"Athens and Jerusalem have created a whole history through their interaction with each other, and so have religion and secularization. In both cases, as soon as one achieves a kind of dominance, the other swoops back from exile to challenge it. When reason and intellect begin to ride high, they inevitably make unrealistic claims, and faith and intuition awaken to question their hegemony. Then, just as the sacral begins to feel its oats and reach out for civilizational supremacy, reason and cognition question its pretentiousness."The religious history of the last half century in the United States is captured here precisely. Harvey Cox himself was part of our last round of best-selling voices on the decline of religion 40 years ago. Cox, in fact, never meant to advocate secularism. He held a passionate conviction that God would survive the marginalization of institutional religion — that Christian and other deep spiritual principles might be liberated and thrive in a secularized world. Nevertheless, The Secular City met other ideas of the time and catalyzed a national debate. In 1966, Time Magazine asked on its cover, "Is God Dead?"
Religion did not die, as we all now know. But it did, in U.S. culture, get very quiet. In the words of Peter Berger, another guest of mine and another former secularization theorist, religion "became something done in private between consenting adults." We compartmentalized the spiritual aspect of life, segregated it out of our spheres of work and action in the world. This led eventually to the ironic and fascinating moment in Harvey Cox's career in the 1980s, when Harvard College asked him to offer a course on Jesus as part of a new graduation requirement to take at least one course on "moral reasoning."
As Cox described it in his book When Jesus Came to Harvard, a moment of academic self-appraisal preceded this decision: "Why were we hearing so much about insider trading, sleazy legal practices, doctors more interested in profits than patients and scientists who fudged the data? Worse still, why were some of the culprits our own graduates? ... They were …experts on facts but novices on values."
At this same moment in American public life, of course — and for some of the same reasons — Evangelical Christian leaders were reversing their twentieth-century withdrawal from social and political affairs. And as sociologists, political scientists and citizens gradually realized, most people in the world had never privatized religion along American lines at all.
Unfortunately and perhaps tragically, when religion burst back onto the scene, the shrillest voices got there first. They were given a prominent platform in a media culture that favors the loud and the strident. The spectre of Islamism emerged globally. Terrible violence was done in the name of religion as it has been done in the past. And now we have a generation of strident anti-religious voices who, as Harvey Cox points out, rightly proclaim the potential evils of religion as witnessed in the past decade and before. But they seem to ignore the fact that we just emerged from a century whose despots — Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler — had no need of God to enact genocide.
So the pendulum between Athens and Jerusalem swings on, cyclically, predictably. And yet, and yet. One of my most intriguing discoveries these past few years has been that, in our twenty-first century world that brims with both secular and religious energies, there is a newly creative, enlivening, enriching conversation across that old/new divide. Harvey Cox experiences this too. As he puts it, from the vantage point of Harvard, there are questions being raised in every discipline that exceed the faculties of that discipline. Medicine, science, education and economics meet human and spiritual conundrums and create moral choices that facts alone cannot address. Cutting-edge practitioners are reaching for the insights of ethics, moral reasoning, and philosophy, disciplines not restricted to but richly expressed and embedded in the world's religious traditions and practices. And religious thinkers and practitioners also are increasingly incorporating and working with the insights of science, the method of inquiry of educators, the tools of economics.
The archives of my public radio program Speaking of Faith — with religious as well as non-religious voices, with scientists as well as theologians, doctors as well as spiritual teachers — are one record of this unfolding conversation. I realize now that this is the answer I might have been giving all along as people have asked me when I would interview Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins. I simply refuse to extend or deepen the "debates" that will happen in other places. I'm committed to the conversation taking place between the poles of seemingly irreconcilable difference. Across the line of belief and unbelief — a line which, if we are honest, runs through each of us in the course of our lives — we want to navigate the vast, excruciating, thrilling questions of the twenty-first century together. Tell me what you think, and if you see a new conversation unfolding, in your own life or in the world around you.
I Recommend Reading:
When Jesus Came to Harvard: Making Moral Choices Today
by Harvey Cox
Harvey Cox's most recent book, written in 2004, is a lively, narrative account of the new conversation between rationality and religion as he's watched it unfold in one great icon of twentieth-century secularism.



Comments: 13
I listened to your broadcast about atheism on Saturday, 10/20, and I have the following observations:
First, like most people of faith who have not read either Dawkin's or Hitchens' books you completely misunderstand and misquote them. Both authors say belief in God is irrational and that religion should not be a protected institution, and religion is neither a good source of social policy nor a good guide to a moral life.
Second, you repeat the frequently cited canard about Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao as examples of the evils of atheism. I would remind you that Hitler was a Roman Catholic, and Stalin spent part of his youth in the seminary and as a member of the Russian Orthodox church. Furthermore, let's not forget the agreement between Pope Pius XII and Hitler which, to some measure, at least in the beginning, protected Roman Catholics in Germany and prevented the Vatican from condemning Hitler and his final solution of the Jews.
Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris state that Hitler, et al, set up their own religions, (cults of personality, if you will), with themselves as the "deity." After all, didn't they have absolute control of the lives, persons, and deaths of those subjected to their brutality? And, what about the tens of millions of innocent children, the physically infirm, the elderly and the mentally ill that suffered under them? Where was their "free will"? How was this part of "God's plan"? Where was God during most of the 20th century? Or during the Middle Ages when his church crushed millions of men, woman, and children because they rejected the tenets of faith?
