20AR25-44

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )

AR 25:44 - Government vs the 'arrogance' and 'shame' of meritocracy

In this issue:

CRITICAL THEORY - addressing class conflict through state-imposed "humility"

KING, KAREN - a book-length look at her "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" fiasco

ORIGINS - an attempted case for "mere theistic evolution"

Apologia Report 25:44 (1,501)

November 4, 2020

CRITICAL THEORY

Can the Left's academic Trojan horse be reduced to class conflict? That's the conclusion of The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?, by Michael J. Sandel [1]. "The longtime Harvard professor, whose online course on justice <www.bit.ly/33XXwKR> has helped make him a global rock star among political philosophers, contends that the progressives' embrace of a society built on individual merit feeds the class resentment now tearing the country apart. Part of the problem is a highly unlevel playing field. [It] makes winners arrogant and losers ashamed. Coming from a Harvard liberal, 'it's a withering analysis.' ...

"Meritocracies aspire to be fairer than societies with rigid class lines. But as Sandel notes, the British socialist who coined the term 'meritocracy' in 1958 predicted that rule by people who considered themselves the smartest and most deserving would result in neglect of the poor and eventual revolt ... against a system that pits all against all, and rewards a smaller and smaller group of people at the top. ...

"Sandel ... thinks schools like Harvard should award seats to qualified students by lottery, both to make admissions fairer and so that graduates can't forget they've been lucky, not simply deserving. He also wants to see respect for wage earners demonstrated through a reduction in payroll taxes and increases in taxes on financial transactions. His message, though, is more about changing people's mindset, asking that America's winners show more humility...." The Week, Oct 16 '20, p23.

---

KING, KAREN L.

In 2016 we devoted an entire issue of AR <www.bit.ly/3nKM90B> to King's <www.bit.ly/34R5I00> reckless choice to *go tabloid* in one of the most bizarre academic controversies of modern times: "The Gospel of Jesus' Wife" - all based on "a scrap of papyrus. ... The document, as journalist Ariel Sabar <arielsabar.com> later helped confirm, was a forgery." Sabar's new book Veritas: A Harvard Professor, a Con Man and the Gospel of Jesus's Wife [2], "fleshes out the exposé he wrote in 2016 for The Atlantic [see AR, above for this], offers revealing glimpses of the antiquities trade, the history of ancient Christian texts, and the often eccentric scholars who study them. Above all, 'it's a story about journalism done right.' ...

"King had built her career on scholarship about women's roles in early Christianity, and she had enlisted friendly scholars to review her work. But Sabar was on the case, and he discovered that the source of the papyrus, Walter Fritz, was a Florida pornographer who'd fabricated the document. King missed the warning signs, Sabar writes, because ideology blinded her. ...

"King's fiasco is likely to taint feminist biblical scholarship for years" (to say nothing of the damage done to the vaunted reputation of her employer, Harvard University). The Week, Aug 28 '20, p23. [5]

A later 2016 update on this in AR <www.bit.ly/2SO8dt4> reports that King *admitted* she never thought to question the document's authenticity.

Another big name that came to grief over this: National Geographic, which ran the piece "No Forgery Evidence in 'Gospel of Jesus's Wife' Papyrus" by Dan Vergano (Nov 8 '17) <www.bit.ly/2STc1cD>

---

ORIGINS

Two years ago we reported <www.bit.ly/3nImTbo> that Philosophia Christi (20:2 - 2018, pp581-590, and hereafter PC) included William Hasker's review of Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique; edited by J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, and Wayne Grudem [3].

Leading the latest issue of PC (22:1), Michael Murray and John Churchill defend what they call "mere theistic evolution" in response to claims made in Theistic Evolution. "According to Murray and Churchill, mere theistic evolution appropriates the modern evolutionary synthesis without requiring a commitment to either metaphysical or methodological naturalism. Moreover, mere theistic evolution is, by their lights, entirely consistent with traditional, Christian doctrinal commitments...." The abstract of their review adds: "A key takeaway from [Theistic Evolution] is that no version of theistic evolution that adheres largely to consensus views in biology is a plausible option for orthodox Christians. In this paper we argue that this is false. ... In addition, we argue that the lines between Intelligent Design and theistic evolution are not as sharp as most scholars have assumed, such that many who self-identify as Intelligent Design adherents would also qualify as theistic evolutionists."

Following this, PC presents a symposium of responses from Theistic Evolution's editors to Murray and Churchill. William Lane Craig's response is given an abstract which finds: "Murray and Churchill argue correctly that theistic evolution as they define it is theologically compatible with orthodox Christian doctrines.... I close with some reflections on mutual misunderstandings of Intelligent Design proponents and theistic evolutionists that arise because each sees the other as a distorted mirror image of himself."

The abstract of Thomas H. McCall's response notes his findings that: "the main theological arguments against theistic evolution put forth in [Theistic Evolution] are not decisive against mere theistic evolution." Stephen C. Meyer's response, by way of its related abstract, holds: "Many Christian scholars have argued that standard versions of evolutionary theory and orthodox theological commitments can be reconciled. Some theistic evolutionists or 'evolutionary creationists' have argued that evolutionary mechanisms such as random mutation and natural selection are nothing less than God's way of creating. Though I dispute the logical coherence of these attempted reconciliations elsewhere, I argue here that there is little reason for Christians to attempt them, since an accumulating body of evidence from multiple subdisciplines of biology casts doubt on the creative power of the main evolutionary mechanisms. Thus, rather than addressing the question, 'Can a meaningful doctrine of divine providence or creation be reconciled with mainstream evolutionary theory?,' this essay will address the question of whether Christians should, or need to, attempt such a reconciliation at all."

-------

SOURCES: Monographs

1 - The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?, by Michael J. Sandel (Farrar S&G, 2020, hardcover, 288 pages) <www.amzn.to/33VPiCY>

2 - Veritas: A Harvard Professor, a Con Man and the Gospel of Jesus's Wife, by Ariel Sabar (Doubleday, 2020, hardcover, 416 pages) <www.amzn.to/313tDHa>

3 - Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique; edited by J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, and Wayne Grudem (Crossway, 2017, hardcover, 1,008 pages) <www.amzn.to/2Hok4dx>

------

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )