Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Joe Carter says facts and truth are subjective matters of opinion

Joe Carter says facts and truth are subjective matters of opinion

Last updated on: October 19, 2011 at 11:34 am by Fred Clark

Joe Carter says facts and truth are subjective matters of opinion 2011-10-19T11:34:44-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Joe Carter of First Things is horrified that Karl Giberson and Randall J. Stephens would dare to besmirch the honor of intellectual giants like David Barton, Ken Ham and James Dobson.

Carter leaps to their defense with a two pronged strategy of First Things’ usual self-aggrandizing huff-and-puffery (calling their op-ed “the type of sophomoric, bias-confirming piece that no reputable publication would touch”) and of some kind of post-postmodern radical rejection of all epistemology.

The core of Carter’s argument is that there is no such thing as truth or fact or reality. “Most of us evangelicals,” he says, “have been taught to think for themselves [sic].” Well, OK. Thinking for yourself is good, right?

But as the saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. And by “think for themselves,” what Carter means is that everyone is entitled to their own facts. People who “think for themselves,” he says, should be free to come to whatever conclusions they choose about whether evolution is true, whether climate change “is real and caused by humans,” whether “the founders were evangelicals who intended America to be a Christian nation,” and whether “reparative therapy can ‘cure’ homosexuality.”

Here is the core of Carter’s disagreement with Giberson and Stephens. Giberson and Stephens regard those questions as objective matters of fact that ought to be answered according to evidence. Carter regards those questions as wholly subjective, to be answered according to personal preference.

Were Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine “evangelicals who intended America to be a Christian nation”? Giberson and Stephens would say no, in fact, they were not evangelicals and they did not intend America to be a Christian nation. Joe Carter says “think for yourself” — what do you want to be true? Go with that and don’t let any sophomoric, bias-confirming facts sway you one way or the other.

Is climate change “real and caused by humans”? Giberson and Stephens look at the evidence and say that yes, in fact, it is. Carter says this slavish devotion to evidence and fact is just another form of “fundamentalism.” Free your mind and the facts will follow.

What seems to have upset Carter the most in their op-ed was their criticism of James Dobson for advocating “reparative therapy.” Carter, oddly, cites a study that he says claims to show that reparative therapy works. So, wait, suddenly studies and evidence and science matter? Because just a minute ago Carter said they didn’t. This reflects another great advantage to rejecting reason and reality — you don’t need to worry about consistency. If Carter isn’t concerned with contradicting reality, then he doesn’t need to be concerned with contradicting himself either.

After saying that all criticism of reparative therapy is “politicized,” Carter writes:

However, for open-minded researchers, the efficacy of repartive therapy is still open to scientific investigation. Recently, Stanton Jones, a psychology professor and provost at Wheaton College, and Mark Yarhouse, a professor of mental health at Regent University, published a study in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy that showed that some homosexuals who seek to change their sexual orientation may be able to do so with the help of religious mediation. Will that cause the APA to reconsider their position? Of course not. The APA is not an organization to be swayed by empirical results.

Carter includes a link from the words “published a study.” It does not link to the study. It links, instead, to a deliriously misleading article about the study from The Christian Post. Yes, The Christian Post. Now we know what Carter means when he sniffs about “reputable publications.”

Carter says Jones and Yarmouth “showed that some homosexuals who seek to change their sexual orientation may be able to do so.” Jones and Yarmouth themselves say that their “results do not prove that categorical change in sexual orientation is possible for everyone or anyone, but rather that meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitute real changes appear possible for some.”

And that’s different. The study does not show what Carter claims it shows. I suppose that’s just evidence that he’s not a fact-fundamentalist and that he’s “thinking for themself.”

Warren Throckmorton offers a much more fact-driven consideration of that study, of what it does and doesn’t claim to show, and of how it is being misused by people like Carter:

Categorical change — moving from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one — is not what has been reported by the Jones and Yarhouse. Clearly some people reported changes which allowed them to make an attribution change to themselves – they feel more straight and so they identify with the label. However, the absolute shifts on average were modest, leading to the assessment from Jones and Yarhouse that “meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitute real changes appear possible for some.”

… the concept of bisexuality is not satisfactorily addressed by the study or by reviewers. Bisexuals I have spoken to describe their lives as a series of shifts. For whatever reason, the direction of their attractions shifts with time and/or with relationships. From their point of view, they are not changing orientation when they fall in love with an opposite sex person after a period of same-sex relationships. Instead, they are flexing along a continuum, all of which is understood to be within their essential orientation. …

I am disappointed that the study has re-ignited the “change is possible” political machine. There is fluidity for some people in their sexual attractions, however this says very little about the experience of people who don’t experience that fluidity. Change of orientation for a small group of people is one hypothesis. However, there are other explanations. I think explanations incorporating the reality of bisexuality, cross orientation relationships, and male-female differences are also plausible. In fact, I think they are more plausible.

We should note as well that Jones and Yarhouse conducted a “longitudinal study of individuals seeking sexual orientation change through involvement in a variety of Christian ministries affiliated with Exodus International.” John J. Smid, who served on the board of Exodus for 11 years and served as director of one of those affiliated ministries, sums up his more than 20 years of experience in that work this way: “I’ve never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual.”

Smid considers the evidence of his experience and, unlike Carter, he thinks his beliefs should adapt to that evidence. Carter believes that the freedom to “think for themselves” and to be entitled to our own facts means that the evidence should be forced to adapt to our beliefs.

That’s why he expends so much energy explicitly attacking any fact-based arbiter of reality — scientists, historians, The New York Times, the American Psychological Association, etc. Can scientists, historians, the Times and the APA ever be wrong? Of course, and they frequently will be. But Carter’s isn’t interested in criticizing or correcting any such particular errors, he’s attempting to tear down any influence they may have and the entire epistemology of tested and confirmed facts that they represent.

How else could he possibly go about defending people like David Barton and Ken Ham? How else could he continue defending those who say evolution is a myth, climate-change is a fabrication, heterosexuality is a choice and Thomas Jefferson was a theocrat?

Previous Post

October 18, 2011

Godly links with contentment are great gain

Next Post

October 19, 2011 Creationism and Charles Fort's talking dog

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who betrayed Jesus with a kiss?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Herod Peter Thomas Judas