Political liberalism, as the ideology that shapes the values of our society, demands various practices, such as the recognition of various individualistic rights (e.g. reproductive rights, legalized same-sex marriage, etc.) and the glorification of pluralism, that are opposed to some of our religious convictions. Political liberalism can easily accommodate the secularization of the society, since both of them attempt to have religiously neutral stances from which to view the world. Liberal Christian groups, in some sense, uncritically embrace political liberalism, in a sense that they even equate the values of political liberalism with the values of Christianity (as if they are inherently the same). However, conservative Christian groups criticize the values of political liberalism, without recognizing the indispensability of such values in the formation of the society that we try to build and without providing any workable alternative values that will create the same kind of society that we try to build. Christians who oppose the liberal agendas of the current administration must challenge the foundation that grounds the values of political liberalism. That’s a difficult task. Our attempt to challenge their foundation will inevitably change the kind of society that we try to build. I believe that some Christians have tried to accomplish such a task (like the ones who provide some kind of communitarian critiques of political liberalism). Unfortunately, I am not currently familiar with the Christian critiques of political liberalism. I am assuming that Stanley Hauerwas (Duke Divinity School) and John Milbank (University of Nottingham) probably have something to say about ways to accomplish such a task.
Dr. William Lane Craig, a leading evangelical apologist, is featured in a major article in The Chronicle of Higher Education [see http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Theist/140019/?cid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en ]. That should be a surprise, since CHE is not known for having a taste for people like Craig. I think that Craig is overrated by evangelicals, but underrated by academics. His triumphalism, I think, weakens the merits of his arguments, since it underrates what I consider to be persuasive cases for atheism. It tends to caricature his opponents’ arguments as unworthy of serious considerations. However, his skills as a debater are unparalleled. He is definitely a force to be reckoned with. Of course, winning a debate is not a sufficient condition for establishing the truth of one’s claim. But I think that his opponents, like Alexander Rosenberg (Duke philosopher) and Lawrence Krauss (theoretical physicist), are mistaken for downplaying the role of formal debates in
Comments