One of the things that people don't consider when they argue about science and religion is the history of science. Science and religion, were from the start, the same thing. If you were to ask an ancient Greek to explain lightening, you would learn about Zeus. By the time Christianity had been fully accepted, science was starting to come into its own, but was still not separated from the Church. Traveling through history, you would arrive at the Renaissance and meet several astronomers, all devoted Christians. Chief among them is Copernicus, both a cleric and the father of modern astronomy. At the start of the Enlightenment, there's Newton, the Christian alchemist and physicist, but also theologian and biblical scholar. Leeuvenhoek is an influential figure in microbiology and was a Dutch Calvinist.
By the nineteenth century, Christianity was...unpopular. Many philosophers and scientists saw it as a crutch for the weak. But the foundation of genetics studies was put in place by Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian monk.
Enter: This article from the Associated Press
I, for one, am glad to see people refusing to make science and religion mutually exclusive.
On an unrelated note, I'm not quite sure how to feel about this. Maybe I'll right more about this later.
Rock on.
Showing posts with label Religions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religions. Show all posts
30 June 2008
23 June 2008
The Difference Between Interpreting and Picking (and Other Thoughts on Dawkins on NPR)
Today, I listened to Richard Dawkins on NPR during an episode of To the Best of our Knowledge entitled "Atheism & Its Critics".
Linkage!
The program opened with a discussion on faith. See my thoughts here.
One of the fundamental allegations Richard Dawkins levels against Christianity is that we (we being believers) pick and choose what we will accept as true from the Bible - Cafeteria Chrisitans, to borrow an old term. But I disagree with him on this. There is a fundamental difference between interpreting what you read and choosing what you read. Yes, some Christians avoid the more troubling part of the Bible. But many of the most sincere Christians are the same ones who take what they read and truly struggle with it. Yes, it bothers me to read about the mass killings committed in the Old Testament. But I have not rejected these stories. Instead, I have taken them as how the ancient Israelites saw God - as a god who loves his people and wants to protect them. Which is one of the recurring themes of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. On the other hand, if an atheist is to go through and reject the teachings of love in the Bible - to say that these are present in all cultures and therefore not relevant to the Bible - and focus purely on the violent stories of the Tanakh, then that might just qualify as "picking and choosing".
Of course, Dawkins also has a fundamental misunderstanding of the sacrifice of Christ, claiming the crucifixion is a bloody sacrifice of an innocent man to satisfy God for the sins of Adam, a man who never existed. To this, I say he's half - no, a quarter - of the way there. Yes, the crucifixion was a bloody sacrifice of an innocent man. But it was also a self-sacrifice - God himself dying for our sins. And that's the point we should take - the love inherent in the self-sacrifice, not the gruesomeness of the act. Secondly, and one of the largest misunderstandings Dawkisn makes is to assume that the crucifixion was about Original Sin. And while this may be up to debate among theologians*, by no means should it be taken as the belief of all Christians. It is my belief that Christ died for the sins of all people, not for Original Sin.
"I am in favor of goodness," says Dawkins. He claims that he stands against the claim that you don't need religion to be good. To this, I say, define "good". If "good" is doing good things - feeding the hungry, helping the poor, and such - then yes, you can be good without religion. If "good" means never doing bad, if it means living a perfect utilitarian lifestyle - always causing more utility than harm - then we're in trouble. Because nobody can ever be good in this sense.
Oh, and if you get a chance, read what Brad Hirschfield has to say - "faith without fanaticism."
Rock on.
*Though I can't think of any groups that hold this belief. Perhaps someone can provide an example.
Linkage!
The program opened with a discussion on faith. See my thoughts here.
One of the fundamental allegations Richard Dawkins levels against Christianity is that we (we being believers) pick and choose what we will accept as true from the Bible - Cafeteria Chrisitans, to borrow an old term. But I disagree with him on this. There is a fundamental difference between interpreting what you read and choosing what you read. Yes, some Christians avoid the more troubling part of the Bible. But many of the most sincere Christians are the same ones who take what they read and truly struggle with it. Yes, it bothers me to read about the mass killings committed in the Old Testament. But I have not rejected these stories. Instead, I have taken them as how the ancient Israelites saw God - as a god who loves his people and wants to protect them. Which is one of the recurring themes of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. On the other hand, if an atheist is to go through and reject the teachings of love in the Bible - to say that these are present in all cultures and therefore not relevant to the Bible - and focus purely on the violent stories of the Tanakh, then that might just qualify as "picking and choosing".
