For those who are interested, curious or bothered by the Discovery Channel documentary (to be shown Sunday, March 4) or the just-released book, Ben Witherington has posted a new list of problems with the claims, after his review of the book.
Witherington’s a sharp guy and a good source of information. I’ve bookmarked his blog.
Let me start off by making it clear that I have not yet read Richard Dawkins book, The God Delusion, but as I’ve said before I’d like to, especially if someone wants to give me a copy. (My favorite books are usually those I haven’t had to pay for.)
However, Alvin Plantinga, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, has read the book, and has written a fairly lengthy critique for Books and Culture entitled The Dawkins Confusion, Naturalism ad absurdum. While Plantigna calls Dawkins “an extremely gifted science writer,” he points out that there is very little science in the book, but rather is mostly “philosophy and theology … and evolutionary psychology.” Plantinga’s critique, therefore, is fitting, as he discusses the philosophical problems with Dawkins’ book. I won’t rehash Plantinga’s article, but rather suggest that you check it out for yourself.
Lately, inspired by blog discussions with friends and my current reading (most notably, Thomas Cahill’s Mysteries of the Middle Ages), I’ve been thinking about the role of science in the bigger picture. While in its early stages science may have been a means of finding truth, the current philosophy of science no longer has such lofty goals. Rather, with modern science it seems that there are no final answers to be found. Religion, too, has its mysteries; as Paul wrote that at present we see in part, although some absolute truth is obviously claimed and the knowledge of truth is the point. Philosophy, too, seeks after truth in its own way, at least it seeks an appropriate way (if not the “true” way) to view the world.
A question that I have, however, is whether science can ever truly be free from philosophy, or if it should be. To limit true science to merely a methodology for finding out how things work is fine; in fact, that clearly expresses its limitations and really leaves the issues of what the findings mean to other disciplines. However, I doubt that many (if not the majority) of scientists would be satisfied, or comfortable, with that. The “origins” debate is a good case in point.
Science often moves into the areas of philosophy, and in my mind should; for each scientific finding begs questions, and often philosophical questions. This is the case especially with the cutting-edge areas of physics and those in search of a unified theory of everything. Quantum mechanics, chaos theory, dark energy, superstring theory, and so on, all raise very interesting philosophical questions.
A problem, however, seems to be that there are very few people capable of competently discussing both the hard science and the philosophical issues. Critical thinking is among those skills which are not automatically transferable from one discipline to another. A brilliant physicist or biologist may think completely illogically when it comes to philosophy or religion (or another scientific discipline). On the other hand, a brilliant logician may not accurately reason a scientific issue through.
It seems that in order for a meaningful dialog between disciplines to take place, there has to be some understanding as to the limitations of the respective disciplines and the difficulties of transferring arguments from one discipline to another. On the other hand, where’s the fun in that?
It would seem, based on Plantinga’s analysis of Dawkins’ philosophical arguments, that Dawkins may not be one of those individuals capable of bridging the current science-philosophy gap.
Okay, I know I’m over 50 and am a little old to start joining fan clubs, and I’m far to serious, responsible, overworked and all that to spend my time watching American Idol. But, my family got me hooked at the end of last season, and while I had no intention of getting into the habit of watching anywhere near this much TV, here I am, to another show this evening. Of course, most of the time I just listen – there’s a TV that sits behind me in my “office” and most of the time I just listen while I work late… When I do sit down to just watch, it’s because it is a rare “family moment.” It’s one of the rare things we’ve found that we all enjoy.
Early on this season the whole family was captivated by this round-faced, curly-haired guy with an incredible sense of humor, and unlike most of the characters we saw, he actually could sing! Now that he’s in the top 20 (4 were bumped last week), he’s progressed from being “that curly-haired guy” to simply Chris Sligh.
Thanks to my son, Elliot, we learned a number of things about Chris:
Now that Chris is on American Idol, he’s had to officially leave the band, even though he wrote and sang and played guitar on all of the songs on their CD, which can still be released because he’s no longer in the band. Go figure.
