"Does the universe hold levels of emergence beyond individual consciousness, beyond the collective accomplishments of human societies? Might the cooperative awareness of billions of humans ultimately give rise to new collective phenomena as yet unimagined? If higher stages of emergence await our discovery, then science and theology may someday converge into a more unified vision of the cosmos and our place in it" (Robert M. Hazen, Genesis: the scientific quest for life's origin (Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press, 2005) pp.245-246)
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Friday, December 28, 2007
Happy New Year!
This is to inform regular readers that my blogging will be at best sporadic over the next couple of weeks, if it happens at all. I won't call it a hiatus, since I don't know for sure that I won't be blogging, but I will not have regular computer access until well into the new year.
So that's why I'm taking this opportunity to wish you a happy start to 2008. Happy new year!
So that's why I'm taking this opportunity to wish you a happy start to 2008. Happy new year!
Which Theologian Are You?
I don't put much stock in these quizzes, many of which are repetative, have either-or questions where one might wish to say 'both/and', and sometimes asks questions that I might regard as in themselves fundamentally flawed. But since several other blogs I read seem to include these sorts of quiz results, I decided to try it and share this...
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Which theologian are you? created with QuizFarm.com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You scored as Friedrich Schleiermacher You seek to make inner feeling and awareness of God the centre of your theology, which is the foundation of liberalism. Unfortunately, atheists are quick to accuse you of simply projecting humanity onto 'God' and liberalism never really recovers.
|
Spam of the Spirit
I regularly comment on spam for the sake of the gullible who might fall for the various scams and hoaxes that are around. But I suspect that the most common form of spam that makes it into our inboxes rather than our spam filters comes from well-intentioned relatives and friends who say things like "This is a must read" or "I know this probably isn't true but..." or even "I saw this and thought that you (in this case "you" refers to every single person they know who has an e-mail address) would be interested in this".
What are we to make of the stories of miracles and marvels that once upon a time circulated by word of mouth, but now tend to circulate by e-mail? Often the individuals in the story are unnamed, but not always, and at times names of famous people are inserted into the story in the course of transmission. Often but not always the story is set in a far away place (at least far from those who circulate it) and is thus not easily verifiable. Research on the phenomenon of rumor and its accuracy or otherwise is important, because the early stories about Jesus and his first followers circulated in the same way before being written down. The ongoing presence of eyewitnesses in the earliest Christian community doesn't mitigate the relevance of this mode of transmission, any more than it does today, since not only do stories continue to circulate even after eyewitnesses protest their inaccuracy or even that they are complete fabrications, but details such as "this happened to someone I know personally" regularly seem to get added to stories in the process of their retelling.
A story I received recently (which inspired this post) is reproduced verbatim below. Feel free to comment on it as well in the comments section. Of particular interest is the way Snopes (a great site for checking on urban legends) traces the development of the story and highlights the universals of the genre. Truth Or Fiction shows how some versions of the story have patent inconsistencies. What I'm most interested in is how this sort of example sheds light on what historians are facing in trying to make sense of early Christian sources. But the topic is relevant simply in terms of the spread of stories, gullibility and lack of critical thinking in our time as well.
What are we to make of the stories of miracles and marvels that once upon a time circulated by word of mouth, but now tend to circulate by e-mail? Often the individuals in the story are unnamed, but not always, and at times names of famous people are inserted into the story in the course of transmission. Often but not always the story is set in a far away place (at least far from those who circulate it) and is thus not easily verifiable. Research on the phenomenon of rumor and its accuracy or otherwise is important, because the early stories about Jesus and his first followers circulated in the same way before being written down. The ongoing presence of eyewitnesses in the earliest Christian community doesn't mitigate the relevance of this mode of transmission, any more than it does today, since not only do stories continue to circulate even after eyewitnesses protest their inaccuracy or even that they are complete fabrications, but details such as "this happened to someone I know personally" regularly seem to get added to stories in the process of their retelling.
A story I received recently (which inspired this post) is reproduced verbatim below. Feel free to comment on it as well in the comments section. Of particular interest is the way Snopes (a great site for checking on urban legends) traces the development of the story and highlights the universals of the genre. Truth Or Fiction shows how some versions of the story have patent inconsistencies. What I'm most interested in is how this sort of example sheds light on what historians are facing in trying to make sense of early Christian sources. But the topic is relevant simply in terms of the spread of stories, gullibility and lack of critical thinking in our time as well.
The Holy Spirit
Here's a message that will bring you chills. Have you ever felt the urge to pray for someone and then just put it on a list and said, "I'll pray for them later?"
Or has anyone ever called you and said, "I need you to pray for me, I have this need?"
Read the following story that was sent to me and may it change the way that you may think about prayer and also the way you pray. You will be blessed by this!!
A missionary on furlough told the following true story while visiting his home church in Michigan : "While serving at a small field hospital in Africa, every two weeks I traveled by bicycle through the jungle to a nearby city for supplies. This was a journey of two days and required camping overnight at the halfway point. On one of these journeys, I arrived in the city where I planned to collect money from a bank, purchase medicine, and supplies, and then begin my two-day journey back to the field hospital.
Upon arrival in the city, I observed two men fighting, one of whom had been seriously injured. I treated him for his injuries and at the same time talked to him about the Lord. I then traveled two days, camping overnight, and arrived home without incident...
Two weeks later I repeated my journey. Upon arriving in the city, I was approached by the young man I had treated. He told me that he had known I carried money and medicines. He said, 'Some friends and I followed you into the jungle, knowing you would camp overnight. We planned to kill you and take your money and drugs.
But just as we were about to move into your camp, we saw that you were surrounded by 26 armed guards. At this, I laughed and said that I was certainly all alone in that jungle campsite. The young man pressed the point, however,and said, 'No, sir, I was not the only person to see the guards, my friends also saw them, and we all counted them. It was because of those guards that we were afraid and left you alone."
