Theology

Beauty and the Existence of God

John Mark Reynolds — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:52:21 -0800

The existence of beauty suggests that a God exists and that He is good. It is not a sufficient proof for the existence of God by itself, but a confirmation of His existence to those with other reasons and personal experiences that suggest His reality.

From Plato to C.S. Lewis, creation as a whole has been viewed as marvelously elegant.

The harmonious plan of the cosmos allows for variation and freedom for created beings. There is a fundamental pattern and order to creation, but also room for the unexpected within the design plan. Too much regularity would seem stagnant, so thankfully the created order also shows variability and the marvelously engineered capacity to adapt and change.

So delightful is the universe that elegant mathematical and scientific theories work better in explaining it than inelegant ones. It is no accident that scientists discover that more elegant theories are more useful in the “real world” than less beautiful ones.

These observations suggest an engineer, or artist, behind the cosmos. But is this just a useful natural adaptation? After all, we tend to care for beautiful things, and so it would be to our advantage to develop a liking for the ecosystem that sustains us.

But humans do not just find their local environment pleasing. They also discover that new areas of the cosmos, where humankind has never been, are beautiful. When my son first went up in a plane and saw “cloud land,” he turned to me with wonder and said, “It is so beautiful.” It was not surprising to him, because even though this land above the clouds would have been unknown to all but the most recent humans, we expect beauty when we come to new vistas and are rarely disappointed.

Gratuitous beauty, beauty that could have no survival value for humankind, exists! Both when we dive to the bottom of the ocean, and when we see distant corners of space, we find stark and weird things, never before known, but clearly lovely. At this point it would surprise us if we found a corner of the cosmos that was not beautiful.

That superabundance of beauty is a hint that a good and loving God may exist.

Ugliness also appears to us at times, but the ugly is less fundamental than beautiful. Ugliness exists as a twisting of the beautiful created order. This truth is taught in Scripture, but can also be observed in creation: every unborn child will grow to express the divine image unless their development is aborted by sin.

Viewed with the widest scope humans possess, the cosmos shows awe-inspiring beauty, and this beauty is repeated in the most focused examination of the basic elements of that massive structure. It is only in the middle, where we find humankind, at the level of choice and agency, that the pattern of beauty is twisted and marred. Yet, even there, the staggering ability of humankind to create beauty based on the common image of God within us reminds us that it is beauty that is fundamentally real.

For a Biblical Christian existence is good and goodness is beautiful. As a result nothing created can be wholly bad or utterly ugly. Even the most shattered part of creation remains part of the beautiful whole, made from the beautiful elements of creation.

Parts of creation, especially humans, require redemption. But even the image of God in fallen man, shattered though it is, retains enough beauty to remind the keen observer of God.

Flotation Devices and Prophets

John Barry — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 06:00:00 -0800

When you are sitting on an airplane with your seat belt fastened and your seat and tray in upright position, you may have noticed the words on the bottom of the pull-out tray: “In case of emergency: Use seat cushion as flotation device.” I don’t know about you, but those words have never comforted me.

Sure, as this plane plummets at a gazillion miles an hour towards the ocean, I am going to rip my seat cushion off of the chair and say, “Wow, I am glad I have this.” I doubt I will even have a chance to use it. When I read, “In case of an emergency,” I think, “I am not going to survive the emergency, so who needs the just ‘in case’ item.”

Many people think that faith is a “just in case of emergency” thing. “When things go bad, I’ll grab my ‘faith’ flotation device—that will help me.” But by the time we have even realized that we are in a faith emergency, our plane has already crashed. When things go bad, you may not get a chance to place your faith in Christ. We try and tell ourselves, “I’ll come back to Jesus later,” or “I will seek God later,” but what if there is no "later?" What if there is no second chance?

