Facts and values at odds

Religious views are unfairly excluded from public discussion in contemporary American culture, Nancy Pearcey argues in her new book "Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity."

Mrs. Pearcey, the Francis A. Schaeffer scholar at the World Journalism Institute, has co-authored several books, including "How Now Shall We Live?" with Chuck Colson and Harold Fickett.

The following are excerpts from an interview with Mrs. Pearcey.

Q: You talk about how our society applies a "fact/value split" to the concept of truth. Can you explain what that means?

A: Every group that wants to have an impact on society talks about how to strategize ways to get past the gatekeepers. But what most people don't realize is that the most powerful gatekeeperis in the realm of ideas: It's the dominant definition of truth. Whatever position you are trying to advance, if it doesn't fit the definition of a genuine truth claim, it will be filtered out beforeany real consideration of its merits.

And what is the dominant definition of truth today? It is what philosophers call the fact/value split.This is the idea that certain things that were traditionally thought to be a matter of truth --like religion and morality and ethics --are actually onlypersonal "values," and that real truth comes only from scientific and empirical investigation. This explains why, when religious conservatives try to advance a position in the public square, it is dismissed out of hand.

Q: Do we see this split in American politics and the current presidential campaign?

A: It lies at the heart of much of the campaign rhetoric we're hearing. For example, at the Democratic National Convention, Ron Reagan,son of the former president, said that people who oppose embryonic stem-cell research are "well-meaning and sincere" and they "are entitled to" their belief.But, he said, they have to realize that it is nothing more than that --"an article of faith"--and that their "theology" must not be allowed to stand in the way of science. In other words, religion is treated as an illusory belief that can be tolerated so long as it is strictly contained in the private sphere.

The actor Christopher Reeve put it even more bluntly. He told a Yale student group,"When matters of public policy are debated, no religions should have a seat at the table." Notice he's not arguing that any particular religious views are wrong. He's saying they don't belong at the table of public debate in the first place. Why not? Because public policy should not be based on anyone's private feelings, and that's how religion has been cast in the political arena.

Story Continues →