Skip to content

Monthly Archives for October 2007

Atheists put less value on love …

Or so says the headline at the National Post (don’t blame me, I didn’t write the headline). The article begins:

A new Canadian survey has found that believers are more likely than atheists to place a higher value on love, patience and friendship, in findings the researcher says could be a warning that Canadians need a religious basis to retain civility in society.

For some time atheists have been saying that they can be just as good and moral as anyone – and according to folks like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, even better. However, prominent Canadian sociologist Reginald Bibby of the University of Lethbridge has published the findings of a survey of 1600 Canadians about twelve different social values to see if this is actually true. According to a similar article on Digital Journal:

In each case, theist ranked these values (honesty, kindness, family life, being loved, friendship, courtesy, concern for others, forgiveness, politeness, friendliness, patience and generosity) more highly then proclaimed atheists.

Bibby’s conclusions (taken from his own paper) are:

  • People get their values from groups.
  • And people who believe in God are far more likely than atheists to be part of groups that work hard to instill values about being good to other people, and having good relationships.
  • That’s not to say that God-believers always translate their values into action.
  • But they at least are inclined to hold the values.
  • Atheists, on the other hand, do not have as many explicit support groups that are committed to intentionally promoting positive interpersonal life.

Both articles include comments from atheist Justin Trottier, executive director of the Centre for Inquiry Ontario, who says the problem is in defining what is meant by values: ““To me, scientific thinking is a value. Critical thinking is a value. Open inquiry is my biggest value. If he made those values – the way atheists would – he would have gotten different responses.” A very perceptive response, which also makes the point that apparently without religion, things like honesty, kindness, forgiveness, patience and generosity cease to be considered values. But, who needs those when we have open inquiry.

What I find really intriguing is the suggestion that the non-religious folks are “borrowing moral capital” from a generally religious society. That is, society values goodness and so on due to its religious heritage, and so these values are still to some extent held in common by most people, atheists included. If we ever were to take away that Theistic moral witness, arguably society would go to hell in a handbasket over time.

However, the current disparity between values held by Theists versus atheists is quite notable, especially when it comes down to forgiveness, which ranked as 84% for the Theists (a bit low, actually – concerning in itself) and only 52% for atheists. Apparently, atheism means never having to say you’re sorry. And, forget feeding the poor; only 37% of atheists believed generosity was a value. Oh well, perhaps critical thinking will solve the problem before the Theists all die off.

But, what can we really tell from this survey? Basically, it would seem that Canadians as a whole are an honest bunch, but are generally stingy and impatient. This survey is, of course, limited to Canadians, so I’m not drawing any conclusions whatsoever about American Theists and atheists. I’m sure we’d all fare much better.

Written on 17 October 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Random Thoughts with 3 Comments

By the way, about those problems with Darwinism…

Darwinists have been known to say that adaptationism is the best idea anybody has ever had. It would be a good joke if the best idea that anybody has ever had turned out not to be true.

From Jerry Fodor’s article in the London Review of Books, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings.

And yes, he doesn’t believe in God, either. That’s precisely my point. I won’t comment any further, just suggest you go read the article yourself. But, one final teaser quote:

Induction over the history of science suggests that the best theories we have today will prove more or less untrue at the latest by tomorrow afternoon. In science, as elsewhere, ‘hedge your bets’ is generally good advice.

Written on 15 October 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 3 Comments

Gotta love the British…

From The Telegraph:

The former US Vice-President has already taken over from Michael Moore as the most sanctimonious lardbutt Yank on the planet. Can you imagine what he’ll be like now that the Norwegian Nobel committee has given him the prize?

The rest of the article is a hoot as well, and says what I would say, but with a British accent.

Written on 12 October 2007 by me under Politics/Current Events with 8 Comments

The Beatitudes according to Marc Cohn

Meditation for Today:

Now I’m just another traveller
On another winding road
I’m trying to walk some kind of line
I’m trying to pull some kind of load
Now sometimes I move real easy
Sometimes I can’t catch my breath
Sometimes I see my father’s footsteps
And man it scares me half to death
But one day

One day
There’s love for the lonely
One day
We walk in the sun
One day
Rest for the weary
Rest for the weary ones

- Marc Cohn, Rest For The Weary
(c) Museum Steps Music, ASCAP

Written on 12 October 2007 by me under Random Thoughts, Spiritual stuff with No Comments

The Jubilee Act: a Level One mission

Yesterday I wrote about Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and suggested that we use it as a tool to survey our churches’ missions. In that post I suggested that much of what we do is geared to Level Five: Self-Actualization. Well, today I read about a Level One mission, along with a Level One approach. Rev. David Duncombe, a 79-yr old retired minister, has nearly completed a 40-day fast while walking the halls of Congress, encouraging our Senators and Representatives to support the Jubilee Act (H.R.2634), a bill that would will cancel the debt of approximately 67 impoverished countries.