I am getting on a plane to Boston this morning to go and present a paper at a conference. Because of that I have been thinking about my stance with God. How will He feel about me when all is said and done? Have I treated God too many times like He is a “in case of emergency” measure? The hope of pearly white gates won’t get me to God. It is my faith in Christ and my subsequent actions that will lead me to Him. The infinite things of God will not just come later, the Infinite God is here; He is now.

Look around; the world desires to see the Infinite God in everything. People are searching for Him everywhere. The emergency is now. Our world is hurting. People are dying. The poor are oppressed. The voice of God is rarely heard, and is more rarely felt. We can’t just put off our relationship with Christ expecting to come back to it later when it is convenient. We have to do something now.

The prophets saw this, they felt it, and they did something about it. When Isaiah prophesies against Hezekiah during the Assyrian King Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, he was not joking around (Isaiah 36). This was not a “just in case” situation—It was an emergency. Hezekiah needed to hear God, and he needed to respond. Likewise, we today need to hear God. We need to call out to Him and obey the prophetic word He has placed on our hearts. Today is a faith emergency.

I leave you with Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:50: “Therefore, my beloved brothers and sisters, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.”

The Bible and Slavery

John Mark Reynolds — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:48:07 -0800

The Old Testament acknowledges the existence of economic, not racial, slavery in the ancient world and attempts to regulate it. The New Testament undermines the economic viability of slavery by calling for slaves to be treated as “brothers,” but does not call for immediate abolition.

Why not?

The Bible attacks slavery and many other social injustices indirectly. The main focus of the Bible is not human culture, but the relationship between God and humankind. The Bible prioritizes healing the dying soul over dealing with corrupt cultures.

God also recognizes that revolutionary change in human institutions often produces more harm than good.

The fallen world is full of great social evils and humans are busy thinking up new ones every day. Scripture does provide general principles that can be applied to specific cases with the potential to bring about large cultural change, but slowly and over time.

However, since God is most interested in changed hearts and eternal salvation, the Bible does not consist of regulations covering every aspect of life. Instead, God commands and forbids some very basic behaviors and begins the long process of revealing His nature and will to free will beings. The simple lesson of monotheism was difficult enough for the ancient peoples to understand.

Eventually, embracing monotheism undermines slavery: since it demands allegiance to God and the divine will, it places each individual human being on an equal footing. All people are essentially equal before God. Slavery, one person “owning” another as property, is deeply incompatible with this basic truth.

The slavery of the ancient world at the time of the writing of Scripture was economic or military. Losers ended up slaves whether in bankruptcy or defeat. Civilization, and the hope of future progress that goes with it, often depends on highly structured and, by modern standards, rigid social hierarchies. The technology simply did not exist to support a culture as free as is possible in modern times.

Economic slavery is an evil, but not the worst possible evil. The economies of the ancient world were not just and revolved around slavery. But since Greek and Roman people lacked the moral training and economic sophistication to handle a fully free civilization, immediate abolition would have led to social unrest, starvation, and a collapse in civilization. God is a good educator and teaches His lessons as quickly as He can, but He must teach the students He has and not the students we wish He had.

The Bible treats the slave as a human being capable of his or her own relationship with God. Old Testament modification of slavery demanded righteous treatment, undercutting economic justification for bad treatment. By the time Paul asked a master to treat his slave as a “brother,” there was little chance that slavery could long survive amongst Biblically consistent Christians. Over time slavery died out in Christian lands until it experienced a sickening revival with race-based slavery.

Racial slavery finds no justification in Scripture and is much worse than economic slavery. The race-based slave has his or her basic humanity called into question. As a result there was a much stronger argument for immediate abolition of race-based slavery, regardless of the cost. Slavery in the United States occurred far enough along in the Christian era that it stood as an affront to moral progress. As the results of the American Civil War proved, slavery was not necessary for sustaining nineteenth century social order. Indeed, race based slavery undermined the health of any area cursed with its evil as an institution.

