David Brooks argues that though "we’ve become accustomed to the faith-driven athlete", being a "religious person in professional sports" is an "anomaly" and "problematic." This is because "the moral ethos of sport is in tension with the moral ethos of faith... The sports hero is assertive, proud and intimidating... his primary virtue is courage." On the other hand "the religious ethos is about redemption... humility is the primary virtue... you achieve your identity through self-effacement.... you lead most boldly when you consider yourself an instrument of a larger cause". Brooks concludes that "the two moral universes are not reconcilable."
This is entirely foolish. While Brooks may be narrowly correct that there is some abstract intellectual tension, the fact that faith-driven athletes are commonplace is evidence that the values of faith resonate rather than conflict with their professional lives. This is no great puzzle. In Brooks' description, religious values are very aligned with the crucial values of teamwork. It should be obvious that it is no coincidence that religiosity appears more prevalent within the world of team sports. More fundamentally, how does Brooks fail to understand the degree to which courage can be ground in faith?
In the end, it is hardly surprising that a man enamored as Brooks is with paternalistic social science would indulge conceptual castles over the testified experience of others.
No comments:
Post a Comment