 I'm not sure how to pronounce parentheses in the title of our next paper. Deconstruction down the rabbit hole. Jared Anderson is completing his PhD in biblical studies at UNC Chapel Hill, writing a dissertation on Matthew's form of Mark. He teaches courses on world religions in the Bible with research interests on the history of the Bible and the future of religion, specifically how we can foster the best form of current religions and meet human needs without it. I feel bad. I actually taught all morning, which really great discussion about post-religious worldviews and how to meet the needs of religion without religion. So I was doing the work of this conference just at Westminster. So I'd like to thank Jessica Finnegan, who got me here, because for some reason I had it in my head that this entire conference was tomorrow. So in an alternate reality, it was. But also in an alternate reality, I miss this paper. So I'm glad to be in this one. So my paper is D in, you do it with your fingers, of course, deconstruction down the rabbit hole and going from math and science to myth and narrative, which is my area. So what next is one of the most important questions when it comes to the future of religion? Unprecedented access to information via the internet, especially erodes traditional belief systems and transforms social and relational systems. But here's the problem. Is critical inquiry, and you could disagree with me and maybe we could have a discussion, critical inquiry can only demolish, not restore, worldviews. So I would say that questioning is a factor of personality, not intelligence. And reconstruction is a factor of skill and gifts and not either. So I used to think years ago that anyone, this is really bad, but anyone smart enough to get themselves into trouble as far as critical thinking and deconstructing their worldview should be smart enough to get themselves out. But that is before I realized that deconstructing a worldview once again is a factor of critical inquiry and all sorts of methodologies, whereas reconstruction is in a nutshell art. I suggest that creative endeavors hold the most promise for meaningful rebuilding of worldviews, theology, aesthetics, art, new myths. These can rebuild new cities of the mind and soul where previous beliefs have crumbled. But one problem with building these new cities and building these new myths is we are so very, very attached to the ruins and rubble of the Iron Age as preserved in World Scripture. I'm going to contrast three approaches that restore meaning after differing levels of worldview crisis. So first, we have apologetics. None of you are familiar with that, I'm sure. This approach can protect in a limited way against faith crisis, but it does so in a way that leaves the believer vulnerable to new information or Google. Now, apologetics chooses a location to do battle along the history of interpretation. So it defends the current interpretation, ironically, often without awareness of that history of interpretation. So just a really quick anecdote. When I TA'd New Testament in North Carolina, there was literally a pastor support group for the students of Bart Ehrman's New Testament class. Not a bad idea. And so occasionally, just a couple of times, students would come to me and say, OK, I'll do what I need to to get an A in this class. But I want you to know, good for them, they said that I am ignoring everything you're teaching me. I will put on the assignments the necessary information, but I will not let it in my soul. I will not let it in my heart. I will keep my beliefs pure, I guess, a chastity belt of the mind. Or perhaps an orthodox belt. But again, the problem is that apologetic defends current interpretation because that is what happens to be what these people believe. And as I tell my students, for you to firmly, firmly, and fervently believe something, the idea only needs to be as old as you are. And not even that. It only needs to be older than when you discovered it. So the problem with apologetics is even though it can allow room to feel better about the beliefs that you've happened to inherit, it usually does so by deconstructing and delegitimizing challenges to that belief system, including those from established specialized fields. And now, to be fair, some apologetics do work better than others. The apologist interprets new data in light of what he or she already knows to be true. And perhaps many of us were raised with these explanations as I was. We don't have evidence for evolution and dinosaur bones result from the pieces of other planets used to form the Earth. So another example of this would be things like solving the problem of the lack of DNA evidence for Book of Mormon Cultures by attacking the science of DNA analysis. By saying, well, those scientists, they can't be really positive. And there is no certainty in science anyway, so why not just believe what you believed in Sunday school? Or the other thing they do is the very small elephant argument, which is you make the argument so small, there is no way to disprove it. So for example, perhaps Leigh-Height history was a mere summer vacation trip from the Middle East with no evidence remaining. This is a part of another argument that I like, which is called all the evidence we don't have agrees with us. So apologetics, if you are intent on believing something, it feels good that someone very, very smart has thought for a while about a topic and has some sort of solution. Another point to remember is you can make an argument for anything. The question of how persuasive that argument is is how hard you need to work to make it. This reminds me of a key point in Bart Ehrman's faith journey where he wrote something like a 30-page paper in grad school arguing that the Greek of in the time of in Mark II actually didn't really mean in the time of, because that was an error, it wasn't the days of Abbey Arthur, the high priest that David lived. It was rather his father. And so Ehrman was arguing very sophisticated that in the days of in Greek didn't really necessarily mean in the days of. And his teacher gave him an A and then wrote something that would change his worldview forever. And he said, isn't it easier just to say Mark was wrong? Isn't that an easier solution that the Bible is not inerrant? And here is the weakness and limitation of apologetics. And this, again, is put very poignantly, where, again, speaking of biblical inerrancy, which is a really fun worldview to pick on, because it's impossible