On the Comprehensibility of God (Part 2)

Sanjay Merchant — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:52:14 -0800

In my last post, I referred to theologian Elizabeth Johnson's claim that God is "incomprehensible, unfathomable, limitless, ineffable, [and] beyond description." The key problem with her assertion is that she muddles two senses in which God is said to be incomprehensible. The first sense of divine incomprehensibility expresses the theologically modest insight that one can never possess exhaustive knowledge about God. He is too great and his being is too deep to be described in toto; he is ultimately incomprehensible. However, the second sense expresses austere skepticism with regard to one's ability to genuinely know or properly articulate anything about God. In other words, he is utterly incomprehensible.

The Problem with Utter Incomprehensibility

Yet, while ultimate incomprehensibility is uncontroversial, utter incomprehensibility is seriously flawed because describing something as indescribable or comprehending of something as wholly incomprehensible involves a contradiction. It is self-defeating to define God as a being that cannot be defined. The theological pessimist undermines her position in the acts of describing, defining, and comprehending.

Johnson, however, may endorse the subtler notion that human concepts only apply to things in the world of human experience but, since God transcends the world, human concepts cannot apply to God. This is to say that, in utilizing worldy concepts to refer to the matchless and unique God, we "reduce divine reality to an idol." If we say that God is like anything in the world, we commit idolatry.

But, this modified version of utter incomprehensibility also has a fatal flaw: to say that no human concept can apply to God is to say that one concept does, indeed, apply to God; namely, according to philosopher Thomas Morris, "the concept of being such as to escape characterization by human concepts" (Our Idea of God: An Introduction to Philosophical Theology [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1991], 21). Moreover, it's almost certainly false that human concepts only apply to matters of human experience. We develop concepts about a number of things that we do not, or cannot, experience like numbers, Martians, and Abraham Lincoln.

The Problem with Restricted Comprehensibility

Given that utter incomprehensibility fails, the pessimist may opt for restricted comprehensibility by claiming that almost nothing can be known about God. The problem is that, ironically, one must know quite a bit about God in order to affirm restricted comprehensiblity. Besides, those who believe that humanity bears the divine image have a good reason to be optimistic about the prospect of possessing a clear concept of God. We are designed to know him.

On the Comprehensibility of God (Part 1)

Sanjay Merchant — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 03:59:59 -0800

There is a longstanding suspicion that claims about God go beyond the limits of knowledge. Is it possible to know that God loves us, or that he is all powerful, or that he is known through Jesus Christ, or that he is a "he," let alone that he exists? Some individuals insist that we can know a number of important things about God; Scripture, philosophical reflection, and mystical experience are typically thought to be essential sources of insight about the divine nature.

Others, however, are doubtful that we can know many significant things, while still others are downright pessimistic that we can know anything at all. Ironically, some of the pessimists have a lot to say about God. For example, the Catholic, feminist theologian Elizabeth Johnson expresses doubt about the viability of God-talk from the outset of her recent book, Quest for the Living God:

The very nature of what is being sought is incomprehensible, unfathomable, limitless, ineffable, beyond description. The living God literally cannot be compared with anything in the world. To do so is to reduce divine reality to an idol. The divine magnitude means that no matter how much we know, the human mind can never capture the whole of the living God in a net of concepts, images, or definitions, or preside over the reality of God in even the most exalted doctrines.... If you have fully figured out who God is, then you are dealing with something else, some lesser reality (Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God [New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group, Inc., 2008], 12-13).

What do you make of this claim? Is Johnson is completely right, partially right, or completely wrong? I'll share my thoughts in my next post.

Am I a Pantheist?

John Barry — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:46:09 -0800

Pantheism, Deism, Darwinism, Atheism, Agnosticism—whoever you are, wherever you are at, there’s a label for you. I often get pinned with Pantheist, or something like it, because I use phrases like “seeing the Infinite God in everything.” Let’s take a moment and see if I really am a pantheist.