Of course, Dawkins also has a fundamental misunderstanding of the sacrifice of Christ, claiming the crucifixion is a bloody sacrifice of an innocent man to satisfy God for the sins of Adam, a man who never existed. To this, I say he's half - no, a quarter - of the way there. Yes, the crucifixion was a bloody sacrifice of an innocent man. But it was also a self-sacrifice - God himself dying for our sins. And that's the point we should take - the love inherent in the self-sacrifice, not the gruesomeness of the act. Secondly, and one of the largest misunderstandings Dawkisn makes is to assume that the crucifixion was about Original Sin. And while this may be up to debate among theologians*, by no means should it be taken as the belief of all Christians. It is my belief that Christ died for the sins of all people, not for Original Sin.
"I am in favor of goodness," says Dawkins. He claims that he stands against the claim that you don't need religion to be good. To this, I say, define "good". If "good" is doing good things - feeding the hungry, helping the poor, and such - then yes, you can be good without religion. If "good" means never doing bad, if it means living a perfect utilitarian lifestyle - always causing more utility than harm - then we're in trouble. Because nobody can ever be good in this sense.
Oh, and if you get a chance, read what Brad Hirschfield has to say - "faith without fanaticism."
Rock on.
*Though I can't think of any groups that hold this belief. Perhaps someone can provide an example.
20 May 2008
In What Do You Have Faith?
I have previously written on proponents of fundamental atheism who argue that religion is inherently a bad thing. Part of their argument depends on faith: If we can will ourselves to have faith in a god that cannot be proven, this faith can be used and/or manipulated to drive us to commit horrible atrocities.
To this, I say that their basic premise is correct: Faith in the divine can be manipulated, and it has been in the past.
But does this mean that the problem is the faith or the manipulator? And what does the manipulator have faith in?
The Crusades are a dark, dark period in the history of the Church. Especially for Catholics. And they were fought over faith - faith in Christianity and the Church, faith in the Pope, faith in God. Many of the soldiers had faith that they were doing the right thing - delivering the Holy Land from Muslim conquerors. But what did the leaders have faith in? I would suggest they had faith in the money they could earn by capturing artifacts and royalty, faith in the ransom they would be paid, faith in the power they could gain by controlling the land, faith in themselves. This same theme pops up in many acts of religious violence: the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the sale of Indulgences, the wars of the Reformation, the White Power movement, the Wahhabi extremist movement, the Lord's Resistance Army, and many more.
Likewise, let's look at the Khmer Rouge, the perpetrators of the Cambodian genocide. What did the soldiers have faith in? I would imagine that they had faith in the world they were fighting for, faith in the Revolution and the liberation of the workers, faith in Pol Pot. This faith in a cause, leader, and higher power - the same faith held by the Crusaders, though placed in a different cause - Communism, not Christianity - a different leader - Pol Pot, not the Pope - and a different higher power - the Government, not God - manifest itself in the same way. That is to say, it lead to violence and genocide, to the loss of life, and the murder of the innocent. And why did it reach this level? Because Pol Pot had faith as well. Faith that he would be rewarded for his trouble, faith that he could take power, faith in himself. And like the violence committed by those who have faith in God, those who have faith in humans and ideas have the same theme: the purges of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Kim Il-Sung, the genocide in Nazi Germany, the race-fueled violence in the Sudan, Rwanda, and South Africa, the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, and many more.
Faith can be dangerous. It must be taken with a grain of salt. Faith in most things can be manipulated. Believers in both God and Freedom must take into consideration what they are being told. They must think about the end results; they must think about whether or not their leader has faith in the cause or faith in the power delivered by the cause.
But faith can also offer hope of a better world. It can offer more than skepticism and rationality ever will. Faith has brought freedom, charity, love. Faith has brought peace. Faith has brought as much good as it has bad. And it is not worth abandoning.
Rock on.
To this, I say that their basic premise is correct: Faith in the divine can be manipulated, and it has been in the past.
But does this mean that the problem is the faith or the manipulator? And what does the manipulator have faith in?