Third, you said you would not interview Dawkins, Hitchens, or Falwell, because they "had all the answers." I agree that Falwell, and others of his ilk "have all the answers" about God, the meaning of life, the after life, and God's plan for humanity, but Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris specifically say that NO ONE has the answers. Rather these three authors have QUESTIONS which our society has a taboo on asking. These three authors state that extraordinary claims require extraordinary, independently verifiable proof -- not a shred of which is forthcoming from the leaders of religions.
As a side note, do you really believe that Falwell's anti-semitism and homophobia are ideas that would be shared by Jesus?
Lastly, let me ask you a question: How can you believe in a God that would permit the chosen representatives of his original church (Roman Catholicism) to sexually abuse THOUSANDS of children? If God is all powerful, a nanosecond of thought would have swayed priests from this horrific conduct, or, at absolute bare minimum, swayed cardinals and bishops from covering up such activities. When the Bible has Christ saying, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," I am dead certain, his message would not have included sexual abuse when they came to him.
It is your show, of course, and you have the freedom to interview whomever you choose, but please stop misquoting rational people and disseminating false statements about their ideas. Why not interview an ordinary person who does not believe in God, instead of interviewing people who only talk about a view of life to which they are completely opposed?
Respectfully,
Jim M
Then there are all those beliefs and belief systems that lie somewhere between the two some of which are associated with a particular religion and some of which are not. Faith can exists independant of religion and from what I have seen religion can exist indendant of faith.
I was raised a Catholic and spent years working in a number of denominations. I am now an atheist. One of the major reasons I evolved into the belief that the "god" of religions is a fallacy and harmful to the human race is because I found these religions to be more or less devoid of values and ethics. How do you reconcile a faith that proclaims the sanctity of life, yet supports war and capital punishment? How do you reconcile a faith that proclaims the value of charity and mercy, yet closes churches due to lack of funds, makes their congregations foot the bill for child abuse cases, and holds one of the richest treasure chests in the world within Vatican City?
I find the "lack of values/ethics/morals" charge levied on atheists to be the height of hypocrisy. Whenever I hear rational atheists point this out in their defense, they are condemned by the "faithful" and the defense is almost always that man is imperfect and was born with sin. I find that a particularly weak and empty defense.
Regardless, I think if the religious could accept the fact that atheists could have equal, and even superior, morals than the faithful, you may start to see people of intelligence and reason on both sides of the argument coming closer together.
Rather, it seems to me, humans have been the cause of their own misery. In the times of man before the advent of the Jewish/Christian version of deity, other gods were created, other gods were pledged devotion, other gods were thanked as the foes of the greatful lay vanquished on many battlefields. In all cases, there is one constant that is overlooked in man, even as scientists have observed similar things in the other animals. That constant is the nature of homo sapiens. As much as we would like to have outgrown our penchant for violence, and as much as some have suppressed and denied same, the basic nature of man is very violent and even today, in the modern world, where we are, for the time being, capable of taking care of every single human, we have not evolved. We have managed to be very clever in creating tools. But we have not addressed the inadequacy of our basic character. And so the killing continues, and it will, no matter what system of beliefs holds power. The deity du jour will not change a thing. Man's basic animal nature overcomes the desire for evolution.
The next logical questions are: Is the world better off with humans than it would be without? How can such a change in the nature of a species be affected, such that humans cease to be harmful to each other and the rest of the planet?
Earth, with light, the first command, then water, land, the fish and animals of the sea,
the birds and animals of the air, the animals of the land, and finally man, given dominion over all, to name the flora and fauna of our Earth. Scientific theory has yet to
prove how all this happened. I think religionists and secularists are very equal.
Responding to Cheryl R., quoting from your comment:
"Yet there is the Earth, with light, the first command, then water, land, the fish and animals of the sea, the birds and animals of the air, the animals of the land, and finally man, given dominion over all, to name the flora and fauna of our Earth."
There were indeed, since the time they were created, all of the things you listed, plain as day, except two: "the first command", and the concept of man being "given dominion" over creation. These two are merely fables or myths passed down to us from times before the advent of modern scientific inquiry. No evidence can be produced to support your claims, at least none which will withstand scrutiny in a science lab. Courts of law, as a rule, also are disinclined to admit evidence which is based on religious claims such as miracles, although admittedly, some courts have not been entirely consistent on this.
There is no evidence that there was ever a "first command". The fact that man dominates life on earth can easily be explained as a result of homo sapiens' superior capacity to think and make and use technology.
Otherwise, we can plainly observe the other things on the list.
Allow me to quote you again, Cheryl...
"Scientific theory has yet to prove how all this happened. I think religionists and secularists are very equal."
Another basic difference between religionists and naturalists is that for religionists, the real aim is to find the ultimate answers, in which lies the key to heaven and God himself. The naturalist realizes that the real joy is not finding answers. The reason we seek answers is so that we can know enough to pose the next question. The joy, therefore, is in the journey of discovery and growth, both personal and collective, embodied in man's continuing pursuit of knowledge gained through scientific experimentation and testing. Whenever we come to the right conclusions in life, we are supported with good data. When we have bad data, in the form of bad advice, lies, fraud, or simply when we don't know enough, as in the "god debate", we are prone to reach conclusions which are more flawed, and which lead to further incorrect assumptions based on the earlier mistakes.
Cheryl, one more quote: "I think religionists and secularists are very equal." Yes, I wholly agree with you. I think religionists and naturalists are equal in that we are all born with the same traits and skills and limits. The reason that we are still not able to prove the assumptions of religion, and the reason we haven't yet discovered the ultimate question, is that our powers are limited. We are fragile, weak, stupid, and unable, in light of the ultimate imaginable. This commonality is a focus for me, and I would always leave those I disagree with willing to return for further discussion.
Thanks, Krista, for your efforts to further our understanding of religions in today's world.