We could examine some Greek literature, and see if the way I view God is equivalent to ancient pantheists, but I will spare you, since that answer is definitively: No, I don’t view God the same way as most people in the Graeco-Roman world. Let’s instead examine two modern definitions of pantheism, and see if I fit into either one of them.

pan•the•ism \ˈpan(t)-thē-ˌi-zəm\ n [F panthéisme, fr. panthéiste pantheist, fr. E pantheist, fr. pan- + Gk theos god]

1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe

2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire) — pan•the•ist \-thē-ist\ n — pan•the•is•tic \ˌpan(t)-thē-ˈis-tik\ also pan•the•is•ti•cal \-ti-kəl\ adj — pan•the•is•ti•cal•ly \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adv

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.).

So, do I fit into the first definition? Do I equate “God with the forces and laws of the universe?” No, I do not make Him equal to the forces and laws of the universe. However, I do believe that the first way God revealed Himself was through the forces and laws of the universe (e.g., Genesis 1). I also think this is one of the ways God continues to reveal Himself, because after all, creation is still present. In Romans 1:19-20 (ESV) Paul says, "For what can be known about God is plain to [humanity], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

There is intentionality behind all of creation. However, that is not to say that the intentionality is always directed at us. To believe we are at the center is to continue in egotistical mania, which is contrary to the point of creation. Creation is meant to lead us away from our selfish nature, and back to the selfless God of the universe.

Nonetheless, the leaves that fall at this time of year show us something about God and His creation. There is something infinite in the cycle of the world, because God has a hand in it. Leaves fall and die, but they nurture the tree they fall from and the trees around them, providing for future growth. Likewise, God may allow for one path in life to fall and die out, but another will spring forward as a result of it. The symbolism of creation may not always be the intention of it, but that does not make one who interprets it symbolically incorrect. After all, we have to use symbolism, metaphors and similes to describe God. Even language itself is symbolic of what occurs in our minds and the ways we intend to communicate.

What about the second definition of pantheism? Do I worship gods of different creeds, cults, or people indifferently? No, I believe we can only fully know the Infinite God through the person of Christ Jesus. What precisely I think is going on in different creeds, cults, or people, is a different subject I can go into at another time.

God speaks in a variety of ways—through His creation, through His book, and through the Holy Spirit. All of these must be balanced when approaching the God of the Universe. It is kind of like America’s system of government, when one branch (executive, legislative, or judicial) has too much power, the whole government gets out of whack. That is why the different branches are meant to balance and check each other.

Seeing the infinite in everything means seeing God more clearly in all parts of creation and society. It means being willing to open our eyes and realize that God first revealed Himself in creation, then through His Son (the means of creation), and will finally reveal Himself in the last days of this now tattered creation. A creation, which like us created beings, will be made new.

In seeing God in all of this, we should be driven to call on Him and grow closer to Him through His Son (Colossians 1:15-20). If we believe in Him and are seeking His will, the different paths we feel like we are led down will eventually merge. Perhaps even the divergence and convergence of His speech and revelation shows us something about Him.

What would your life look like if you started looking for the Infinite God in everything? Would the paths you are led down look a little different?

Pop-Atheism's Swindle

Sanjay Merchant — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:03:40 -0700

Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris have recently published wildly popular books attacking belief in God. This Troika of Secularism emphatically rejects theism and insists that the rest of us should as well. They are, in fact, evangelistic atheists; or more precisely, "anti-theists."

The reflective believer would be foolish to underestimate the impact that they and their ilk are having on the public's perception of faith, in general, and Christianity, in particular. Their works contain a tangled convergence of insightful criticism, sophomoric philosophizing, and raw, mean-spirited bluster which has served to, simultaneously, rally the skeptics and irk the saints. The most curious aspect of their collective project, however, is that they make almost no effort to defend atheism.