According to Jubilee USA, the bill “cancels impoverished country debt; removes economic conditionalities from the cancellation process; mandates transparency and accountability from governments and international financial institutions; and moves forward with more responsible lending practices.” A more detailed summary can be found here.

What’s the big deal with debt cancellation, and why is this a First Level (physiological) issue? In an article for Sojourners Magazine, Christina Cobourn Herman writes:

In Kenya, 1.3 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, and many lack essential medicine and food. Half the population lives in poverty; 40 percent are unemployed. Yet, in recent years, the Kenyan government has had to pay as much in debt payments to foreign creditors—hundreds of millions a year just in interest—as it has for water, health, agriculture, roads, transport, and the finance ministry combined! With this budget, Kenya attempts to fund HIV/AIDS treatment, meager agricultural extension services for poor farmers, and a deteriorated road network that needs an estimated $1 billion in repairs.

The IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank, which are controlled by the U.S. and other wealthy countries, has allegedly continued to lend impoverished nations money that they cannot repay; some allege that this is even an intentional means to keep these countries “in our debt,” literally. In Kenya’s case (as the article goes on to say):

As Wangari Maathai, Kenyan environmental activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner, puts it, “The people who are really being punished [for Kenya's debt] are the poor people who never received that money to begin with. … Those who did business with our leaders knew they were corrupt, that they were not delivering services, that the money was quite often stolen and stashed away. Yet when you request cancellation [of debts], people want to pretend that you got that money.”

The current situation of 3rd world debt is similar to those in America who were suckered into negative amortization mortgages, and now find themselves “upside down,” where they can’t even afford to make the interest payments. So, 3rd World debt increases without any further benefit to the suffering populations. It has been estimated that these impoverished nations pay collectively $100 million in interest a day. And, as a result the basic needs of the people – food, medical care, and so on – are no where to be found.

What I found striking was that Reverend Duncombe has taken a Level One approach to a Level One problem. While I proudly attached my electronic signature to a letter to my congressman in support of the act, he has put his life on the line by giving up one of his most basic needs – food – to make his point that this is indeed a crisis of Level One proportions. Did I mention that he’s 79 years old?

I’m not, by they way, suffering under a load of misdirected guilt or trying to lay a trip on anyone else. I am not even suggesting 40-day fasts are for everyone. I am, however, challenged to think about real needs, and what I can do about them (besides sit here and blog while I sip a cup of Starbucks coffee). I do suggest, however, that you start here, at the One Campaign. Sign up and send a message to congress. It may be, quite literally, the very least we can do.

Written on 10 October 2007 by me under Church, Politics/Current Events with No Comments

What’s your problem?

Ever since I first learned of it in the early 80′s, I’ve been fascinated by what is known as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In 1943, Abraham Maslow published his paper, A Theory of Human Motivation, in which he proposed that as humans resolved certain basic, universal needs, they went on to try to satisfy other, higher-level needs. In other words, some needs, such as position or the need to express oneself artistically, were not important until the more basic needs of food and shelter were addressed.

While there are studies that would show Maslow’s hierarchy to be incorrect (and perhaps not be a hierarchy at all), Maslow’s pyramid-shaped chart (like the “food group” chart) is encountered, it seems, in every field of study from the obvious psychology to education to marketing. It is certainly an interesting approach to look at how humans behave. I also wonder if Maslow’s theory shouldn’t be at least considered by churches in evaluating their philosophy of ministry and overall theology.

Before I develop this further, let’s take a look at Maslow’s hierarchy itself. The chart (I didn’t want to rip off anyone’s copyrighted chart… but it can be found here) starts with level one, the most basic, broad level, as physiological needs: food, water, sleep, and so on. This makes sense; if you don’t have access to enough food to survive the next week, why worry about that promotion? Level two is Safety, which is pretty self-explanatory; it does include safety of your stuff as well as personal safety.

Once these needs are met (or mostly met), we can move on to Love and Belonging, which includes family, friends, and community. Level Four is Esteem; while not having any value without any community to be esteemed by, once your belonging needs are met, esteem becomes (or can become) important. Finally, at the top of the pyramid we have Level Five, Self-Actualization. Here we have various forms of self-expression, including creative expression and having fun.

