about me are
true.

I recognize the look of disbelief mixed with frustration, disdain and
occasionally even pity.

I am not saying that there aren’t many from among those that follow
Jesus that haven’t been equally offensive. I remember a Christian I
knew that had a bumper sticker that read “April 1st – National
Atheists’ Day” and I remember those that cheered his “bravery” in
proudly driving around with it on his bumper.

So I am not saying the faith community has handled itself well all the
time. And I am not asking people to feel sorry for me as I know very
well that many followers of Jesus around the world suffer much more
than disparaging looks.

My issue is that it must at least be acknowledged that, for at least a
portion of the atheist/scientific community; this thought is so
automatic that it could even find its way into a posting urging its
readers to not do that very thing.

Sometimes it would seem we have a very long way to go.

–

Categories: Culture, General, life, Should We Fire God?