The Presumption of Atheism: A Swindle

Apparently, they don't think atheism requires any validation. In their minds, theism has a lot of explaining to do. What about religious hypocrisy and bigotry? What about the problem of evil? And what about religion's anti-scientific disposition? Atheism, on the other hand, is depicted as a safe haven for sober rationality and the default epistemic position for any unbiased, clear-headed person. That is to say, they simply presume atheism and then demand that "religion"--a bizarre cultural force which motivates and encompasses individuals as disparate as Pat Buchanan and Osama Bin Laden--answer for the injustices that are perceived to emerge from its various amorphous doctrines.

Suffice it so say, the Troika's understanding of fundamental issues in theology and philosophy of religion ranges from uncharitable to inept. (Anyone who compares what Thomas actually argued to that which Dawkins thinks he argued can hardly disagree.) Nonetheless, they are sure that, despite the rich history of ideas which flows from classical theism, there are no compelling reasons to think that belief in God is a viable option for intelligent individuals.

This presumption, however, is a swindle.

How the Swindle Works

All propositions--like "Crows are black" or "Rosie hates Donald" or "There is no God"--are either true or false. Correspondingly, if we think they're true, we will believe them; if we think they're false, we will disbelieve them. Yet there is a second way to express disbelief: we can withhold judgment. Consider proposition G: "God exists." The theist affirms G, the atheist denies G, and the soft agnostic withholds judgment about G. Moreover, by denying G, the atheist affirms ~G: "God does not exist." The theist, of course, denies ~G and the soft agnostic, once again, witholds judgement.

Undoubtedly, the theist bears a burden of proof with regard to G and the atheist bears a burden of proof with regard to ~G. Rational people can disagree about which proposition is initially more plausible and, so, it's difficult to show that either theism or atheism is the default position. The agnostic simply waits for someone to make a compelling case either way.

Pop-atheists, nevertheless, mask atheism's burden of proof by bringing it under the umbrella of "non-theism" with soft agnosticism. That is to say, they illicitly muddle soft agnosticism's lack of epistemic burden with atheism's positive claim; they purposely confuse belief in the non-existence of God with non-belief in the existence of God. The swindlers, in effect, want to have atheism by affirming agnosticism.

Turning the Tables

Yet the scam could run the other way. If one were to conflate soft agnosticism with theism, it could be argued that "non-atheism" is the default position and atheists must do all the proving. But this is obviously unreasonable. So Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris cannot blithely rely on their mistaken notion that G is unproven, even if it were not. If their overtures are genuine, they must offer a positive case for ~G.

Debunking a Classic Objection to Dualism

tamb — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:25:33 -0700

If you've ever taken a Philosophy 101 course and talked about philosophy of mind, you've heard this classic objection to dualism. Dualism is the view that minds are not brains or bodies, but rather immaterial souls. According to dualism, you can exist apart from your body. According to physicalism, you cannot exist apart from your body, since you just are your body. Clearly Christians have a stake in this debate, since we weekly profess our belief in life after the death and destruction of our bodies.

Physicalists tend to think you are some part of your body, namely your brain. While you could exist without your arms or legs or lungs or most other parts of your body, you could not exist without your brain, they say. The brain is the "seat of consciousness." In support of this, physicalists very often point to mind-brain correlations. They say "Look, whenever you experience pain, this part of your brain lights up. And if we disable this part of your brain, you can no longer feel pain. Therefore, feeling pain just is identical with being in this brain state."

Jaegwon Kim, in his introductory book on the philosophy of mind, explains why people are attracted to physicalism:

[W]hy are we inclined to think that the brain is "the seat of our mental life," as Descartes might have put it? The answer seems clear: there are pervasive and systematic psychoneural correlations, that is, correlations between mental phenomena and brain processes.

As I said, this is a classic argument given in nearly every introductory text and class. However, it seems upon reflection to be a very bad argument. The argument is roughly this:

(1) For any x, if x is correlated with some brain event B, and if inhibiting B inhibits x, then x is identical with B.

(2) Feeling pain is correlated with some brain event B, and inhibiting B inhibits feeling pain.

And of course they think the same goes not just with mental states like feeling pain, but with all mental states (e.g. tasting banana, thinking about hockey, etc.)