At this point in the sermon, one of the men in the congregation jumped to his feet and interrupted the missionary and asked if he could tell him the exact day this happened. The missionary told the congregation the date, and the man who interrupted told him this story:
"On the night of your incident in Africa , it was morning here and I was preparing to go play golf. I was about to putt when I felt the urge to pray for you. In fact, the urging of the Lord was so strong, I called men in this church to meet with me here in the sanctuary to pray for you. Would all of those men who met with me on that day stand up?"
The men who had met together to pray that day stood up. The missionary wasn't concerned with who they were, he was too busy counting how many men he saw. There were 26!
This story is an incredible example of how the Spirit of the Lord moves in mysterious ways. If you ever hear such prodding, go along with it.
Nothing is ever hurt by prayer except the gates of hell. I encourage you to forward this to as many people as you know If we all take it to heart, we can turn this world toward God once again. As the above true story clearly illustrates, "with God all things are possible . More importantly, how God hears and answers the prayers of the faithful.
After you read this, please pass it on and give God thanks for the beautiful gift of your faith, for the powerful gift of prayer, and for the many miracles He works in your own daily life and then pass it on. Who says God does not work in mysterious ways.
I asked the Lord to bless you as I prayed for you today. To guide you and protect you as you go along your way. His love is always with you, His promises are true, and when we give Him our cares you know He will see us through. So when the road you're traveling on seems difficult at best, just remember I'm here praying, and God will do the rest.
Pass this on to those whom you want God to bless.
Sylar and Specialness
I'm bound to have a number of reflections on episodes of Heroes over the coming weeks and most likely months (I will need to return the DVDs to the public library before I'll have time to watch the whole first season). In this post we reflect on the revelations in the episode "Six Months Earlier" about the character "Sylar".
Is there anyone who doesn't feel at some point the way he did, that that they are "meant for something more", that they are supposed to be special? Is there anyone who doesn't hope at some moment in childhood if not in adulthood that they are a chosen one, like Will Stanton in The Dark Is Rising series, like Anakin Skywalker and later his son Luke in Star Wars? The reason these stories resonate with us is that these are classic mythic themes, that seem to touch on human universals.
So what makes this messianic impulse into heroism or homicidal insanity? The key seems to be self-centeredness versus self-sacrifice. Peter Petrelli was willing to fall to his death to save the world. Gabriel Gray (aka "Sylar") was willing to kill in order to have a greater sense of self-importance. Luke Skywalker makes the distinction clearest when he is being trained by Yoda: yearning for adventure may lead to some excitement, but if excitement or a personal sense of self importance is our goal, then any specialness we may have (and we all have some, although we usually crave for the specialness that others have) will serve the dark side.
The Bible also touches on this topic, in the case of all the would-be heroes and deliverers who first need to be humbled, to the point where they are so conscious of what they are being called to do and their own inability that they are reluctant to follow the path. Then and only then can their potential for greatness be a greatness for the greater good, rather than a self-seeking one that ultimately leads to one's own harm as well as that of others.
In other words, one thing I like about Heroes so far, is that it explores what it in fact means to be a hero, in all the shapes and sizes that heroes come in. There are an infinite number of ways to make a difference.
The Bible and the TV series Heroes can, in the right hands, challenge us to true greatness and accomplishment of genuine value. They can also inspire delusions of grandeur that are ultimately self-seeking. The Bible can challenge us, but can also encourage the darkest sides of our characters, our most violent impulses. Yet although it is tempting to suggest that we merely find in the stories we read that which we bring with us, the truth is that a good story - wherever it may be found - is powerful when it does more than merely reinforce what we already know, but has the power to challenge our deep instincts towards self-centeredness. The Bible, in spite of its flaws, clearly has the ability to do that. So does Star Wars. I look forward to exploring Heroes further and finding out where its story leads, and what it has the power to do once it is complete. What makes some stories great is not the heroes they describe, but the heroes they challenge and inspire us to become.
Is there anyone who doesn't feel at some point the way he did, that that they are "meant for something more", that they are supposed to be special? Is there anyone who doesn't hope at some moment in childhood if not in adulthood that they are a chosen one, like Will Stanton in The Dark Is Rising series, like Anakin Skywalker and later his son Luke in Star Wars? The reason these stories resonate with us is that these are classic mythic themes, that seem to touch on human universals.
So what makes this messianic impulse into heroism or homicidal insanity? The key seems to be self-centeredness versus self-sacrifice. Peter Petrelli was willing to fall to his death to save the world. Gabriel Gray (aka "Sylar") was willing to kill in order to have a greater sense of self-importance. Luke Skywalker makes the distinction clearest when he is being trained by Yoda: yearning for adventure may lead to some excitement, but if excitement or a personal sense of self importance is our goal, then any specialness we may have (and we all have some, although we usually crave for the specialness that others have) will serve the dark side.
The Bible also touches on this topic, in the case of all the would-be heroes and deliverers who first need to be humbled, to the point where they are so conscious of what they are being called to do and their own inability that they are reluctant to follow the path. Then and only then can their potential for greatness be a greatness for the greater good, rather than a self-seeking one that ultimately leads to one's own harm as well as that of others.
In other words, one thing I like about Heroes so far, is that it explores what it in fact means to be a hero, in all the shapes and sizes that heroes come in. There are an infinite number of ways to make a difference.