to hold, he said, as long as I knew the Bible had no mistakes, I didn't see any. And we can think about how this applies to our worldviews. But he said, but as soon as I opened my mind to the possibility there might be mistakes in the Bible, they were everywhere. And that is why beliefs in inerrancy can only exist in the quarantine of the mind. So the other approach that I think has a lot of potential is what I call selective emphasis. And the approach of selective emphasis rebuilds meaning after moderate questioning and deconstruction through selective emphasis on the most beneficial aspects of a religious tradition and reform of harmful elements. I lived in this period about six years through my coursework. And so basically, you acknowledge that, and this is building a little bit on Robert Wright's Evolution of God, where he various stutely points out, that all religion has a multiplicity of traditions from which you can draw to create narratives. And I would hold up Terrell and Fiona Gibbons as fantastic examples of this approach, where they emphasize universalism and John Bradley, also in his Grand Fundamentals of Mormonism, really beautiful and compelling articulations of any particular denomination. It can be articulated in a way where literal believers both acknowledge it as their own and claim it as their own. And people who do not believe the details of the worldview still see it as valuable and useful. I need to make this less clunky, but I call this mediation denominationalism, which is the idea, and I presented a paper on this at a conference a bit ago, the idea is that articulating the best form of a religion is like a divorce. Don't draw the parallel too strongly. And the idea is just as a divorcing mother and father need to come up with agreements for the sake of the children, so an open-minded literal believer and a sympathetic atheist former member could decide what form of Mormonism or Islam or any particular denomination can we agree on. And the literal believer would ensure that the tradition is recognizable and the sympathetic atheist would make sure that it is defensible without appealing to that view. But I want to talk for the last couple of minutes about complete reconstruction. What happens if the tornado of critical inquiry in the Kansas of your worldview destroys the whole thing? You have nothing left. Maybe a foundation. Apologetics can create room for faith that we simply need to know that some intelligent informed people are aware of the problems and have come up with solutions. The selective emphasis approach bears tremendous promise and can result in the best articulations of a particular faith tradition. But what do we do when critical inquiry raises the specifics of our spiritual worldview, leaving only the foundation of spirituality and possible belief in God? What if the rabbit hole goes all the way down? In these instances, I think we need new myths and systems of meaning. And this is where humanism and transhumanism shine. Not only shine, but illuminate and glorify. Here are a few approaches to engagement with religion that I feel thrive even after the most thorough deconstruction. One, theology and myth. Myth, including theology, taps into our deepest needs. We can reignite the value of our theology and narratives as we break them open, alluding to a paper I didn't have an opportunity to listen to. And reconnect to the meaning and descriptions of internal reality these stories evoke to art. Religion motivates more universally than any other source, but art comes close. I speak of art broadly defined, visual art, literature, film and documentaries. I call artists the prophets of humanism because the best art can inspire and motivate us. A good book instills an aching appreciation for our own lives, films and documentaries move us to tears in action. Three, relationships. Chances are no matter how much we distance ourselves from former worldviews, people we love and care for still dwell within them. As Jesus and others taught, love trumps any other detail of religion. Our worldviews and actions influence those close to us and that impact can temper the way we share and engage. When former worldviews are no longer important to us, we can remember they remain important to loved ones. Four, heritage. The beliefs and sacrifices, mistakes and lessons of parents and ancestors is something that we can never replace. There is something incomparably precious to feeling linked, not only to a community, but to those who have gone before, to family members and people without whom we would not exist. That link can motivate us to remain connected to our roots even when we have grown beyond them. Five, syncretism. With unprecedented pluralism and access to information we can pick and choose from cultural cornucopia that most, that which most inspires us. This approach fits particularly well into the idea that Mormonism claims all goodness and all truth as its own. Six, utilitarianism. We can use the principles that truth is what works and evaluation of fruits to engage with the religion and community. Stripping down teaching and actions to their consequences facilitates effective engagement without getting caught up in less consequential details. Consider the following analogy. A friend says, I've had such a great smurf, such a great month. Smurfs appeared from under my bed and started talking to me. And ever since the smurf started talking to me, every aspect of my life has been better. My relationships are better, I had a promotion at work, I'm working out more, I'm eating better, my life is so good. And you can see the parallel with religion. Some people, no matter the benefits, will consider it their moral and ethical responsibility to disabuse them of the smurfs under the bed. I myself would say, hold the smurfs ethically accountable. Seven, activism. When standard myths and explanations fail us we can rise to fill the void. We can be the change we wish to see in the world and live our religion not as it is but as it could be. In this way both the positives and negatives of a religion inspire us, motivate us to emphasize that which is good and speak out against that which is harmful. I dream of religion so good it does not need to be true but these approaches to reconstruction take a significant step further. We can articulate new myths, construct new systems of meaning that both conform to our best understandings of the world and at the same time motivate us to make that world better. Thank you. Thank you.