The sad fact, however, is that (1) is false. There are many counterexamples to (1), and therefore it can't be true. Here is one counterexample:

Walking to the store is correlated with some brain event B. And inhibiting B inhibits my walking to the store. (If you were to knock me unconscious, for example, I wouldn't be able to walk to the store.) And yet we wouldn't think for a second that walking to the store just is identical with that brain event. No, walking to the store involves much more than that brain event: it involves my legs, my eyes, my arms, etc.

And so we have a counterexample to (1). In the case I described, the "IF" parts of (1) were satisifed, and yet the "THEN" part did not follow. But (1) says that whenever the "IF" parts are satisfied, the "THEN" part must follow. And so (1) is false.

And so this classic objection to dualism shouldn't concern us at all.

Closer to Truth

tamb — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:16:16 -0700

I'd like to direct your attention to what looks to be a very interesting television series called "Closer to Truth." Here's a description from its website:

Public fascination with questions of Cosmos, Consciousness and particularly of God has grown substantially in recent years. Public debate has been intense, often heated. Closer To Truth presents to mass audiences these leading-edge ideas in an approachable, rational and balanced manner, and introduces the human personalities behind these ideas. By meeting these change-making characters close-up, the thinkers behind the thoughts, visiting them in their homes, offices, labs, gardens, churches and temples, Closer To Truth humanizes riveting ideas and makes them more accessible and more relevant.

It is the mission of Closer To Truth to become the most publicly prominent venue for heightened understanding and thoughtful discussion of Cosmos, Consciousness and God for broad television audiences.

The initial slate of 39 Closer To Truth episodes interweaves 13 each on Cosmos, Consciousness, God. Each 30-minute episode features four to seven of the world’s foremost thinkers. The series as a whole features 128 such authorities, each taped in detailed conversations (between two and eight hours), in what we believe to be the most comprehensive and definitive treatment of these topics ever presented in visual or electronic media.

They've just started producing the series, and they already have some good stuff. I'd especially encourage you to watch all of Alvin Plantinga's videos, available at the bottom of this page.

There are many other scheduled participants who have not yet been interviewed. I'm looking forward to the segments on WL Craig, JP Moreland, Robin Collins, Greg Boyd, David Chalmers, Ned Block, Thomas Flint, Brian Leftow, Richard Swinburne, Bas van Fraassen, Peter van Inwagen, and Dean Zimmerman.

Obama's Negative View of Religion in the Public Square

tamb — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:13:51 -0700

In June of 2006, Barack Obama gave the keynote address at the Call to Renewal. In this address, he clearly describes his view of the role of religion in the public square. This view is certainly not original to him; it is shared by many liberal academics. Here it is:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

Obama argues for the following conclusion: Arguments in the public square cannot appeal to premises that only members of a specific religion would accept. They must appeal to principles that can be evaluated by pure reason, not by any alleged divine revelation.

For example, according to Obama, if I’d like to publicly argue against legally permitting homosexual marriage, I cannot use as a premise something like “The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong.” Since not everyone accepts the authority of the Bible, this premise is not permissible in the public square.

So that’s his position. And clearly that would have huge ramifications for Christians. The following would not be permissible as a premise, for example: All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That’s out, according to Obama. Arguing for prayer in public schools on the grounds that God exists and prayer is efficacious would also be out, according to Obama. Arguing against the death penalty on the basis of Romans 12:16-20 would also be out, according to Obama.

Alright, so much for the view. That’s what Obama believes the role of religion should be in the public square: Silence. Religious arguments are inadmissible in Obama’s court.

The larger question is: Why believe this view? What argument does Obama give in favor of this conclusion? Why should we accept that religion should be silent in the public square?

His argument, as I understand it in the above quotation, is roughly this:

Democracy demands that religious appeals are inadmissible. In a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.

Why think that? He says, roughly:

Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. But religion doesn’t allow for compromise. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences.

OK, so let’s extract the argument.

