|
WELCOME TO THE JOSHUA LETTER Introduction. The Joshua Letter has had a web presence since 2000. Until 2008, the web site was published by Thomas Alderman as an individual, and the emphasis was on the question of the roots of human dignity. As phrased on the original homepage, Is there anything which explains our entitlement to [justice]? Is it not true that we regard ourselves as entitled to justice because we possess an attribute to which we refer as "dignity" and which we consider to be essential to our humanness? I believe most will agree that it is.
But is this dignity real? What does it consist of, and where does it come from?
It was during that time that the essays on human origins and American slavery were published. The essays on slavery have received praise from many quarters, and particularly from among those having to contend with expressions of white supremacy within the Church. In 2008, The Joshua Letter was incorporated in the State of Oregon as a public benefit corporation, and was recognized by the IRS as a charitable, tax-exempt organization. Later the same year, two big changes in the web site were made. First, it was reformatted to permit its use as a platform for dialogue. Especially noteworthy in this respect were the addition of a weblog and a wide range of open forums. More importantly, the breadth of our stated concern was expanded to reflect our conviction that truth is indivisible. Thus, we are convinced that theology, science, philosophy, and law – and indeed, all areas of human concern – are deeply and pervasively interrelated, and that if we are to comprehend our world and our place in it, none of these areas of concern can be well understood in isolation from the others. The emphasis on human dignity is retained; but now the intention is to place it in its full context, in which the law of human rights can be seen as rooted in the science and theology of human nature, as understood in the light of philosophy and reason. The Unitary Field of Knowledge. The emphasis on the indivisibility of knowledge is necessary because we believe that in our time, the greatest obstacle to human understanding is the notion of the divided field of knowledge, which we consider to be the defining myth of our age. According to this notion, there are two mutually exclusive realms of knowledge: science, which governs the realm of fact, and religion, which governs the realm of meaning. Thus, scientific advances can never inform morality or existential value, and religion can never properly influence – it can never inform, support, critique, or restrain – the pursuit of knowledge about the natural order. As stated in the essay, Defining "Science": How Philosophy Reconciles Science and Religion. [See Forum.] It is this divided field of knowledge which is responsible for the modern proclivity for thinking of science as an exclusively secular pursuit of mechanistic, naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena, and not as an integral part of man's unitary quest for knowledge. . . . This way of thinking is so deeply embedded in the western mind that we are not even aware of it. Of course, evolutionary theorists do everything they can to perpetuate it, but it was and remains a catastrophic blunder. There is only one field of knowledge. Whatever is, is, and whatever is not, is not. But by the turn of the 20th century, for many reasons, naturalism and science had become synonymous, and naturalism has ruled science ever since. Thus Stephen Jay Gould, who until his death in 2005 was the world’s best-known popularizer of evolutionary theory, stated that "science treats factual reality, while religion struggles with human morality." As Phillip Johnson says, this is naturalistic metaphysics in a nutshell, and it is transparently fallacious, because God’s commandments cannot provide a basis for morality unless He actually exists. But if God actually exists, then we are not entitled to assume that all natural phenomena have resulted from physical causation.
It should be apparent from the foregoing that if we do seek an integrated view of reality, our options are severely restricted. Either human life is significant, or it is not; and if it is significant, then that significance will be found in what is, not in what we only imagine. Thus, neither science nor religion can succeed without the other. The Joshua Letter does bring a particular view of reality to the discussion, already formed. However, it is that view itself – rooted in the veracity of the Bible and the deity of Jesus – which entails a profound respect for every individual, irrespective of religion. That respect is based on the biblical doctrine that every human bears the God-image and therefore has inherent value and dignity, and on the belief that the God-image is most clearly visible in the individual human conscience. If this is true, then each person’s conscience must be cared for, each one’s spiritual journey must be respected, and every opinion, sincerely expressed, must be welcomed. |