The Bible and the TV series Heroes can, in the right hands, challenge us to true greatness and accomplishment of genuine value. They can also inspire delusions of grandeur that are ultimately self-seeking. The Bible can challenge us, but can also encourage the darkest sides of our characters, our most violent impulses. Yet although it is tempting to suggest that we merely find in the stories we read that which we bring with us, the truth is that a good story - wherever it may be found - is powerful when it does more than merely reinforce what we already know, but has the power to challenge our deep instincts towards self-centeredness. The Bible, in spite of its flaws, clearly has the ability to do that. So does Star Wars. I look forward to exploring Heroes further and finding out where its story leads, and what it has the power to do once it is complete. What makes some stories great is not the heroes they describe, but the heroes they challenge and inspire us to become.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Heroes and Evolution
I just recently began watching Heroes - from the beginning of season 1. I have done this with several series that I didn't start watching from the beginning but had recommended to me later. (It was good to have something to do during the long hours of computer problem resolution besides staring at the screen watching it reboot for the nth time).
The first question I found myself asking is whether Heroes or The 4400 came first. Of course, I suppose the answer is X-Men came long before either of them, and so there is no reason to think that one of the two recent series directly inspired the other.
Scientificially, the show treats evolution in a way that is unscientific, and one might say it mythologizes evolution. It treats evolution as this thing that leads to progress and will eventually endow us with telekenesis, the ability to fly without wings, clairvoyance and other magical powers.
Evolution is not going to save us. It doesn't have the capacity to do all these things. Technology, on the other hand, might. It has the power to regenerate our cells and perhaps one day allow us to fly with only minimal mechanical paraphernalia attached to us, as power sources become smaller and new forms of propulsion are developed. This doesn't mean that we should simply mythologize technology, however, and treat it as salvific in the way the original Star Trek series tended to. Technology has the same ambiguity as the Heroes' powers: the same nanobot technology that might one day enable Claire-like healing might also cause Nikki/Jessica-like personality takeovers and Sylar-like murders. Technology is powerful for accomplishing these sorts of ends, whereas it is unclear that any changes to the human genome, whether natural or artificially-induced, will ever be able to allow us to bend space and time. Thankfully, this doesn't stop my from enjoying the show, any more than my being more of a skeptical Scully-type stopped me from enjoying the X Files.
I'm still in season 1, so no spoilers please. I will say that my favorite moments so far are when Hiro Nakamura, perfectly fluent in English and without glasses, arrives from the future; and when Petrelli flies in his pyjamas (as all flying superheroes are expected to).
The first question I found myself asking is whether Heroes or The 4400 came first. Of course, I suppose the answer is X-Men came long before either of them, and so there is no reason to think that one of the two recent series directly inspired the other.
Scientificially, the show treats evolution in a way that is unscientific, and one might say it mythologizes evolution. It treats evolution as this thing that leads to progress and will eventually endow us with telekenesis, the ability to fly without wings, clairvoyance and other magical powers.
Evolution is not going to save us. It doesn't have the capacity to do all these things. Technology, on the other hand, might. It has the power to regenerate our cells and perhaps one day allow us to fly with only minimal mechanical paraphernalia attached to us, as power sources become smaller and new forms of propulsion are developed. This doesn't mean that we should simply mythologize technology, however, and treat it as salvific in the way the original Star Trek series tended to. Technology has the same ambiguity as the Heroes' powers: the same nanobot technology that might one day enable Claire-like healing might also cause Nikki/Jessica-like personality takeovers and Sylar-like murders. Technology is powerful for accomplishing these sorts of ends, whereas it is unclear that any changes to the human genome, whether natural or artificially-induced, will ever be able to allow us to bend space and time. Thankfully, this doesn't stop my from enjoying the show, any more than my being more of a skeptical Scully-type stopped me from enjoying the X Files.
I'm still in season 1, so no spoilers please. I will say that my favorite moments so far are when Hiro Nakamura, perfectly fluent in English and without glasses, arrives from the future; and when Petrelli flies in his pyjamas (as all flying superheroes are expected to).
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Intelligently-Designed Gnostic Hermaphrodite Sex
Apparently searching for "sex hermaphrodites" can lead one to my page on Intelligent Design and Gnosticism. I don't find either word on that post. Perhaps among the comments? Anyway, apologies to anyone who comes to my blog via a search engine and finds the contents don't quite live up to what they were expecting. I'm guessing this person found what they were looking for, though, since apparently it was on the seventh page of search results.
If such a search led one anywhere I my blog I would have thought it would be here...
If such a search led one anywhere I my blog I would have thought it would be here...
Toyota's Troubled Times?
More spam to highlight on the slight chance that gullible Google key words before falling for this scam. If one were foolish enough to believe it, they would have to believe that Toyota gives away money and/or cars for free to random people, when at the same time they are so financially strapped that their employees in charge of the distribution of all this money are forced to use free Hotmail and/or Yahoo! addresses.
Please learn critical thinking skills if you find things like this plausible. I recommend Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit as a good place to start.
Here's the text of the message:
TOYOTA INTERNATIONAL LOTTO (HEADQUATER)
Customer Service Department Affiliate of Toyota Japan .
#28 Kanashiwa road Tokyo JP
We are pleased to inform you of the announcement made today, You are
among the winners of the TOYOTA CAR INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION PROGRAM
Participants were selected through a computer ballot system drawn from
2,500,000 email addresses of individuals and companies from all part of the
world as part of our electronic business Promotions Program.
As a result of your visiting various websites we are running the
e-business promotions for. You/Your Company email address, attached to ticket
number 896-781-6767, with serial number 374-18 drew the lucky numbers
2,5,9,22,31,33, and Bonus number 12 , Your INSURANCE Number: FLD674/
8936 /GMSA and consequently you won in the Second Category of the TOYOTA
FORTUNE LOTTO DRAW.
You have therefore been approved for the payment of the sum of US$500,
000, 00 in cash, including a Toyota car which is the winning present
/amount for the Second category winners. This is from the total prize
money of US$2,650,000.00 shared among the international winners in the
Second category.
CONGRATULATIONS!
