“Nobelists” who believe in God

Here’s an interesting site, billed as a free “e-book” (I don’t know what makes it an e-book as opposed to a website, but whatever…), nobelists.net. I guess the difference is that the book of which the site consists is titled 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God (catchy title, eh?). It is, as the site indicates, an anthology of quotations from 50 scientist “biggies” concerning God.

I mention this primarily because it’s interesting, not that I’m trying to make any argument from authority to prove God’s existence. The list of folks quoted include such biggies as Einstein (many will scream at the proposition that he believed in God), Max Planck, Heisenberg (of the uncertainty principle), and Schroedinger (of the “cat”), as well as old-timers like Pascal and Bacon (not Kevin). If nothing else, this will be an invaluable resource for quote-mining 😉 (which, by the way, merely means to quote someone to support your point).

Now, I’m not claiming that these folks were all Theists. Some may have been Diests or even Panentheists. However, the quotes are what they are, and it makes for some interesting reading, and may prompt someone to read further to be able to put the quotes in context. That’s not a bad thing.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Random Thoughts | Leave a comment

The problem of evil

As I’ve read through some of the recent books & articles by the anti-God folks like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others, I’ve been considering the possibility that the real issue isn’t necessarily dealing with the existence of God, but rather it is dealing with the problem of evil. A belief (or non-belief) in God seems to relate to our ability or inability to deal with the issue of evil and perhaps even the personification of evil (aka Satan). I refer to Dawkins, et al., as “anti-God” rather than skeptics or non-believers, because they’re not really skeptics or non-believers. They do believe in something, just not a non-material god. And, their apparent willingness to accept the gaps and other problems inherent in a Darwinist or materialist worldview shows that they are not skeptics (at least to the same degree) all of the time.

One of the big obstacles in belief in God appears to be some version of, “if there is a good, all-powerful God, why does he allow, or why doesn’t He do something about, evil?” Pages and pages have been dedicated to such topics, including sub-topics dealing with the flaws in Creation, the apparent flaws in design, the evil in mankind (especially in God-believers), and so forth. None, however, ever seem to deal with what the religions teach about the problem of evil. The Bible is decried as a poor example for a morality guidebook, without ever considering the explanation the Bible itself provides for why evil exists, and why God continues to allow evil to exist.

People (both atheists and believers alike) do scream when people like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell declare evil to be God’s judgment on some specific sin. But again, no one – at least in the mainstream media – ever seems to deal with the real issue. There is a new book out, however, which apparently tries in a scholarly way to support the “judgment” theory. Author Steven Keillor, in God’s Judgments: Interpreting History and the Christian Faith, argues that yes, God did use terrorists to judge America’s sins. Whether he’s right, to any extent, remains to be seen. According to a review in Books and Culture, Keillor’s “aim is to ‘find some answers’ and ‘not a worldview answering everything.'”

In an interesting coincidence, the same publisher, IVP, has also recently published N.T. Wright’s Evil and the Justice of God, which does attempt to find the worldview, as expressed in the Bible. While not, perhaps, explaining everything (Wright is not afraid of raising the various “ambiguities”), Wright’s theory of evil does provide a worldview for understanding not just the evil in the world, but also the evil within us. I had purchased the book some time ago, but only picked it up the other night as I (for the first time all summer) found myself without at least one book that I was in the midst of reading.

Now, many of you know that if NT Wright were ever to leave the Anglican Church and start his own movement, I’d seriously consider joining. That being admitted, I will say that this book captivated me as very few books do. Wright’s first chapter is revelational, as it explores Western Enlightenment and Postmodern thinking and how it has failed to deal with the problem of evil in any real way. Those suspicious of “Christian” ultra-conservative politics will be particularly pleased with his analysis. He then proceeds through some key Biblical books and themes, the true nature of evil and how God indeed deals with it.

I’ve read through a little over half the book (I’m amazed at how Wright can take such an enormous issue and so thoroughly deal with it without reducing it, in so few pages), and will no doubt write a bit more on the subject when I’ve finished.

And, yes, I really will deal with Dawkins, soon. I planned to have taken vacation this week and should have had more time, but alas, it wasn’t to be…

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews, Theological Musings | 5 Comments

How to read the Old Testament: Wisdom from an old dude

In keeping with prior posts on hermeneutics (that is, how to read and actually understand the Bible in some reasonable fashion), more hermeneutics, discovering the nature of God, and too many posts to link to directed at shaking a bit of sense into mindless pop Christian culture, check out Ben Witherington, once again, as he provides a great post on how we should read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament.