If you are interested, check out Half Past Forever’s MySpace page, which contains 4 of their songs. The first song that I heard was “In a Moment” and I was totally blown away. The song is, in my not-so-humble opinion, absolutely incredible. I think that it beats, hands down, any of the American Idol-produced songs from last year (as much as I like Chris Daughtry). This song is still my favorite, although I’ve liked everything I’ve heard. There are 4 additional songs available at MySpace.com/HalfPastForeverEdge.
Their sound is reminiscent (to me) of Switchfoot (with better vocals), Foo Fighters or Lifehouse, and the lyrics are equally as deep. I don’t think I’ve been looking forward to buying an album since George Harrison’s “All Things Must Pass.”
So, check them out. And, check out the serious side of Chris Sligh, here.
At this point, I’m not sure winning American Idol is the best thing for him, but it may be the best thing for the show.
It appears that the Toronto Star broke a story that has raised a near instant uproar across the web (the wonders of the Internet…). The hoopla is all about a new $4 million documentary to be aired on the Discovery Channel produced by James (“I’m the king of the world!”) Cameron and directed by Simcha (“I still think that the James ossuary is authentic!”) Jacobovici. A book, The Jesus Family Tomb by Jacobovici and Charles (“The real Indiana Jones”) Pellegrino is out this week as well.
The documentary and the book are about a tomb containing several ossuaries that Jacobovici claims contain the bones of, among other folks, Jesus, his wife Mary, and possibly their son, Judas (I’m asking, “what would make Jesus name his son Judas?”). Cameron admits that he doesn’t know anything about archeology (and probably knows nothing about Jesus, either, for that matter), but found the story “compelling.” Jacobovici says, “It’s mind-boggling. It’s an altered reality.” Uh-huh. It remains to be seen just who is dealing with an altered reality.
Now, if you’re concerned that this might cause people to doubt the story of Jesus, Jacobovici says not to worry – he claims Jesus could have resurrected from the first tomb, only to die later and be buried here. Uh-huh.
There are many interesting details about this story that leave it with so many holes that many are comparing it to James Cameron’s Titanic, after it hit the iceberg. For one thing, I find it interesting that those who are speaking out against this theory are not only Christians, but archaeologists as well. In fact, these bones were discovered in 1980 – that’s 27 years ago – and this theory was discredited from the outset. The evidence against the Jacobovici/Pellegino/Cameron theory is so “compelling” that the mainstream media won’t even buy into it (and that’s saying something…).
Granted, 6 of the 10 ossuaries had inscriptions of some well-known names: Jesus, son of Joseph; Maria; Mariamene; Matthew; Judas, son of Jesus; and Jose. Shocking, perhaps, to us; until we realize that these were some of the most popular names in Israel at the time, and the fact that these ossuaries were found in the same tomb is statistically insignificant. And, there’s some doubt that the one ossuary even says, “Jesus” – archaeologist Stephen Pfann has been quoted in an AP article saying that he thinks the name is actually “Hanun.”
So, let not your hearts be troubled, for this, too, shall pass. I’m guessing that among documentaries, this one will sit right beside Geraldo Rivera’s The Mystery of Al Capone’s Vault.
But, if you want a bit more information, here’s an interesting blog post by Ben Witherington, who has worked with Jacobovici in the past.
The other day I was wandering around my local Borders store, and ran across a book on the New Releases table entitled, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist by Victor J. Stenger, a man who seems to have taken on a crusade against the notion that science is proving (or has proved) the existence of God, particularly the Christian version of God.
Now, straight off I need to say that I haven’t had a chance to read this book, even though I am going to comment on its concept taken from its own promotional blurbs, which I presume to be accurate. (I should also state that instead of this book, I chose Bruce Feiler’s “Where God Was Born.”) I’d actually like to read this book, but I don’t have the time or money to invest in it right now. However, if someone feels inclined to buy it for me, I promise I’ll read it the first chance I get. (The same goes for Dawkins The God Delusion or even Sam Harris’ stuff.)
The publisher’s blurb for the book states:
Physicist Victor J. Stenger contends that, if God exists, some evidence for this existence should be detectable by scientific means, especially considering the central role that God is alleged to play in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans. … After evaluating all the scientific evidence, Stenger concludes that beyond a reasonable doubt the universe and life appear exactly as we might expect if there were no God.