Now, with these categories in mind, take a look at yourself, your church, and your church’s ministries. Where do they fall in the pyramid? Personally, I’d have to say that most of our lives are spent in the penthouse, Level Five, as are the lives of the churches I’ve been involved in. Most of us don’t worry about having enough to eat. Jesus’ advice, “Do not be anxious…” has little meaning to us if we’re thinking about tomorrow’s lunch menu. Most of us know where we’ll be sleeping, which is not only climate-controlled, but relatively secure as well. We may become anxious about our retirement, but we’re not that concerned about tomorrow. We’re also not necessarily that lonely. If anything, many of us would give nearly anything for some simple peace and quiet, which is why we put away money so we can spend a week or two at “the cabin” away from everyone else.

Basically, America is a Level Five country. There are homeless, of course, but usually it’s their own fault (right?). The poor are often overweight, and many who live below poverty levels do so with a large screen TV in their living rooms. At least, this is our Level Five perception. Our churches do have programs for the needy (which I am not criticizing), and there are some individuals who put me to shame for their willingness to put their body where their mouth is (in America, money comes too cheap). However, when you look at American and American Christianity, we’re at Level Five.

Just take a walk into any Christian bookstore, and look at the largest sections. Missions, right? Discipleship? Mercy ministries? I am willing to bet that these are all fairly small, compact sections. The larger sections are for Christian Fiction (I keep thinking that should be an oxymoron…) and what is often called the “Christian Living” sections. Christian Living is a nice term for “how to live a more fulfilling life as a Level Five Christian.” We have books on money management, love & romance, and all kinds of “how to be happy” books. Happiness, by the way, seems largely to be a Level Five commodity. I’ve often said that those starving people in [insert 3rd world country here] probably aren’t thinking about how they weren’t affirmed by their fathers.

In Luke Chapter 8 Jesus tells the story of a man planting seeds. Some seed fell on good soil, some on bad. About the seed that fell among the thorns, he explained, “The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature.” I find it interesting that one of the “advantages” of a Level Five Christianity is that we have the ability to choose our own thorns. And, it appears that much of the American Church is enabling this behavior. Are we pulling thorns, or planting them?

Jesus could have very well said, “It is harder for someone on the Self-Actualization level to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.” But, today we should be thankful, as we have 12-step groups, counselors and inner healing teams to help us deal with it.

Maslow’s Hierarchy may be incorrect, and I’m sure that reality is much more blended than the parfait-looking structure Maslow envisioned. However, I still think it’s an interesting tool to analyze our lives, and our ministry focus. Which brings me back to my post title: What’s your problem?

Written on 09 October 2007 by me under Spiritual stuff, Theological Musings with 2 Comments

The rhetorical Word of God

A few weeks ago I posted concerning Ben Witherington’s article about John Chrysostom and how to read the Old Testament. Today I’ll highlight yesterday’s post from Witherington entitled SACRED TEXTS IN AN ORAL CULTURE—How Did They Function?

I believe that the best way to understand the Bible is to first try to understand the culture of that period and try to understand what the author was trying to say, and what his audience would have understood him to say. After that, we can talk about whatever personal revelation you may have had about the verse and whether it fits within your personal theology. Mr. Witherington seems to agree, and has some interesting things to say about First Century culture and how it relates to understanding the New Testament. He points out that the First Century culture was primarily geared toward oral rather than written communication, rhetorical rather than literal:

So far as we can tell, no documents in antiquity were intended for ‘silent’ reading, and only a few were intended for private individuals to read. They were always meant to be read out loud and usually read out loud to a group of people. For the most part they were simply necessary surrogates for oral communication. This was particularly true of ancient letters.

He then comments about what the written New Testament tells us about the First Century Church:

What do texts in an oral culture tell us about their authors? It is too seldom taken into account that the 27 books of the NT reflect a remarkable level of literacy, and indeed of rhetorical skill amongst the inner circle of leaders of the early Christian movement. Early Christianity was not, by and large, a movement led by illiterate peasants or the socially deprived. The leaders of the movement mostly produced the texts of the movement, and the texts of the NT reflect a considerable knowledge of Greek, of rhetoric, and indeed of general Greco-Roman culture.

