Dear Torrance, California,
Just in case you missed it, one of the California State Assembly members who represents your locality suggests that your faith community needs to “evolve” (his word) because it would ultimately be involved in “fraudulent” (his word) activity according to a new law passed in California state assembly that deals with counseling, sermons, and books in Churches. Specifically, he stated, “The faith community, like anyone else, needs to evolve with the times.”
He quotes his experience as a prosecutor—not a philosopher—and the backing of three “science” organizations—I guess he missed the several dozen other science organizations just there in California—to support his conclusion that the science is clear on the fact that the work of the Church is fraudulent and just needs to evolve.
But, let’s cut to the chase here. What would that “evolution” look like? Who would determine when the faith community had evolved sufficiently? What are the metrics that would suggest the faith community’s evolution would be satisfactory to this gentleman or any other? Such a conclusion requires a determination about what’s right and wrong.
If there’s to be a determination about what is right, then “right” demands that we use a moral position. From where are we to get this moral position? I suppose this gentleman might argue with me but he states that he’s using “science” to buttress his position.
And yet even Aldous Huxley decried the moral incapacity of science. Atheist Richard Dawkins “admits that science has no methods or authority for deciding what is ethical.”[1] To say that science is the reason for declaring the faith community “fraudulent” is a philosophical statement that itself cannot be proven by science. Statements about philosophy and religion are usually emotion-filled as is the case here. Appealing to reason, one might conclude that a fraud has occurred in this case. But by whom?
So, Torrance, thanks for sending this guy to your state legislature. But, here’s the thing. To require a moral choice, we need a moral law, and hence, a moral law giver. Note to the California State Assembly: The faith community already has a moral law giver. And, it’s not you.
Sincerely,
A Member of the Faith Community
[1] Zacharias, R. The End of Reason. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008, p. 62.