A call for civility and integrity in Christian discourse

To the Editor,

     As some of you may have noticed, there are significant disagreements about just about everything these days. This even happens among scientists and people of faith, who are sometimes even the same people. Disagreements can be healthy. Good discourse keeps our minds sharp and can help us to grow in appreciation of those with whom we disagree. In light of the fact that our opinions can become so important, it is highly desirable that Christians of opposing opinions express themselves to each other with utmost civility and integrity.

     I like to keep reasonably abreast of thought within the Christian world. From that perspective, I recently attended a presentation on Creation Science by Dr. Kent Hovind. The person who presented Dr. Hovind did not say much about him. If he said anything about where Dr. Hovind received his doctorate, I missed it. So I did a Google search on Kent Hovind and found that all his degrees are from unaccredited schools. I encourage all those reading this article to do a Google search on Kent Hovind and read two articles from opposing viewpoints. The information publicly available about Dr. Hovind raises substantial questions about the appropriateness of his speaking as an authority on faith and science. In this article I will focus on Dr. Hovind’s presentation of Jan. 27.

     Dr. Hovind, in his presentation, spoke very rapidly and did not allow questions until near the end of his presentation. He skipped from one topic to the next very quickly, at each point speaking strongly against understandings almost universally held by scientists. His rapid presentation made a thorough response to his material next to impossible. His rapid presentation made it impossible to jot down questions as they came to mind. Near the end of his presentation, Dr. Hovind led a time of questions from the audience. I questioned him on several matters. I kept questioning him until he expressed a wish to hear from other people in the audience. That was an appropriate wish, so I respected it, though I had many more questions. I will highlight some of the points of contention his presentation prompted. I am attempting to be representative but not thorough. I hope this approach will be adequate.

     One generalization especially noticeable in Dr. Hovind’s presentation was that people who disagreed with him were stupid. I challenged that claim. He responded that it was perfectly fine for me to call him stupid. I responded that I would not do that. He encouraged me to go ahead and call him stupid. He could take it. I was stumped at how to respond. In reflecting on his response, I realize that I should have said that I did not view calling someone stupid as behavior appropriate for a Christian. I was not quick enough to respond as I should have.

     After the time allotted for questions, Dr. Hovind rapidly went through a list of matters over which he disagrees with established scientific knowledge. One of these matters was that scientists believe in the existence of a number of celestial beings (planets, stars, etc.) that they have not seen. Apparently, Dr. Hovind does not respect acknowledging the existence of things that have not been seen. That is an interesting perspective from one who strongly expresses a literal belief in the Bible. Has Dr. Hovind witnessed first-hand all the stories related in scripture? Has he seen God? Can the scriptural stories be true if people today have not seen them? Is Dr. Hovind aware that no one has seen an atom? Does Dr. Hovind not believe in the existence of atoms? It seems that Dr. Hovind is using simplistic thinking to promote ignorance.

     Dr. Hovind’s presentation was called “Creation Science.” Presumably his intention was a scientific presentation. Yet Dr. Hovind’s presentation consistently showed a lack of respect for science.

     One highly significant matter over which Dr. Hovind expressed disagreement with established scientific understandings is the matter of preventing disease through vaccinations. Dr. Hovind instructed his audience to avoid all vaccinations and keep their children from receiving vaccinations. He explained his perspective with the claim that autism has been rising in recent years. During those same years, people have been receiving vaccinations. Therefore, receiving vaccinations causes autism. Dr. Hovind seems unacquainted with how scientists draw conclusions. I find his anti-vaccine perspective indistinguishable from basing a scientific conclusion on hearsay. It is one thing to stubbornly maintain one’s ignorance, as I am sure we all do to some extent. It is another matter altogether to teach people to put their lives and the lives of others at risk by resisting the best of what science has to offer in the case of vaccines. In light of the many lives that have been saved by vaccination, I believe it is morally reprehensible to encourage people to avoid them.

     I characterize Dr. Hovind’s presentation as one that appeals primarily to ignorance and fear. This is troublesome in a world that is increasingly complicated. As more knowledge is discovered, it will become increasingly difficult to be even superficially acquainted with all that is discovered. What is required is for people in all areas of pursuit of knowledge to practice utmost integrity in their pursuit of knowledge. At the same time, we must be respectful of those whose knowledge will always exceed ours. And we do well to question those whose knowledge challenges us. Dr. Hovind’s presentation persistently questioned well-established scientific understandings. But it made no reference to his asking questions of people in a position to answer them. Rather he used his questions as a means of taking potshots at those whose knowledge is superior to his.

     Dr. Hovind’s presentation takes place in an atmosphere in which some scientists are highly critical of people of faith and some people of faith are highly critical of scientists. His presentation ignores the fact that many scientists have deep religious faith, and many people of deep faith have high respect for scientists. Dr. Hovind’s presentation sought to magnify the differences between some scientists and some people of faith. In doing so it discouraged the spirit of inquiry that prompts increase in knowledge. This spirit of inquiry can be a healthy expression of one’s delight in God’s creation.

     Dr. Hovind’s perspective is most unfortunate in a time when many people who are very aware of the world around them see people of faith as ignorant and narrow-minded. Dr. Hovind’s presentation is of a sort that would encourage people to believe that people of faith are ignorant and narrow-minded.

     I believe that science and faith are not opposed to each other, though some people choose to manufacture an opposition. One significant matter of which Dr. Hovind seems unaware is that science, as it has developed in the Western world, has developed as people of faith marveled at God’s amazing creation and sought to explore and understand it further. Unfortunately, this healthy alliance between faith and science is weakening. The increasing complexity of the world and the increasing specialization of many people’s careers make it more difficult to be aware of the world outside of one’s immediate concerns. Sometimes faith and science challenge each other. An easy, shortsighted reaction is to reject either faith or science. A healthier reaction is to grow in understanding of both faith and science. God created this world of amazing complexity. We can explore it with an open mind and marvel at all God has done.

     In light of the highly charged disagreements increasingly common in a world where people of faith and scientists view each other from a distance, I propose the following. I’m sure this list can be improved:

     1. As we speak with others with whom we differ, we do so with utmost respect and civility. Insulting language, such as calling each other stupid is always inappropriate.

     2. As we have questions, we ask them of the people who have made claims that challenge us. We do not use our questions to take potshots behind the backs of the people with whom we disagree.

     3. As we form opinions, both in matters of science and matters of faith, we practice the highest integrity. For scientists, this means following well established understandings of scientific method. For all of us, we strive to be informed as we speak. As we speak of faith matters, a suitable course of action is not so easily described but certainly includes basic honesty and the modesty to admit that another stance may have merit.

     4. And a fine point. As we express ourselves, we speak slowly enough so that we can be understood and challenged. We must always be open to questions.

     We live in a marvelously complex world. And there are many ways people understand both science and faith. As our discourse is characterized by integrity and civility, we can be a blessing to each other.

     Paul Finger is pastor of SS. Peter & Paul Lutheran Church. Inquiries may be directed to pfinger3.14@gmail.com.