The Crusades are a dark, dark period in the history of the Church. Especially for Catholics. And they were fought over faith - faith in Christianity and the Church, faith in the Pope, faith in God. Many of the soldiers had faith that they were doing the right thing - delivering the Holy Land from Muslim conquerors. But what did the leaders have faith in? I would suggest they had faith in the money they could earn by capturing artifacts and royalty, faith in the ransom they would be paid, faith in the power they could gain by controlling the land, faith in themselves. This same theme pops up in many acts of religious violence: the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the sale of Indulgences, the wars of the Reformation, the White Power movement, the Wahhabi extremist movement, the Lord's Resistance Army, and many more.
Likewise, let's look at the Khmer Rouge, the perpetrators of the Cambodian genocide. What did the soldiers have faith in? I would imagine that they had faith in the world they were fighting for, faith in the Revolution and the liberation of the workers, faith in Pol Pot. This faith in a cause, leader, and higher power - the same faith held by the Crusaders, though placed in a different cause - Communism, not Christianity - a different leader - Pol Pot, not the Pope - and a different higher power - the Government, not God - manifest itself in the same way. That is to say, it lead to violence and genocide, to the loss of life, and the murder of the innocent. And why did it reach this level? Because Pol Pot had faith as well. Faith that he would be rewarded for his trouble, faith that he could take power, faith in himself. And like the violence committed by those who have faith in God, those who have faith in humans and ideas have the same theme: the purges of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Kim Il-Sung, the genocide in Nazi Germany, the race-fueled violence in the Sudan, Rwanda, and South Africa, the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, and many more.
Faith can be dangerous. It must be taken with a grain of salt. Faith in most things can be manipulated. Believers in both God and Freedom must take into consideration what they are being told. They must think about the end results; they must think about whether or not their leader has faith in the cause or faith in the power delivered by the cause.
But faith can also offer hope of a better world. It can offer more than skepticism and rationality ever will. Faith has brought freedom, charity, love. Faith has brought peace. Faith has brought as much good as it has bad. And it is not worth abandoning.
Rock on.
02 May 2008
Damned Nephilim
I'm about three pages into my term paper on the Nephilim (Gen. 6:4) and I think when I'm done, I'm going to take a month off of any explicit study/reading/thinking/GAAH! of mythology. It seems every time I chase down a connection in Greek or Mesopotamian mythology, it circles back around and I have a new connection to figure out.
The good news is that means there's plenty to write about. But keep in mind when I started this thing, I was told by not a small number of people, "You know, I don't think I've ever seen more than a paragraph on the Nephilim in any one place."
Anyway, this post is just to say two things:
1) HAH! I'm doing research on a graduate level for an undergrad class. Take that, whoever thinks religion majors are a joke.
2) I now know more about divine/human relations, giants, evil, forbidden knowledge, the flood, and how they all relate, than any normal person should. I stopped being normal about ten sources back.
Now I'm going to go away for the weekend and write.
Edit: Part of me wonders why my Apoc. Lit. reader is filed as "General Interest". And now I'm just stalling on getting back to work.
Edit: Finished it after an all-nighter. Huzzah!
Shalom,
Drew
PS: If anyone's interested in reading my paper, just leave a message and I'll email you a copy.
The good news is that means there's plenty to write about. But keep in mind when I started this thing, I was told by not a small number of people, "You know, I don't think I've ever seen more than a paragraph on the Nephilim in any one place."
Anyway, this post is just to say two things:
1) HAH! I'm doing research on a graduate level for an undergrad class. Take that, whoever thinks religion majors are a joke.
2) I now know more about divine/human relations, giants, evil, forbidden knowledge, the flood, and how they all relate, than any normal person should. I stopped being normal about ten sources back.
Now I'm going to go away for the weekend and write.
Edit: Part of me wonders why my Apoc. Lit. reader is filed as "General Interest". And now I'm just stalling on getting back to work.
Edit: Finished it after an all-nighter. Huzzah!
Shalom,
Drew
PS: If anyone's interested in reading my paper, just leave a message and I'll email you a copy.
26 September 2007
The Kingdom
One of the great parts about being a college student is that we are Hollywood's biggest target. As such, they send do free sneak previews of movies on campus quite often. I was lucky enough to get in and see The Kingdom on Tuesday night. And while they spent most of the time before the movie trying to shove commercialism down our throats (they asked one trivia question: What movie was being released on DVD that day? Answer: Knocked Up. Correct! Come over to the release party at one of the local bars. The unspoken message to everyone under 21: Don't forget your fakes), the movie itself was pretty good.