Please be informed that your FUND of the sum of US$500,000.00 is now
with the payee center. Contact your agent and give them your full names
so that they will re-insure your winning under your full names. Together
with the port where your winning car should be ship to.
To begin your claim, please call your claim agent or send email
immediately.
MR DAVID CHANG
TOYOTA CLAIMING SECURITY AGENCY
Email: davidchanng@yahoo.com.cn
davidchang@zapak.com
davidchanng@hotmail.com
TEL + 86 13527631242)
NOTE:
In order to avoid unnecessary delays and complications, please quote
your
1. Full name
2. Address / contact number
3. Country of origin
4. Occupation
5. Email.
Send above information in your correspondences with your claims agent.
Sincerely,
MR. ATSUKO AMAYA
V.P FINANCE
Please learn critical thinking skills if you find things like this plausible. I recommend Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit as a good place to start.
Here's the text of the message:
_____________________________
TOYOTA INTERNATIONAL LOTTO (HEADQUATER)
Customer Service Department Affiliate of Toyota Japan .
#28 Kanashiwa road Tokyo JP
We are pleased to inform you of the announcement made today, You are
among the winners of the TOYOTA CAR INTERNATIONAL PROMOTION PROGRAM
Participants were selected through a computer ballot system drawn from
2,500,000 email addresses of individuals and companies from all part of the
world as part of our electronic business Promotions Program.
As a result of your visiting various websites we are running the
e-business promotions for. You/Your Company email address, attached to ticket
number 896-781-6767, with serial number 374-18 drew the lucky numbers
2,5,9,22,31,33, and Bonus number 12 , Your INSURANCE Number: FLD674/
8936 /GMSA and consequently you won in the Second Category of the TOYOTA
FORTUNE LOTTO DRAW.
You have therefore been approved for the payment of the sum of US$500,
000, 00 in cash, including a Toyota car which is the winning present
/amount for the Second category winners. This is from the total prize
money of US$2,650,000.00 shared among the international winners in the
Second category.
CONGRATULATIONS!
Please be informed that your FUND of the sum of US$500,000.00 is now
with the payee center. Contact your agent and give them your full names
so that they will re-insure your winning under your full names. Together
with the port where your winning car should be ship to.
To begin your claim, please call your claim agent or send email
immediately.
MR DAVID CHANG
TOYOTA CLAIMING SECURITY AGENCY
Email: davidchanng@yahoo.com.cn
davidchang@zapak.com
davidchanng@hotmail.com
TEL + 86 13527631242)
NOTE:
In order to avoid unnecessary delays and complications, please quote
your
1. Full name
2. Address / contact number
3. Country of origin
4. Occupation
5. Email.
Send above information in your correspondences with your claims agent.
Sincerely,
MR. ATSUKO AMAYA
V.P FINANCE
SYSTEM FAILURE
I would hope that most readers will read the title of this entry and think first of the closing segment of the movie The Matrix. Alas, my use of the phrase here is far more mundane. Windows Vista finally crashed on me utterly and completely. I'm attempting to reinstall Windows XP and there are still a few glitches but progress is being made. It is time for someone to tell me again why I should switch to Linux. Perhaps I am finally ready to free my mind and escape the grasp of the Matrix...
I hope all those reading this had an error-free Christmas! :-)
I hope all those reading this had an error-free Christmas! :-)
Monday, December 24, 2007
Merry Christmas!
There's only one thing that needs to be said today...
HAVE A MERRY CHRISTMAS!
(if you are reading this in England, you have my permission to have a happy Christmas instead).
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Advancing the Butlerian Jihad
I will be adding a new blog to my blogroll. It is the scarcely pronouncable Secher Nbiw, a relatively new blog by a Butler University student.
I've long thought that there should be a religion club at Butler University named the Butlerian Jihad, but I thought there might be too many people on campus and elsewhere who haven't read Dune and wouldn't get the joke.
Welcome to the blogosphere, Cobalt!
I've long thought that there should be a religion club at Butler University named the Butlerian Jihad, but I thought there might be too many people on campus and elsewhere who haven't read Dune and wouldn't get the joke.
Welcome to the blogosphere, Cobalt!
It's A Wonderful Wife
My wife (who is not originally from the United States) watched the movie It's a Wonderful Life
all the way through for the first time over the past few days. Her reaction, once it was all over, was that the movie is about how Mary, George Bailey's wife, repeatedly comes to his rescue when he is in a crisis.
Is that the, or at least a, point of the story? It is worth asking such questions, and for allowing them to lead us to think about theological matters as well. The most frequent and most problematic approach to the Bible in North America is for various groups to read it and assume that what they understand it to mean is what it really means, and what it would have meant in its original context.
But if one takes seriously our distance in time and space from the cultural and historical context of the Biblical world(s), it seems that the best assumption would be that the obvious meaning is not likely to be what the author intended, unless we have evidence to the contrary.
Of course, even taking a historical-contextual approach doesn't settle things. The are authors who have been "ahead of their time", and ones who considered themselves terribly misunderstood by their contemporaries. A historical-contextual approach isn't absolute - it is just the best way of approaching a text and making sense of it, all other things being equal.
On the other end of the process, if we consider interpreters living in the same context, with the same basic assumptions, we find that nonetheless they may well reach different conclusions. If the "plain sense" of a text were straightforward to obtain, wouldn't all those who say they accept the Bible's authority and take it literally agree on what it means? Anyone who thinks meaning is obvious may have advanced degrees in Biblical interpretation - but is most likely unmarried, and is certainly naive.
On the other hand, when it comes to the meaning of the movie, my wife's interpretation is surely correct, because I've learned over the years that my wife is always right.