Assuming, as I said, that this is an accurate representation of Stenger’s hypothesis, then one really doesn’t have to read the book to discover its primary error; it would seem, rather than disproving the hypothesis that science can offer proof of God’s existence, he has only proved that his own hypothesis, that science can prove the opposite, has failed. It would seem that in taking on such a task, Stenger has come to a Gödellian impasse. One of Stenger’s problems can be seen at the outset: what if his hypothesis that evidence for God can be detectable by scientific means is either not true, or is unprovable? His conclusion, then, can only be trusted if you accept the same set of presuppositions as Stenger bases his argument on; in which case you have no proof of anything at all.
It remains to be seen whether Stenger’s argument is consistent (I would actually have to read the book to comment on this). Even so, it only proves a consistent system, not that it accurately represents truth. Again, if the presuppositions are incorrect, all you have is a consistent work of fiction.
Stenger is seems to be taking on a de facto exercise in fallacious reasoning when he is attempting to address the truth of one system (that is, theology) from within his own system. Brian Bosse, in his discussion on The Nature of Argumentation (Part 3), states:
I can’t stress enough the importance of arguing independently of your system for your system. Most arguments between systems are not made independently of the system. That is, most arguments assume their system upfront, and commit this most basic fallacy.
Now, Stenger may have some points to make with regard to others who attempt to disprove science from within a theological framework, or who put forth inconsistent arguments for the existence of God; I have just as much of a problem with bad Christian logic as I do with bad scientific logic.
However, there is one other consideration: What if everything we see as science – even (gasp!) evolution – is the work of God? Assuming that God is outside of the system He created, He would not be subject to the cause and effect nature of creation, and so therefore not provable from within the system. However, this could provide the basis for all those others – such as Francis S. Collins, who wrote The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief – who look at the same facts, but see God displayed there.
Faith, anyone?
We’ve probably all experienced door-to-door evangelism, from one side of the door or the other. I’ve been on both sides, though most of the time on the inside. There was a time when I looked forward to these random encounters as great evangelistic opportunities. I’ve had many theological discussions with members of various religious cults, mostly JWs and Mormons.
I actually went through a number of Mormon missionaries over a period of months as I continued to invite them back. I’d eventually present them with a question they couldn’t spout off a rehearsed answer to, and they’d promise to go talk to their superiors and come back. Unfortunately, they never did; instead the church would send new, more experienced evangelists, who would go through the same cycle. Eventually I realized as that with many things, in cult evangelism there is a law of diminishing returns. I learned a lot in the process, however.
It’s been years since I invited any of them in. (I should mention that I don’t let vacuum or insurance salesmen in either. ) Occasionally I’ll let them know they are in error at the door, give them a smile and send them off. Having a family makes ad hoc living room evangelism kind of difficult. Plus, I just don’t have the energy, and I have other excuses, too.
Today I read an absolutely hilarious post (which, by the way, inspired this one of mine) by Paul Vieira, “telling religious people to go away.” This is a must read, for all of us who don’t want to be evangelized, as well for those who still have some inkling to go out banging on strange doors. Enjoy.
Republican politics, since the rise of the “Moral Majority” about three decades ago, has become increasingly religion-aware. I can’t use the word religious and certainly can’t say spiritual, but religion-aware seems to sum it up nicely. I was just reading a bit on MSNBC by Howard Fineman (The Preacher Primary) talking about the political interest in the National Religious Broadcasters convention – it seems that four of the announced candidates are attending, including Mitt Romney. It is certainly an interesting phenomenon, and it seems that the religious broadcasters – at least the power brokers, Falwell, Robertson and Dobson – have just as much interest in getting control of the candidates. Giuliani, by the way, will not be there – it seems he doesn’t need them as much as the others do. (That may be reason enough to vote for him…)
This coming election brings a new twist to the tangled web that is politics: Newly announced candidate Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, ex-social liberal and recently converted pro-lifer, is a “devout” Mormon, and former bishop of the Mormon Church. Even more interesting is that it appears that this may be good enough for Pat Robertson, who has apparently already slated Romney to speak at Robertson’s Regent College commencement.