As his blog post is actually a transcript of a recent lecture, it is longer than the average blog post, and he discusses in some depth how written texts were used in that culture, and gives suggestions concerning their interpretation from a first century rhetorical point of view. For example, it is important to realize that ancient rhetorical devices differed from ours today, and certainly differed from both ancient and modern literary devices. To analyze the New Testament from purely a literary point of view, he suggests, leads to misunderstanding, as does misunderstanding which style of rhetoric is being used. For example, Ephesians is an epideictic homily, which does not contain a thesis statement. Romans, on the other hand, is “a masterpiece of deliberative rhetoric:”

Understanding the rhetorical signals helps with difficult passages such as Rom. 7.7-25, which as it turns out is a tour de force use of the rhetorical device called ‘impersonation’ where Adam and his kin are allowed to speak of their plight in the first person.

Witherington’s approach is fascinating, to say the least. He sums up:

It is no mere rhetoric, full of sound and fury but signifying little, to say that analyzing the NT orally, and rhetorically gets us back in touch with the original ethos and character of these oral texts.

It is one thing to pick the Bible apart, as some have done, to build various cases or to simply tear down cases. It’s quite another to get a fresh viewpoint which releases even more life from the Scriptures.

Written on 06 October 2007 by me under Theological Musings with 2 Comments

Dumb and dumber

I had so many options for naming this particular post, it was very hard to decide. And, I knew that I’d get reamed no matter which I chose. My other options were “Ignorance is… well, ignorance” and “Stupid is as stupid does.” Anyway, you get the idea.

Not that I’m calling PZ Myers names or suggesting that he’s not intelligent in his own area. I think he’s probably a pretty smart guy. I’m just referring to something that he posted yesterday, where he obviously stepped outside of his area of expertise, and led a host of his followers down a merry trail of dumber and dumber comments (hence my choice for the title).

The post I’m referring to is entitled Little imaginary beings, where he pokes fun at William Dembski, who wrote the forward for Peter S. Williams’ book, The Case for Angels. A quote from Dembski’s forward:

There exists an invisible world that is more real and weighty than our secular imaginations can fathom. I commend this book as a way of retraining our imaginations about that reality.

Myers apparently thinks this is hilarious, and ends with the brilliant and tactful conclusion: This crap is just plain idiocy.

Now, what’s “dumb” about that? But then, why does Myers think this is so funny? In fact, why should he be surprised at this at all?

Dembski has never hidden the fact that he believes in a super-natural, non-material reality. Dembski teaches at Baylor University, which is the largest Baptist University in the world (although someone needs to remind their president of that fact). Myers knows this. If Myers understood anything about religion or the beliefs of the majority of people in America (not to mention other places), he would know that belief in angels is consistent with both Christianity (remember the Christmas story?) and with Judaism.

So again, why should this be surprising? Why, in fact, even mention it at all? The proper response to this news, in any other forum, would be something like, “we already knew that, you lamebrain.” But, take a look at the stream of comments to the post. It makes you wonder. All of a sudden, Carry and Daniels seem like intellectuals. We all know that PZ Myers doesn’t believe in anything non-material. We accept that. It’s not news. Dembski, on the other hand, does, including believing in angels. For that matter, so do I. That is not news, either, but feel free to laugh. It is, as they say, a free country.

Now, on to this post at Touchstone Mag, which informs us that The Center for Inquiry is holding a conference in NYC, called “The Secular Society and Its Enemies,” which is “to address the alarming abandonment of Western secular values…”

Abandon? Western secular values?

Written on 05 October 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 8 Comments

My response to Mike

In this post, I will try to address my friend Mike’s comments and questions that he posed in comments here. First, it seems to me that you’re trying to make me say things that I’m not saying. I’m actually less dogmatic about some things than you think I am.

(Some of) What I believe about God is this:

  1. God is Spirit, therefore non-material (except for the incarnation of Jesus, where God became man.
  2. God is outside of the material universe, which includes time.
  3. God can and is involved with the material world (i.e. incarnational).
  4. God can operate within His created system (that is, naturally) as well as outside of the system (supernaturally).
  5. As God does not have to conform to the laws of the universe that we are subject to (specifically “cause and effect”), He cannot be “tested” according to the Scientific Method.
  6. God is personal and can be known, but on His terms; that is, through revelation.
  7. The existence of God probably cannot be proved in a deductive sense, or according to the scientific method.
  8. The existence of God can be assumed inductively based upon what we see in the physical world (Romans 1:20).