If only matters of Biblical interpretation were so easily solved!
all the way through for the first time over the past few days. Her reaction, once it was all over, was that the movie is about how Mary, George Bailey's wife, repeatedly comes to his rescue when he is in a crisis.Is that the, or at least a, point of the story? It is worth asking such questions, and for allowing them to lead us to think about theological matters as well. The most frequent and most problematic approach to the Bible in North America is for various groups to read it and assume that what they understand it to mean is what it really means, and what it would have meant in its original context.
But if one takes seriously our distance in time and space from the cultural and historical context of the Biblical world(s), it seems that the best assumption would be that the obvious meaning is not likely to be what the author intended, unless we have evidence to the contrary.
Of course, even taking a historical-contextual approach doesn't settle things. The are authors who have been "ahead of their time", and ones who considered themselves terribly misunderstood by their contemporaries. A historical-contextual approach isn't absolute - it is just the best way of approaching a text and making sense of it, all other things being equal.
On the other end of the process, if we consider interpreters living in the same context, with the same basic assumptions, we find that nonetheless they may well reach different conclusions. If the "plain sense" of a text were straightforward to obtain, wouldn't all those who say they accept the Bible's authority and take it literally agree on what it means? Anyone who thinks meaning is obvious may have advanced degrees in Biblical interpretation - but is most likely unmarried, and is certainly naive.
On the other hand, when it comes to the meaning of the movie, my wife's interpretation is surely correct, because I've learned over the years that my wife is always right.
If only matters of Biblical interpretation were so easily solved!
How many people have payment code 805?
I wonder how many people have received the exact same spam, with the exact same 'unique' payment code (see below). I wonder how many will fall for it, without even doing a search engine search on the subject. Presumably some people must fall for these scams, in spite of the obvious warning signs - otherwise the spammers would give up. The fact that the contact person has a Hotmail address is but one of the many things that gives away that the e-mail I, and presumably many others, have received is a scam. The text follows:
SWIFT CARD PAYMENT CODE 805
ATTENTION: BENEFICIARY
This Is To Officially Inform You That We Have Verified Your
Contract/Inheritance File And Discovered Reasons Why You Are Yet To Receive Your
Payment. It Is Because Of
Irregularities And Complications Discovered On Your Payment File By Our
Technical Experts In Respect To Your Contract /Inheritance Payment
Requirements Which Have Just Been Duly Rectified.
Meanwhile, We Have Been Informed That You Are Still Dealing With
Impostors And Non Recommended Officials In The Bank. Such Acts Must Stop For
Security Reasons If You Wish To receive Your Payment.
Since We Have Decided To Bring A Solution To Your Problem, Right Now We
Have Arranged Your Payment Through Our ATM Swift Card Payment Center
OCEANIC BANK INTERNATIONAL PLC ( Under Reserve Bank Operation Act 2005
), That Is The Latest Instruction By Our President Chief,Umaru Musa Yar
Adua (GCFR) Federal Republic Of Nigeria. Below Is The Arrangements ;...
The Swift card Center Will Send You An ATM Card Which You Will Use To
Withdrew Your Money From Any ATM Machine In Any Part Of The World, But
The Maximum Is Six Thousand Dollars Per Day, So If You Like To Receive
Your Fund This Way Please Do Let Us Know By Contacting The Card Payment
Center OCEANIC BANK
INTERNATIONAL PLC On Email ( mrs.helenbruce805@hotmail.com ) And Also
Send The Following.
Information To Swift Card Center :
1) Your full name_________________
2) Phone, fax and mobile #._________________
3) Profession, age and marital status_________________
4) Copy of Drivers License I .D_________________
5) Amount $ And Contract Number_________________
6) Address Where You Want Them To Send The Card Through Diplomatic
Courier_________________
Please Indicate To The Card Center The Total Sum You Are Expecting And
For Your Information You Have To Stop Any Further Communication With
Any Institution Or Office Until You Receive The ATM Card.
Note: Because of Impostors, We Hereby Issue You Our Code of Conduct Tag
Number Which Is(805) So You Must Have To Indicate This Code When
Contacting The Card Center.
We Await Your Urgent Response.
MRS HELEN BRUCE
Special Adviser To The President
Federal Republic Of Nigeria
Phone +234-80-222-82-333
EMAIL: mrs.helenbruce805@hotmail.com
SWIFT CARD PAYMENT CODE 805
ATTENTION: BENEFICIARY
This Is To Officially Inform You That We Have Verified Your
Contract/Inheritance File And Discovered Reasons Why You Are Yet To Receive Your
Payment. It Is Because Of
Irregularities And Complications Discovered On Your Payment File By Our
Technical Experts In Respect To Your Contract /Inheritance Payment
Requirements Which Have Just Been Duly Rectified.
Meanwhile, We Have Been Informed That You Are Still Dealing With
Impostors And Non Recommended Officials In The Bank. Such Acts Must Stop For
Security Reasons If You Wish To receive Your Payment.
Since We Have Decided To Bring A Solution To Your Problem, Right Now We
Have Arranged Your Payment Through Our ATM Swift Card Payment Center
OCEANIC BANK INTERNATIONAL PLC ( Under Reserve Bank Operation Act 2005
), That Is The Latest Instruction By Our President Chief,Umaru Musa Yar
Adua (GCFR) Federal Republic Of Nigeria. Below Is The Arrangements ;...
The Swift card Center Will Send You An ATM Card Which You Will Use To
Withdrew Your Money From Any ATM Machine In Any Part Of The World, But
The Maximum Is Six Thousand Dollars Per Day, So If You Like To Receive
Your Fund This Way Please Do Let Us Know By Contacting The Card Payment
Center OCEANIC BANK
INTERNATIONAL PLC On Email ( mrs.helenbruce805@hotmail.com ) And Also
Send The Following.
