Stephen Evans Religion

C. Stephen Evans is stating there is a problem with the philosophy of religion having a neutral stance. Evans rejects both fideism as well as neutralism, and believes that by trying to have a, “neutral, disinterested posture,” a person could, “cut themselves off from the possibility of even understanding what religion is all about,” (Evans, 1985 p. 115). Evans notes that the view of faith and reason, by some religious believers think it is an impossibility to have “rational reflection” on religion. After his arguments that disprove many ideas in both fideism and neutralism, he proposes an alternative solution which he has named, “critical dialog”, that he hopes will, “preserve the strengths and eliminate the weaknesses of the initial theories,”

I personally have seen a perfectly rational conversation turn into a heated battle of moralities at, of all places, a bar! These people were daily patrons, (as was I a few years ago, and I know I was denying my conscious at that time of drunkenness), therefore they weren’t exactly the most virtuous or have the most morally impeccable principles. Yet, two patrons would start a civilized conversation regarding religion and 9 times out of 10, even the most calm and quite person could turn into an angry and outraged religious fanatic. It was insane! Evans states, “the testing of theories is a complicated affair, requiring an element of good judgment as well as honesty and concern for truth,” (p. 119). I believe none of those elements were in existence during those bizarre outbursts of religious know-it-all’isms. Evans points out that,

"Few if any people are indifferent to religious matters. Since religion bears on a persons life in a far more direct and personal way than science, one can expect it to be correspondingly more difficult to reach agreement on religious matters. Common ground may be hard to find, and rational discussion may sooner or later reach an impasse where both sides say, “This is how it appears to me,”’(p.

I do think it is as Evans explained, that I am secure in my belief and I do not feel threatened when being questioned about it. Now, I do not always tell the entire depth or full path for my beliefs as I know they are just that, mine. Not that I don’t believe in them or can’t justify them, I just have them because of the things that have happened to me personally. I cannot explain my faith easily, it just is. I cannot define it or get a bunch of people to follow it (for which I am very thankful for). But, it is strong and it is scientifically incorrect in many ways, but it makes perfect sense to me and the entity I will have to account my sins to one day. I think religion is a necessary thing, regardless of form, because most religions do teach morality, some teach integrity, love, respect, selflessness and loyalty. I think that if a human believes there is something/someone that they ultimately must answer to, that sees everything they ever do and will judge them, that helps us all maintain a civilized society. However, I do not think that religion is the only way to learn these traits and I choose to empathize with people that have messed up, not crucify them. I do believe there is one perfect entity/being, and I know that it certainly isn’t me or any human that I