ID is a counter to a science which is controlled by a philosophical materialism, which claims that God cannot exist because only the material world exists. If science (especially that as taught in our school system) was not controlled by materialism, I don’t think ID would be an issue. I don’t know how many of those claiming to be proponents of ID believe that God can be proved. Most that I know of believe that design is supported. Even Dawkins agrees that design is apparent; he, however, tries to show why that is illogical, but he failed miserably. As far as I can tell, ID is not about proving there is a God; it’s simply trying to pull science back from it’s current philosophical prison.

I don’t know that I would disagree much with Thomas Robey; again, I have never “demanded that it be proven.”

Concerning evolution, I don’t believe that the evidence supports common descent. It certainly doesn’t support neo-Darwinism. It does appear that there was some “front-loading.” From what I understand of Behe’s latest book (I’ve read both sides), there does appear to be an “edge” to evolution, and there does, in fact, seem to be a point where it becomes de-evolution. As I’ve said before, I am not dogmatic about my thoughts on evolution; there’s nothing in my theology that says God couldn’t have used evolution, and to some extent, it appears that He has utilized it. Certainly there are adaptive functions at work- in fact, the whole system appears marvelously designed. You have accused me of “creating a roadblock because of the way you want your faith to be demonstrated materially.” I don’t believe this reflects what I believe or what I’ve said.

Bottom line, I’m not trying to use science to prove God; I don’t believe that God needs to be proved, and I certainly don’t need to try to do it. As C.S. Lewis was pointing out in The Great Divorce, you could put some people in the middle of Heaven and they’d deny it existed; belief (or unbelief) is often not a matter of “proof.” I’ll re-quote from Jesus: “I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” However, where science (or a materialism or naturalism masquerading as science) attempts to “prove” that there is no God, I merely point out the rather obvious errors in their thinking. And, so far, the errors have been obvious.

Written on 04 October 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 8 Comments

The Great Divorce revisited

One of my very favorite books is C.S. Lewis’ classic, The Great Divorce. I realized recently that I hadn’t read the book in several years, and dug out my tattered and falling apart 1978 copy (which I paid $1.50 for) to give it a fresh read. I was again impressed with the depth of Lewis’ ideas, as relevant now as when it was written in 1946.

I highly recommend reading it, if you haven’t, and to read it again if you have. I especially recommend it to Evangelicals of every flavor. While Lewis has been generally “adopted” by Evangelicals, it should be noted that Lewis doesn’t necessarily fit the standard Evangelical mold. The Great Divorce is especially challenging as Lewis posits some interesting ideas about Heaven, Hell, and the nature of judgment and eternity. He is clear that he is not suggesting that this is “even a guess or a speculation” about the truth of Heaven and Hell; the book is a work of fantasy. However, if the book were published under another name today, I have no doubt that it would be immediately criticized as another emergent work of heresy.

In The Great Divorce, Lewis’ protagonist finds himself on a bus on a rather curious excursion, where residents of Hell are allowed to visit Heaven and stay there if they wish. Each traveler is met by someone they have known; the storyteller is himself met by none other than George MacDonald, who Lewis probably respected more than any other English author. Throughout the short book a variety of discussions take place in which Lewis examines why some people would rather choose Hell than Heaven; in fact, he proposes that most of those who are in Hell are there willingly. This is perhaps a shocking concept for most people (especially fans of Dante), but you begin to see that this may not be so far-fetched after all. The fictional MacDonald explains:

“There are only two kinds of people in the end; those who say to God, ‘They will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.“

One of my favorite characters in the book is an intellectual ghost (later identified as an Episcopalian, probably representing issues Lewis had with some in the Church of England) who refused to believe that the place he had been was Hell, or that the place he was visiting was Heaven, continuing to argue that they were not literal places. Lewis also speaks of “materialistic Ghosts who informed the immortals that they were deluded; there was no life after death, and this whole country was a hallucination” and those who attempted to extend Hell into Heaven (apparently to make Heaven more livable).

Lewis touches on a number of issues that the non-believing (as well as the believing) world continues to ask, such as why those in Hell should not be pitied (yes, you read that right) and why universal salvation (in spite of the individual’s right to reject Heaven) is a bad idea. The fictional MacDonald again:

“I know it has a grand sound to say ye’ll accept no salvation which leaves even one creature in the dark outside. But watch that sophistry or ye’ll make a Dog in a Manger the tyrant of the universe.”

The book is full of marvelous quotes, and I am tempted to fill up the page with them. But, it is much better to read the book yourself.

Written on 01 October 2007 by me under Reviews, Theological Musings with No Comments