Information To Swift Card Center :
1) Your full name_________________
2) Phone, fax and mobile #._________________
3) Profession, age and marital status_________________
4) Copy of Drivers License I .D_________________
5) Amount $ And Contract Number_________________
6) Address Where You Want Them To Send The Card Through Diplomatic
Courier_________________
Please Indicate To The Card Center The Total Sum You Are Expecting And
For Your Information You Have To Stop Any Further Communication With
Any Institution Or Office Until You Receive The ATM Card.
Note: Because of Impostors, We Hereby Issue You Our Code of Conduct Tag
Number Which Is(805) So You Must Have To Indicate This Code When
Contacting The Card Center.
We Await Your Urgent Response.
MRS HELEN BRUCE
Special Adviser To The President
Federal Republic Of Nigeria
Phone +234-80-222-82-333
EMAIL: mrs.helenbruce805@hotmail.com
Saturday, December 22, 2007
There Is A God
I just finished reading Antony Flew's book (written in collaboration with Roy Abraham Varghese) There Is a God
. There was a lot of controversy about the book, including even accusations that it had been ghostwritten in a way that did not reflect Flew's views, in essence manipulating a senile old man. Flew has gone on record, however, saying that he stands by what the book says. It is quite clear (both from the book and from other statements by Flew) that Flew has converted to Deism and not Christianity or some other revealed faith. He does not believe in an afterlife. And so, if Christian apologists supposedly put their words in Flew's mouth, they did a questionable job at best.
I suppose many educated Christians today (myself included) are in fact Deists, not in the sense of adhering to the precise views of classic 18th century Deism, but in the sense of recognizing that ultimately we need to bring everything back to reason. Any appeal to revelation is inevitably ajudicated by reason. Indeed, there can be no reading of a Sacred text without our minds being involved, so any claim that something other than our minds and reason mediates and assesses truth claims is patently false, no matter how adamantly such claims may be made.
Yet reason and science (= knowledge) has its limits. Of the various points made in the book, I think the most important and most compelling is the case that science only takes us so far, after which we are left with philosophy and metaphysics. To posit an undetectable infinite multiverse of great complexity, the origins and functioning of which are unknown and unknowable, is not a satisfying answer to the question of why anything exists, much less a universe in which we can ask these questions.
This is not to say that appeal to a (arguably rather complex in his own right) personal God is more persuasive, or that any of the other alternatives are more reasonable. On the contrary, each statement that seeks to articulate the unknowable cause behind the partly-known observable universe is an expression of faith. It expresses a conviction that everything is ultimately random, or that ultimately everything is purposeful. Such language is never literal, and claims that we know there is a multiverse or that we know that a deity directly created our universe. Both ultimately express a conviction about the nature of the universe we see. Those who have had a mystical experience of the oneness of all things or of transcendence will incline in a particular direction (although often using very varied language to express their view), those who have experienced most strongly the disappointing randomness of it all will incline in another. Yet there is no language that we have that can describe that which we do not know. All of it - the language of God, the language of multiverse - is metaphor and symbolism.
The crux of the matter is this: How will you live in response to the overwhelming and awe-inspiring mystery of our existence? And to the extent that you choose to grasp at inadequate human language to articulate in prose a story about things we do not (and perhaps cannot) know, what symbols, metaphors and pictures will you choose? They will, however inadequately, tell us something about the universe, and will never give the whole story. But what the language you choose and story you tell expresses most clearly is something about you.
. There was a lot of controversy about the book, including even accusations that it had been ghostwritten in a way that did not reflect Flew's views, in essence manipulating a senile old man. Flew has gone on record, however, saying that he stands by what the book says. It is quite clear (both from the book and from other statements by Flew) that Flew has converted to Deism and not Christianity or some other revealed faith. He does not believe in an afterlife. And so, if Christian apologists supposedly put their words in Flew's mouth, they did a questionable job at best.I suppose many educated Christians today (myself included) are in fact Deists, not in the sense of adhering to the precise views of classic 18th century Deism, but in the sense of recognizing that ultimately we need to bring everything back to reason. Any appeal to revelation is inevitably ajudicated by reason. Indeed, there can be no reading of a Sacred text without our minds being involved, so any claim that something other than our minds and reason mediates and assesses truth claims is patently false, no matter how adamantly such claims may be made.
Yet reason and science (= knowledge) has its limits. Of the various points made in the book, I think the most important and most compelling is the case that science only takes us so far, after which we are left with philosophy and metaphysics. To posit an undetectable infinite multiverse of great complexity, the origins and functioning of which are unknown and unknowable, is not a satisfying answer to the question of why anything exists, much less a universe in which we can ask these questions.
This is not to say that appeal to a (arguably rather complex in his own right) personal God is more persuasive, or that any of the other alternatives are more reasonable. On the contrary, each statement that seeks to articulate the unknowable cause behind the partly-known observable universe is an expression of faith. It expresses a conviction that everything is ultimately random, or that ultimately everything is purposeful. Such language is never literal, and claims that we know there is a multiverse or that we know that a deity directly created our universe. Both ultimately express a conviction about the nature of the universe we see. Those who have had a mystical experience of the oneness of all things or of transcendence will incline in a particular direction (although often using very varied language to express their view), those who have experienced most strongly the disappointing randomness of it all will incline in another. Yet there is no language that we have that can describe that which we do not know. All of it - the language of God, the language of multiverse - is metaphor and symbolism.
The crux of the matter is this: How will you live in response to the overwhelming and awe-inspiring mystery of our existence? And to the extent that you choose to grasp at inadequate human language to articulate in prose a story about things we do not (and perhaps cannot) know, what symbols, metaphors and pictures will you choose? They will, however inadequately, tell us something about the universe, and will never give the whole story. But what the language you choose and story you tell expresses most clearly is something about you.
