A Node in the Web of the Emerging Church

Zizek on Science and Religion

Posted Aug 26, 10:29 PM | 1 comments | by Editor | Link

By Fernando Gros, re-posted from Fernando’s Desk:

“Science today effectively does compete with religion, insofar as it serves two properly ideological needs, those for hope and those for censorship, which were traditionally taken care of by religion. ...

“In a curious inversion, religion is one of the possible places from which one can deploy critical doubts about today’s society. It has become one of the sites of resistance.”

In these lines (from pages 69-70 of Violence), philosopher Slavoj Zizek highlights what is clear to any critical reader of the new atheism (Dawkins, Hitchens, and co.); that it functions as a secular kind of fundamentalism. This is not a new insight.

What is more compelling is the role Zizek assigns to religion. Rather than the future of marginal voicelessness that many church leaders fear, the church has a place as a “site of resistance” able to express “critical doubts about today’s society.” In support of this argument Zizek quotes John Gray, “... churches have become sanctuaries of doubt” in contrast to science’s “refuge from uncertainty.”

The point shouldn’t be lost on theologians, apologists, and church leaders. If the church has something unique to offer in our cultural moment then it will be found in resistance, critical thinking, doubt and uncertainty—which is another way of saying it will be found in offering people the space to think.

The question, of course, is what happens when folks walk through the doors of a local church. Will they find a “thinking space” or will they be confronted by something else?

Fernando Gros is a writer and musician, living in Hong Kong. A former pastor, chaplain, banker, and pizza maker, he blogs on issues on faith and globalisation.

Bookmark this article using Remarkable!

Welcome to the Reader's Forum

1Kai Aug 27, 09:32 PM

Thanks for this post. I think you are essentially correct in your insight that the church offers a valuable counterpoint to the New Atheists.

Specifically, I think that when we view ‘science’ as a ‘tradition’ we will begin to see how the ‘tradition’ of Christianity can critique it successfully.

Inflexible fundamentalism as it is embodied in the New Atheists is just as bankrupt as it is in Christian, Muslim, and other circles.

Traditions self-critical enough to overcome this straitjacket will always successfully critique those that are not.