Romney is working hard to build an acceptance, or at least a comfort level, with conservative Christians. He knows that he has little chance without them. In another MSNBC article, Romney is quoted as saying,
“I believe in God. I believe that all the men and women in this country are children of God — the men and women of the entire world, our brothers and sisters,” he added. “The kind of values which I have in my heart are the kinds of values which America needs.”
This is a different issue than when John Kennedy had to overcome his Catholic allegiance, and I think even different than someone who may be Jewish. Make no mistake, when a Mormon says that he believes in “God” he is not meaning the God of the Jews, Christians, and even Muslims, and to say that “all … are children of God” is to say something else entirely.
For some, the issues may be more important than faith. From a political, earthly point of view, this indeed makes sense. However, from a “spiritual” point of view, I don’t think it does. In fact, looking only at moral issues is really not that different than Pharisee-ism or (gasp) humanism; it is looking at “flesh and blood” (to quote Paul in Ephesians) rather than the spiritual realities.
I’ve thought for a long time that many of the “Christian” conservative political evangelists have been trying to build the Kingdom of God by fighting wars against flesh and blood – again, one of the errors of the Pharisees (and other 1st Century Jewish sects). Manipulating earthly powers and principalities only goes so far. This is not to say that God can’t use anybody – God has used many pagan rulers for His purposes. However, given the option (which, unlike many countries, we do) I’d rather that when my president prays, I’d like him to pray to someone who can answer back.
A couple of posts ago I wrote about the tendency to confuse the church organization, which often needs constant cheerleading to keep it going, with The Church That Is, that just is. In some respects, we’ve all been trained this way, although perhaps not as much as in times past.
I grew up in a small town with several churches. We had many of the standards: Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Catholic, Evangelical Covenant, and occasionally one or 2 more. On Tuesdays, we’d all take an hour off from public school to go to our respective churches for religious instruction. Not much was ever discussed between us about our respective churches, and it was just understood that our church affiliation made us different from the other kids. There were a couple who didn’t go anywhere, and we all felt somewhat sorry for them – but no one ever considered asking them to come along. It was actually unthinkable to invite someone to change churches – you just were who you were.
Things are obviously much different now, although some of the more traditional churches try to keep their flocks from straying out of their pens. It’s not unusual for people to change churches, often spending a couple of years at one place, then moving to another. However, even with this more tenuous connection to a congregation or denomination, there still tends to be an identity that develops based on where you attend at the moment. You’re friends with this group of people, then move on to another group, often abandoning old relationships (we consider it “drifting apart” rather than abandonment) in favor of the new. It’s a lot like serial monogamy.
We often wouldn’t consider attending a home group or Bible study that isn’t associated with our current church, even though that group may be (or have been) our close friends. There are those of us who do, and we are looked at with suspicion by pastors and leaders (and the more “committed” members of the church) who can’t understand why we won’t abandon our connections outside of the church.
Commitment still means 100% to the organization in many places. It doesn’t matter that we may be involved in tremendous para-church (I hate that term) organizations and doing the work of the Kingdom; if it’s not a part of the “program” it doesn’t spell commitment.
There’s something wrong. With these attitudes, we become blind to The Church That Is. We meet other people who are Christians, and don’t develop Kingdom relationships with them, because we fail to recognize the Kingdom.
“Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” said Jesus. I suspect that we often miss out on the presence of Jesus in our daily lives, because we have been blinded to the reality of the Kingdom. What does it mean to “gather in my name?” I wonder if it is as simple as recognizing each other as fellow disciples, by failing to see the Kingdom in each other, and failing to recognize that The Church That Is exists wherever we are.
Why can’t the Church exist where two Christians at work meet at break to just see how each other is doing? Why can’t the Church exist at the gym during a game of racquetball? If we acknowledge the we are all the temple of the Holy Spirit and the reality of the Church exists in the connection of these Earthly temples, then the real presence of Jesus and the real presence of The Church That Is exists at that moment, at that place. There’s no need for singing or liturgy or a sermon… all that is needed is our presence.