Quote of the Day (Erwin Schroedinger)
"Science is reticent too when it is a question of the great Unity of which we somehow form a part, to which we belong. The most popular name for it in our time is God, with a capital "G". Science is, very usually, branded as being atheistic. After what we have said this is not astonishing. If its world picture does not even contain beauty, delight, sorrow, if personality is cut out of it by agreement, how should it contain the most sublime idea that presents itself to the human mind" (Erwin Schroedinger, My View Of The World, Cambridge University Press, 1964, p.93; quoted in Antony Flew, There Is A God, Harper One, 2007, p.105).
Friday, December 21, 2007
Theology And A Handshake
In reflecting on the recent discussion at Pharyngula, I found myself asking "What is theology?" In spite of its name, it clearly isn't "the study of God", as though we can put God under a microscope and examine God's attributes. Indeed, in some uses of the term "God", the reality so denoted includes the microscope and the one looking through it!
Since the discussion I mentioned touched on anthropology and religious studies, it was natural to identify theology as the "insiders' perspective" corresponding to the view from outside in those disciplines. Theology can be prescriptive in a way that religious studies and anthropology generally eschew.
That, of course, led me to handshakes. That's just one more example of something utterly irrational that some societies do as part of their cultural meaning-making exercise. Is there any reason we should perpetuate this irrational behavior (which surely enhances the spread of germs and is thus contrary to our best scientific knowledge)? While there is nothing absolute about the handshake (or the bow, or the salute, or anything else), we need symbolic gestures. And with culturally-defined matters of politeness, as with culturally-defined matters of religion, these differences seem "natural" and "absolute" when in fact they are cultural and relative, and we end up taking offence and arguing because of them. But we cannot eschew meaning-making altogether. And while there is a need for outside anthropological perspectives, societies also need prophetic voices that call for change from within. Theology isn't the only field that deals with that particular area, but it certainly is one. When any society speaks about "God", it projects its ultimate values onto that term. This should surprise no one - the existence of the ineffable ultimate is in the end a separate question from whether we project our values onto that ultimate reality, and the answer to the latter question is an undeniable yes.
When older constructs crumble, we do not stop making meaning, but find new ways of doing so. I have been criticized of late (or at least, a caricature of the theologian has been criticized, and I along with it) for assuming atheists are by definition shallow nihilists, inferior by definition to the lowest person of faith. I have never said that, and I would have thought that things I have said would indicate that this is not how I view things. Plenty of atheists have a depth of values, and respond to the mysteries of our existence with awe and wonder, and may even believe that we are part of something greater. They simply view the term "God" as so tainted by the way it is used in some circles as to be beyond redemption. This viewpoint is clearly not to be viewed as more shallow than the religious believer who has nothing more than their own ego, their own violent temper projected onto their puny conception of ultimate reality. The atheist who refuses to engage in such projection may well be theologically more sophisticated - although, alas, the term theology is also tainted for so many of them, that they may not believe I mean this as a compliment!
So what is Theology? It is not the study of God, but the study of how people think about God in particular traditions, communities and societies, in a way that is prescriptive and not merely descriptive. As such, I believe that theology has the best chance of challenging the limited, anthropomorphic, intolerant and ultimately idolatrous projections that so many people today worship. Because neither an attempt at unbiased description, nor a hostile attack from another perspective, will enable any particular tradition to take the next step towards a deeper, fuller and richer understanding of the ultimate. One must take what is already there and work with it, develop it, and reinterpret it. One cannot simply abolish the handshake, but one can through hard work change the way people think about it, if one feels it is important to do so. In a sense, that is the task of theology, not with respect to individual cultural symbols (although these are often included), but with respect to the symbols of the ultimate.
Since the discussion I mentioned touched on anthropology and religious studies, it was natural to identify theology as the "insiders' perspective" corresponding to the view from outside in those disciplines. Theology can be prescriptive in a way that religious studies and anthropology generally eschew.
That, of course, led me to handshakes. That's just one more example of something utterly irrational that some societies do as part of their cultural meaning-making exercise. Is there any reason we should perpetuate this irrational behavior (which surely enhances the spread of germs and is thus contrary to our best scientific knowledge)? While there is nothing absolute about the handshake (or the bow, or the salute, or anything else), we need symbolic gestures. And with culturally-defined matters of politeness, as with culturally-defined matters of religion, these differences seem "natural" and "absolute" when in fact they are cultural and relative, and we end up taking offence and arguing because of them. But we cannot eschew meaning-making altogether. And while there is a need for outside anthropological perspectives, societies also need prophetic voices that call for change from within. Theology isn't the only field that deals with that particular area, but it certainly is one. When any society speaks about "God", it projects its ultimate values onto that term. This should surprise no one - the existence of the ineffable ultimate is in the end a separate question from whether we project our values onto that ultimate reality, and the answer to the latter question is an undeniable yes.
When older constructs crumble, we do not stop making meaning, but find new ways of doing so. I have been criticized of late (or at least, a caricature of the theologian has been criticized, and I along with it) for assuming atheists are by definition shallow nihilists, inferior by definition to the lowest person of faith. I have never said that, and I would have thought that things I have said would indicate that this is not how I view things. Plenty of atheists have a depth of values, and respond to the mysteries of our existence with awe and wonder, and may even believe that we are part of something greater. They simply view the term "God" as so tainted by the way it is used in some circles as to be beyond redemption. This viewpoint is clearly not to be viewed as more shallow than the religious believer who has nothing more than their own ego, their own violent temper projected onto their puny conception of ultimate reality. The atheist who refuses to engage in such projection may well be theologically more sophisticated - although, alas, the term theology is also tainted for so many of them, that they may not believe I mean this as a compliment!