(1) If Smith believes that God wants us to do X, then (a) Smith will believe that we should do X regardless of the consequences, (b) Smith will be totally unwilling to compromise about doing X, and (c) Smith will be unable to persuade everyone else that we should do X, without appeal to religious premises.

(2) Participation in politics in a pluralistic democracy requires compromise and the ability to persuade other people “of common aims based on a common reality,” i.e. without appeal to religious premises. That is, participation in politics requires that (a)-(c) not be true of you.

(3) Therefore, if Smith believes that God wants us to do X, then Smith will be unable to participate in politics in a pluralistic democracy.

Is that a fair assessment of the argument? I don’t want to be uncharitable to Obama. I really think that’s what he’s saying. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

But this conclusion is far stronger than the conclusion that we cannot appeal to religious premises when arguing in the public square. This conclusion says that we cannot even believe religious premises such as “God wants us/me to do X” and enter the public square! People with beliefs about God’s desires for mankind cannot even enter politics, according to this argument.

That’s certainly alarming. And it contradicts what Obama has said about his own religious faith. He has said, for example, when he describes his conversion in his book The Audacity of Hope: “[K]neeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works.”

If the above argument in (1)-(3) is right, and if Obama has discovered any of God’s truth and is dedicated to carrying out any of God’s works as he says in his book, then Obama himself cannot participate in politics. So that’s one criticism of the argument: it applies to Obama as well. So he cannot reasonably wield this political argument in the public square, since it concludes that he should not participate in politics in the public square.

Now let's ask if it is even a sound argument. Are premises (1) and (2) true? I don’t think either one is true. I think they’re both flat-out false.

(1) is false because of clause (b). I don’t think it’s necessarily true that, if Smith believes that God wants us to do X, Smith will be totally unwilling to compromise. Smith may realize that many people disagree with him about doing X, and he may realize that he’s unable to persuade them to see things his way, and he may be unable or unwilling to compel people to see things his way. And so he may be willing to strike a compromise with his opponents, to get as close as possible to doing X.

Indeed, this happens all the time. Many religiously motivated opponents of gay marriage desire to totally outlaw gay marriage, for primarily religious reasons. Many of them think that outlawing gay marriage is the right thing to do, and that God wants us to do it. And yet many of them realize that others disagree and that they cannot persuade them. And many are unwilling or unable to forcibly compel the country to outlaw gay marriage. And so many of these people seek instead to compromise with their opponents, perhaps by allowing civil unions to protect marriage. But premise (1) says this is just impossible. So much the worse for premise (1): we have clear counterexamples from everyday life. So premise (1) is false.

Premise (2) says that, in order to participate in politics, one must be willing to compromise and one must be able to persuade other people without appeal to religious premises. I think premise (2) is false, and I think Obama himself agrees with me! Elsewhere in this Call to Renewal address, he says:

“Imagine Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address without reference to "the judgments of the Lord." Or King's I Have a Dream speech without references to "all of God's children." Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.”

He seems to condone Lincoln’s speech and MLK’s speech. And yet the parts of the speeches he praises are explicitly religious, and would not persuade a non-religious person. And clearly Lincoln and MLK were participating in politics in the public square. Therefore, Obama both recognizes the possibility and even praises some instances of religiously motivated participation in politics. That is, he recognizes that there are (praiseworthy) counterexamples to (2). I agree with him. And so he should believe that (2) is false, just as I do.

In conclusion, although Obama’s stated view of religion in the public square is very troubling, he gives us no good reason to accept it. Indeed, Obama himself elsewhere seems to give good reason to reject it! His views on this matter are inconsistent. As for us, there is no reason to think that religious premises are inadmissible in the public square. There’s no reason to think that one must be willing and able to persuade everyone in order for one to participate in politics in the public square. Of course you’ll be more successful in politics if you can persuade everyone, but that’s not a prerequisite to participation in politics. And so we should not be the least bit ashamed about making religious appeals in the public square.