The organizations, the buildings, and all of that is not necessarily wrong (it obviously depends on the organization…); the reality is that these are para-church organizations, set up merely to facilitate meetings and programs. Some are good, some are not so good – but, they are only tools of the real Church. We can’t confuse them with The Church itself.
The Church That Is, is. It’s as simple as that.
In spite of the rain, there were no malfunctions (wardrobe or electrical) at yesterday’s SB halftime show.
By the way, I’m not a football fan. Not that I don’t enjoy watching football – it can be mildly entertaining. However, it’s like a mini-series in that you’ve either got to watch alot of it so you can keep up, or you don’t watch at all. I figured out many years ago that for me, it just wasn’t worth the time. So, until yesterday I didn’t even know who was playing. I didn’t even know that Indianapolis had a professional team. What I did know was that at the particular party we were invited to, there would be food. So, I spent most of the afternoon within reach of the goodies.
Except for halftime- I had heard rumors that Prince was performing, so I moved back into the big-screen room. Unfortunately, the room was filled with people making cracks about “The artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince,” and so on. (Once was kind of amusing; after that, it was just annoying.)
I should say here that I had been somewhat of a Prince fan during the Purple Rain years; Prince is an incredibly gifted performer, and is, I think, often underrated by the masses, because – let’s face it – he’s a might peculiar, as artists can tend to be. I haven’t listened to him at all in many years, but I have been kind of curious as to how his conversion to the Jehovah’s Witnesses has impacted him. He’s always had a spiritual dimension to his music that I found intriguing, and it’s unfortunate that his journey has taken this particular rabbit trail. (Although, it’s apparently made his music a bit more socially acceptable.)
Yesterday, in spite of the noisy room and less than acceptable sound system, I was impressed, and somewhat surprised, with Prince’s performance. First, he performed no new material of his own. He started with 2 songs from the Purple Rain soundtrack (both good selections), then moved into a great cover of the Foo Fighters’ “Best of You” (one of my personal favorites) borrowing a little “All Along the Watchtower” for the intro. In my opinion, this was a great version of the song, and is worth listening to again. Finally, he closed with none other than Purple Rain, which is not only one of his more “spiritual” songs, but also has a somewhat evangelistic edge to it (though highly metaphorical).
Each was a great performance, in spite of the rainfall (you could only tell it was raining from the drops hitting the camera lens). This was, in my opinion, the best half-time show since Michael Jackson (no matter what you think of him, that was a great show). You can read my thoughts on last year’s Stones performance here; that was possibly the worst halftime show I can recall, and that’s saying something…
I’m guessing that more than Prince performing his greatest hits, they were chosen more for their underlying spiritual tone – after all, Purple Rain was a redemption story. “Best of You” also has a spiritual message, discussing loss of faith, etc. This, I think, was Prince’s one big chance to reach probably his greatest audience ever with his current apocalyptic message, whatever that might be. Obscure metaphors have their advantages.
But, perhaps I’m reading too much into it; perhaps he just wanted to do a great show. In that respect, he certainly succeeded.
Distant roads are calling me… – The Guess Who
I’ve so many things to put down in ones and zeros, but just haven’t had the time, with too many demands pulling me in different directions. But, it works well for you, for I’ve got some great links for you instead of my own self-indulgent ruminatings. I am fortunate to have some friends who are better writers than me, and it is my distinct pleasure to highlight a couple of them now.
My friend Mike has an article on racial profiling, appearing on the American Chronicle site. It’s both well-written and insightful, and you can hardly tell that he’s a liberal. 
He’s also got some great stuff on his own blog (he’s the Tangled Up In Blue Guy), especially a couple of recent posts on his journey from Christianity to atheism. Check out Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Then, just poke around and read some other stuff.
Then, take a look at my favorite Totally Baked writer, Quixote’s latest thoughts on Christianity vs America (or the other way around), something we should all be thinking about, all of the time…
I’ll also throw a quick plug in for my son, Elliot, who is interviewed here on current trends in web design.
There, that should keep you busy, and now I don’t feel so bad for not having the time to write down all of the good stuff bouncing around my head (sometimes I wish it would stop, it keeps me awake….).