The “old dude” I’m referring to is “Saint” John Chrysostom, one of the gems of the Early (4th Century) Church. We don’t hear too much from Chrysostom, and some may never of heard of him. It seems as though many people assume that there were no brilliant theological minds between the Apostle Paul and Martin Luther (or Calvin, for you Reformed folks). Born in 349, Chrysostom was actually a contemporary of Augustine, who was 5 years younger. Chrysostom became the Archbishop of Constantinople, while Augustine joined the Church in Italy after being converted in Milan. Of course, at that time there was still only one church, although Rome always seemed to always claim a higher status. While both men are considered saints in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, the West seemed to follow Augustine’s thinking, while Chrysostom seems to carry more clout in the East. But, enough history.

The point that Witherington & Chrysostom make concerning the reading of the Old Testament is that since the coming of the New Testament (basically, I think, the appearance of Jesus) the Old Testament must be read and interpreted in light of the New Testament. Here’s a quote that Mr. W quotes from Chrysostom:

Now when you see these things merely sketched out you neither know everything nor are you totally ignorant of everything, but you know that a man and a horse are drawn there, though they are indistinct. But you don’t accurately [or fully] know what sort of emperor or what sort of prisoner it is until the truth of the colors comes and makes the face distinct and clear. For just as you don’t ask everything of that image/portrait before the truth of the colors, but if you receive some indistinct knowledge of what is there, you consider the sketch to be sufficiently ready , in just that same way consider with me the Old and New Testaments , and don’t demand from me the whole fullness of the truth in the [OT] type…For as in the painting, until someone draws in colors it is a shadowy sketch.

Much weirdness comes from reading the Old Testament separate from the New, and as a consequence confusing how the testaments fit together. Witherington says:

Now what is so interesting about this whole hermeneutical approach is that it believes that one must do justice to the history if one is to do theology and ethics right. Christianity was a religion grounded and founded in history, and so theology proper was a reflection on God’s mighty acts in history which had a before and after to them. It was not an abstract science or philosophy where one took ideas and simply linked them together without them arising out of historical events and their substance. In the end, Chrysostom’s hermeneutic mirrors that of Paul and the author of Hebrews. It would be my view that we should go and do likewise.

Good stuff again from Mr. Witherington. Go read the whole article.

Posted in Letter to a Christian Nation, My Own Personal Religion, Theological Musings | 8 Comments

Listening to In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida

Those who know me will probably not be surprised that I listen to In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida fairly regularly. In fact, over the past 2 or 3 days, I’ve let it play a dozen or more times. Sometimes I rotate a number of Iron Butterfly cuts, but my all-time favorite has to be In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida. Now, I am aware that IAGDV has become somewhat of a rock joke due to it’s simple, repetitive bass/guitar riff and it’s utterly meaningless title. However, IAGDV shouldn’t be taken lightly.

There are, various myths about where the name came from, and I’m not sure anyone really knows the truth (perhaps not even the band members). My personal theory is that Doug Ingles, who mumbled everything anyway, was simply misunderstood as he sung what seems to have been the original lyrics, “In the garden of Venus.”

IAGDV is, of course, one of the rock classics. Released in 1968, the album on which the 17-minute song appeared (also named In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida) became the very first “platinum” album (the designation was actually created by the RIAA for this album). As far as I know, it was the first studio-recorded full-side rock song. It paved the way for other treats such as Rare Earth’s Get Ready and Uriah Heep’s Salisbury (other favorites of mine). Also, it is perhaps the only rock song that is identifiable by merely a measure or two of its drum solo.

Iron Butterfly itself should not be taken lightly. Poke fun, if you will, at the simplicity of IAGDV or at the guitar-string-scraping noises of Eric Brann (an inspiration to Tom Morello, no doubt), but these musicians were no slouches. Many of their songs were lyrically fairly sappy, flower-powerish things, but just listen to the complex bass lines of Flowers and Beads or Most Anything That You Want. Lee Dorman, the bassist, went on to form the prog-rock Captain Beyond with a later IB guitarist, Larry Reinhardt.

The 60’s and early 70’s were strange times musically; you had all kinds of experimentation going on (chemical and otherwise), and even the early “heavy metal” bands were hoping to get top-40 airplay. “Rock” was everything from folk and country to blues to jazz-inspired bands like Chicago, and it was all groovy. Rumor even has it that Neil Young once auditioned for IB lead guitarist (to be beat out by Erik Brann). Iron Butterfly, with its various lineups, explored a lot of new ground (especially 1970’s Metamorphasis with the extended cut Butterfly Bleu).

So what is so special about IAGDV? I really don’t know… perhaps to me it’s the musical equivalent of comfort food. When I listen to it, I am not reverting back to a 60’s mentality or reliving my teenage years (God forbid!), but I do find it comfortable and relaxing. And, at 17 minutes, I can trust that it’s not going to pull some major time or style change on me. When I click “play” (yeah, I listen to an mp3… my turntable belt snapped) I can be assured that “dunt dunt dadada dunt” will be there for 17 minutes (more, if it’s on “repeat”).

Posted in Random Thoughts, Reviews | 8 Comments