The former admitting that the human, while existing in the natural order, belongs to, and should conform themself to, a supernatural order, and the latter insisting that the human exists in the natural order alone.

Meaning, the shape of our inner ‘landscape,’ so to speak, has an effect on how we respond to the events of life. And that shape is determined, to a large extent, by whether we see ourselves as the imago dei, or merely as a rare and exceptional consequence of evolution.

Those contours being the metaphysical geography upon which one meets with conflict or discord, as well as with harmony and beauty.

After all, there is a difference between, on the one hand, recognizing that the human species is special (among all species in the known universe), and, on the other hand, believing that this specialness is divinely wrought, or has something of the divine in it (as conveyed in the Book of Genesis). And while that difference might have no observable features (if one were to try to find it in, say, the outward expressions of two people who represented these two different viewpoints, or convictions), that same difference would be vast in terms of the contours it would have delineated, unseen, in the psyches, or souls, of these same two hypothetical persons.

Meaning, it isn’t radical at all, once you accept the premise that we are made in the image of God (and so are already directed toward his being). Which maybe you cannot bring yourself to accept.

That the will of God can be discerned by us — that it can be applied to our circumstances by us, when we are unobstructed by egotism — might sound like a radical claim, but only insofar as the notion that humans are the imago dei (which Christianity happens to endorse, and hold fast to) is also radical.

Only obedience to the will of God, which is the most uncool, unfashionable-sounding idea in the world (and so be it), should be a person’s guiding principle, regardless of whether the actions that follow from such obedience will align or measure up with contemporary definitions of ‘progress’.

My point being, I suppose, that while there is cause for society to want to see a certain kind of ‘progress,’ and to take note when self-identifying Christians, due to ignorance or meanness, seem to oppose it out of hand, ‘progress’ itself should not be treated as an end, nor held as a guiding principle, for the very reason that it can be detached from morality, or enlisted for the effort of promoting any given system of morality.

Though, relatedly, there is also the so-called ‘prosperity gospel,’ popular among TV evangelists, who, in suggesting that material success is a reward for piety, holiness, or the mere exhibiting of ‘positive vibes’ (as if the universe might be listening to you, and should respond in kind), are, at best, not being honest with their audience or congregation.

I am thinking, of course, of what has come to be known as ‘fundamentalism,’ which fixates on Scripture to such an extent, and with such a literal (or nearly literal) interpretive lens, that it excludes from itself the light of any other epistemology.

And insofar as every ethic is imposed upon the world by the person who is ‘acting’ out that ethic, a distorted ethic will make itself felt as much as, if not more than, a holy or orderly one.

The problem might end there (or there might be no problem at all) if not for the fact that an ethic proceeds from a worldview as surely as night proceeds from the day. And a distorted worldview is bound to produce a distorted ethic.

And it should be alarming. Because the consequence of that tendency, insofar as it might be foreseen, is, in the very least, a distortion of the worldview that proceeds from Biblical study.

Meaning, the fact that people take notice of the tendency of certain ‘believers’ (well-intentioned or not) to fail to incorporate reason, and scientific facts, into their Biblical exegesis, is evidence of how alarming that tendency is, to society at large.

That there now can be found, especially in America, denominations of Christianity that are recognized primarily by the extent to which they ignore, or fail to acknowledge, this particular danger, is a testament to that danger’s significance.

And that the reason for this danger is two-fold: first, the Bible is a collection of books that belong to different genres, and thus sometimes ask to be understood figuratively, rather than literally (which isn’t to say their figurative meanings are ‘less true’ than their literal meanings); and, second, our understanding of the facts that denote or characterize reality, and that we come to know through reason and experience, is conditional (that is, is always in flux, and is changing). So that our ever-expanding knowledge of reality must inform our understanding of Scripture.

In other words, the Doctors of the Church have always been clear about the danger of holding too insistently to any interpretation of those passages of Scripture that could be seen as dealing with, say, cosmology, or quantum physics (though they wouldn’t have used that particular term until it came into usage in the scientific community).

The Irish philosopher Ernan McMullin restates Augustine’s position this way: “When there is a conflict between a proven truth about nature and a particular reading of Scripture, an alternative reading of Scripture must be sought.”

And finally, this: “Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although ‘they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.’ (1 Tm 1, 7).”

In the same context, Augustine says this: “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.”