Thinking Outside the Cave
  by Dr. Carlos Bertha

From a true Christian's perspective it seems clear enough that evangelizing is a good deed. I have often heard the analogy that if a train is coming your way, and you are on the tracks, it would be not only a good deed but morally required of me to push you out of the way. So it is with the Christian: Jesus is the one and only Savior (John 3:16), and if you don't accept that fact, you are doomed to an afterlife of unmitigated misery. The Christian, therefore, feels a moral obligation to "save" your life. Such a commitment to our fellow human being, I think, actually sounds laudable.

Now, should an atheist have a similar concern for the Christian? Does it seem ludicrous that an atheist would be concerned about a believer's life to the point of intervention? Well, it would not be ludicrous if there were some tangible harm, ostensibly caused by religion, being witnessed by the atheist. What harm, then, could be blamed on the free practice of a religion?

One harm that comes to mind is the prevalence of statements that challenge the methodical, careful and important findings of science. The removal of the word "evolution" from the educational curriculum in Georgia, for example, is harmful, especially if it is contrasted by a far less scientifically substantiated "theory" like "intelligent design." The excuse that these competing theories ought to be given "equal treatment" is ludicrous, unless, of course, they enjoy similar strengths in the scientific community, which in this case they most certainly do not. As Plato did, we ought to place a premium on education: we must strive to escape the darkness of the cave, where the unenlightened, shackled, stare at specious shadows until someone drags these people out and shows them the "real world." So an atheist telling a believer to wake up and smell the coffee seems to be a "good deed" when ignorance is averted.

Now, although I think conversations of this sort are important to have, there is one obstacle that often rears its ugly head: Fideism. Fideism is a philosophical stance to the effect that there are beliefs we can hold in our minds without reasons, that religious convictions need not be rational at their core since they rely ultimately only on faith. Indeed, to say that anything "rests on faith alone" is a misnomer, since "faith" is the absence of something, and we can't rest anything on the absence of something, can we? Accepting fideism in effect renders any communication between the believer and the non-believer null and void. The non-believer is sure to insist on some sort of rational explanation where, according to the believer, no such thing is required. All that is required for the believer is faith, which is something most non-believers are simply not willing to accept.

So, how can a discussion be both necessary and futile? In religion, as well as in politics, talking about issues is important. How would we be able to improve matters if we never talked about them? On the other hand, how can we get past one party denying the function of reason in discourse? Until all concerned admit that no learning can take place without a common ground, indeed, we (as a people) are stuck. Inside the cave.

Send us an Email

Or write to us at:
Freethinkers of Colorado Springs
P.O. Box 62946
Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2946
Phone: 719-594-4506