Email a copy of 'The New Copernicans' to a friend

* Required Field

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...    Send article as PDF   

7 Responses to “The New Copernicans”

  1. Mark says:

    I like this perspective a lot. We have seen too much of people formulating theories, rallying supporters, and only later learning that the theory was wrong. (Rather than rile up opinions on one or another, I’ll just say that I can see examples both along theological lines and in the sciences.) In many cases, the supporters are so committed to the theory that they no longer are willing to change their views, even in light of facts to prove its invalidity. The whole process results in segregating people based on whether one is willing to support the theory or not, often based on one’s tolerance for faith in a particular area. There are not enough facts on the subject to generate meaningful debate or discussion. The result in something of a “religious” argument around what the different sides “believe.” Looking at the “nones” as the new Copernicans validates and encourages them to make observations that might move beyond the “religious” arguments bases on unsubstantiated theories. It could be a good thing both for our churches, schools, and other institutions. It might also lead them to see past religion to see life and God as they were meant to be understood and known. Thanks for the insightful post. Mark.

  2. John Andrew, Jr. says:

    Good stuff, Mike. But a few thoughts…

    First, I wonder why one has to be a “none” to be a new Copernican. If the essence of being a new Copernican is to visualize a completely new way of seeing things (or a thing), then what is required is the freedom that is only possible in a free society, which itself is only possible in a society guided by the Christian principle of knowing and loving God, and loving (agape love) your neighbor as yourself.

    Second, I would say that while we Christians should ‘create common ground with’ the nones, we should resist the notion that believing or not is beside the point. Connecting the dots REQUIRES faith. Believing otherwise sends scores of people, even whole countries and cultures, down massive and time-talent-and-treasure-consuming rabbit holes.

    Every worldview requires faith. And for all but one, the kind of faith required is the blind kind. Christianity alone connects the dots from faith to reality every single time. It alone among all other worldviews coheres exactly with reality.

  3. Mike Metzger says:

    John: Good points. I agree that you do not have to be a “none” to be a new Copernican. I should have been clearer on that. In fact, next week I’ll suggest many of the so-called “exiles” in the Christian community also qualify as new Copernicans. It looks like a wonderful overlap, creating some new possibilities for common ground.

    Second para: I agree. The divide is not between those who believe and those who do not. Rather, as Chesterton put it, it is between those who think seriously about life and those who are indifferent.

    Third para: I disagree. Worldviews require faith, but I don’t know of many that call for blind faith. Every faith system gets part of the story correct.

  4. John Andrew, Jr. says:

    “Worldviews require faith, but I don’t know of many that call for blind faith. Every faith system gets part of the story correct.”

    Well, since they get part of the story correct, but not all, sooner or later, they end up without any substantial evidence that their view is correct. So they have to blind themselves to that truth, and just believe in spite of the lack of evidence.

    Think of Darwinian evolution. It started out with so much promise, but the weight of the evidence has shown the theory to be pretty threadbare. Yet many continue in the faith, blindly.

    Communism starts with the noble idea that everyone should have a fair share. But it falsely believes that resources are finite, and redistributes them. The poor get stuff by the rulers stealing it from the rich, and everyone ends up worse off.

    Secularism believes that man is the highest authority, but since we are all basically selfish, the idea falls apart when we realize we have no way to decide WHICH men are our highest authority.

    So I would be hard pressed to find ANY worldview that connects all the dots. And when they fail, adherents must either abandon the faith, or blind themselves to the evidence.

    Wouldn’t that be the essence of what blind faith is?

  5. Trent McEntyre says:

    John, I think your case is logically and Biblically defensible but not Biblically wise. While I understand that my neighbor who does not yet embrace Jesus or have a Christian worldview is “blind” I also know that is not the only thing true about them. Usually, loving him involves discourse in a way that does not attempt to show his and every other non-Christian worldview as completely false. This is the method of Christianity’s harshest and most insecure opponents.

    The scripture metaphor of blindness usually shows man’s inability to see their need for God’s grace and our inability to come to a true understanding of God without the work of the Holy Spirit through God’s word.

  6. Robbie Grayson says:

    Two weeks ago I was handed a paper called THE RISE OF THE NEW COPERNICANS by John Seel. The 24 pages was an interesting read. Back in 2006 I published a little book called POMO: 7 Traits of Children Born After 1989 (republished in 2013): I was relieved to see that someone was thinking in a quantum way about the similar, albeit, simple observations I had made in education. Enlightening…

  7. z says:

    These guys are plagiarizing your content:

    Their description under episode one is lifted from your “New Copernicans” post. Thanks.

Leave a Reply