Most movies of this nature normally send one of two messages: "We're going to kill all of the towel-heads!" or "The US is a horrible, imperialistic nation and should stay away from the Middle East!". The Kingdom did neither. Instead, it starts with a very concise, yet detailed, history of the struggle between fundamentalists within Islam and the West. For the first time ever in a major Hollywood movie, wahhabism was mentioned and emphasized.
Over the course of the movie, Western views of Islam and Arabian culture are confronted as the Arabian characters are developed - religious devotion is demonstrated as some of the main characters go home to say the evening prayers with their families; there is a conversation with a former terrorist who discusses why he left the path of violence; a Saudi prince figures prominently into the story line, and his extravagant life style is well noted; the methods and beliefs of extremism within Islam are explored with disturbing detail.
The movie is very violent - there is no doubt about that. But not in the modern style of violence where you get shot and don't bleed. The fight scenes are very intense, rough, and bloody (it was odd to see Jennifer Garner in an action scene so far removed from those of Alias). For those who didn't deal well with Black Hawk Down or Saving Private Ryan (the content of The Kingdom is somewhere in between the two), keep that in mind when deciding whether or not to see this movie. For those hoping for a typical action movie with constant explosions, chase scenes, and gun fights, don't hold your breath. The film spends a lot of time on character development, investigations, and cutting through red tape. The "R" rating for intense, sustained violence doesn't come in until the last half-hour or so of the movie.
Spoiler Warning: The last words of the movie are going to be disclosed below; don't highlight if you don't want to know. You have been warned.
The main point of the movie is delivered in the last lines. When asked, what two characters said (an FBI agent comforting a colleague over the loss of a friend, and a dying militant comforting his grandson), the answer is eerily similar: Don't worry, we will kill them all. With that in mind, you leave the theatre wondering about both sides' approach to the other. What hope is there for us as a civilization if our answer to the problem is to kill people? For my thoughts on the subject, see an old post (Emergent Qaeda).
In short, this movie is continuing the recent trend of action movies for the thinking man. Like Blood Diamond before it, and a large number of movies to be released in coming months, it brings some hope, but leaves you with more questions than answers, and above all, a feeling of urgency to do something. However, unlike Blood Diamond, the "what to do" is left up to the viewer.
End spoiler warning.
Rock on.
Most movies of this nature normally send one of two messages: "We're going to kill all of the towel-heads!" or "The US is a horrible, imperialistic nation and should stay away from the Middle East!". The Kingdom did neither. Instead, it starts with a very concise, yet detailed, history of the struggle between fundamentalists within Islam and the West. For the first time ever in a major Hollywood movie, wahhabism was mentioned and emphasized.
Over the course of the movie, Western views of Islam and Arabian culture are confronted as the Arabian characters are developed - religious devotion is demonstrated as some of the main characters go home to say the evening prayers with their families; there is a conversation with a former terrorist who discusses why he left the path of violence; a Saudi prince figures prominently into the story line, and his extravagant life style is well noted; the methods and beliefs of extremism within Islam are explored with disturbing detail.
The movie is very violent - there is no doubt about that. But not in the modern style of violence where you get shot and don't bleed. The fight scenes are very intense, rough, and bloody (it was odd to see Jennifer Garner in an action scene so far removed from those of Alias). For those who didn't deal well with Black Hawk Down or Saving Private Ryan (the content of The Kingdom is somewhere in between the two), keep that in mind when deciding whether or not to see this movie. For those hoping for a typical action movie with constant explosions, chase scenes, and gun fights, don't hold your breath. The film spends a lot of time on character development, investigations, and cutting through red tape. The "R" rating for intense, sustained violence doesn't come in until the last half-hour or so of the movie.
Spoiler Warning: The last words of the movie are going to be disclosed below; don't highlight if you don't want to know. You have been warned.
The main point of the movie is delivered in the last lines. When asked, what two characters said (an FBI agent comforting a colleague over the loss of a friend, and a dying militant comforting his grandson), the answer is eerily similar: Don't worry, we will kill them all. With that in mind, you leave the theatre wondering about both sides' approach to the other. What hope is there for us as a civilization if our answer to the problem is to kill people? For my thoughts on the subject, see an old post (Emergent Qaeda).
In short, this movie is continuing the recent trend of action movies for the thinking man. Like Blood Diamond before it, and a large number of movies to be released in coming months, it brings some hope, but leaves you with more questions than answers, and above all, a feeling of urgency to do something. However, unlike Blood Diamond, the "what to do" is left up to the viewer.
End spoiler warning.
Rock on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)