So what is Theology? It is not the study of God, but the study of how people think about God in particular traditions, communities and societies, in a way that is prescriptive and not merely descriptive. As such, I believe that theology has the best chance of challenging the limited, anthropomorphic, intolerant and ultimately idolatrous projections that so many people today worship. Because neither an attempt at unbiased description, nor a hostile attack from another perspective, will enable any particular tradition to take the next step towards a deeper, fuller and richer understanding of the ultimate. One must take what is already there and work with it, develop it, and reinterpret it. One cannot simply abolish the handshake, but one can through hard work change the way people think about it, if one feels it is important to do so. In a sense, that is the task of theology, not with respect to individual cultural symbols (although these are often included), but with respect to the symbols of the ultimate.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Latest Christmas Blogging
A few more Christmas-related blog entries, following up on my one-stop Christmas blogging link collection. It seemed better to have a follow-up entry than to extend that one indefinitely...
A Novelist On The Nativity
Christmas Wishes from around the Anglican Communion
Christmas in the Trenches by Jim Wallis
Bethlehem vs. Nazareth: The Claim To Fame Smackdown
Oh Blessed Be The Time and Oh Little Town Of Bethlehem by Metacatholic
Food For Thought: The Birth Of Jesus
Why The Need For A Vulnerable God?
Dating Christmas (and a Christmas Sermon on Dates)
More Shots Fired In War On Advent
Merry Christmas (or Chirstmas) from Metacrock. And from C. Orthodoxy. And from Ken Schenck. And Duane Smith
Three Christmas Stories For The Second Half Of Life
Hark The Herald Angels Sing - the full lyrics, with some more about Charles Wesley.
Christmas Presidential Politics
The Wreath Of God
Barna Survey: Americans' Views On The Virgin Birth
Win The War On Christmas By Losing
Christians Against Christmas
Santa Crucified
Star Of The East
The Nativity Stories compared (HT Find And You Shall Seek)
Theological Epicycles
Evolution and Incarnation
Scrooge In Reverse, An Obama Christmas and Love Made Visible from Pastor Bob Cornwall
Bumpy Ride To Bethlehem, Christmas In The Public Space, Rethinking The Incarnation In Time For Christmas, and The Archbishop and Baby in the Manger at Find And You Shall Seek
Religion Reporters Do Love Their Christmas Legends and A Christmas Legend, Or A License To Lie? deal with media reports about things Rowan Williams supposedly said. See also the Cartoon Blog on this topic.
Jim West on Archaeological Evidence and the Birth of Jesus
Christmas and the First Church Growth Consultant
Give Them What They Really Want (for Christmas)
Scot McKnight has an ongoing series on Christmas Words
Philip Harland has a collection that ranges from extracanonical Gospels to Ella Fitzgerald
Confessions Of A Half-Hearted Christmas Radical
A X-mas Call For Scientists and Christian Leaders to Unite
An Arabic Christmas Carol
A Muslim Recommends Putting "Christ" Back In Christmas
The True Origin of Santa Claus
Happy Yalda (Winter Solstice)
A Novelist On The Nativity
Christmas Wishes from around the Anglican Communion
Christmas in the Trenches by Jim Wallis
Bethlehem vs. Nazareth: The Claim To Fame Smackdown
Oh Blessed Be The Time and Oh Little Town Of Bethlehem by Metacatholic
Food For Thought: The Birth Of Jesus
Why The Need For A Vulnerable God?
Dating Christmas (and a Christmas Sermon on Dates)
More Shots Fired In War On Advent
Merry Christmas (or Chirstmas) from Metacrock. And from C. Orthodoxy. And from Ken Schenck. And Duane Smith
Three Christmas Stories For The Second Half Of Life
Hark The Herald Angels Sing - the full lyrics, with some more about Charles Wesley.
Christmas Presidential Politics
The Wreath Of God
Barna Survey: Americans' Views On The Virgin Birth
Win The War On Christmas By Losing
Christians Against Christmas
Santa Crucified
Star Of The East
The Nativity Stories compared (HT Find And You Shall Seek)
Theological Epicycles
Evolution and Incarnation
Scrooge In Reverse, An Obama Christmas and Love Made Visible from Pastor Bob Cornwall
Bumpy Ride To Bethlehem, Christmas In The Public Space, Rethinking The Incarnation In Time For Christmas, and The Archbishop and Baby in the Manger at Find And You Shall Seek
Religion Reporters Do Love Their Christmas Legends and A Christmas Legend, Or A License To Lie? deal with media reports about things Rowan Williams supposedly said. See also the Cartoon Blog on this topic.
Jim West on Archaeological Evidence and the Birth of Jesus
Christmas and the First Church Growth Consultant
Give Them What They Really Want (for Christmas)
Scot McKnight has an ongoing series on Christmas Words
Philip Harland has a collection that ranges from extracanonical Gospels to Ella Fitzgerald
Confessions Of A Half-Hearted Christmas Radical
A X-mas Call For Scientists and Christian Leaders to Unite
An Arabic Christmas Carol
A Muslim Recommends Putting "Christ" Back In Christmas
The True Origin of Santa Claus
Happy Yalda (Winter Solstice)
Carl Sagan Blog-A-Thon Quotes of the Day (Ann Druyan)
"What Carl did was he reunified skepticism with wonder-and never one at the expense of the other, but always in equal parts. I think that what we all long for is something that could raise goose bumps, could make you feel something in your heart without requiring that you lie to yourself" (Ann Druyan, speaking about the legacy of Carl Sagan in an interview in Astrobiology Magazine.
In another interview she says "Carl felt this way and we learned this together— the impulse to find something sacred… there’s nothing foolish about that or necessarily reactionary about that. It’s the supernatural aspect that is corrosive...And so, yes, informed worship— but not worshipping some primate projection, some alpha in the sky, no" (Ann Druyan, transcript of an interview with Point of Inquiry. She sagely recommends that language about 'worship' and 'spirituality' be reclaimed from fundamentalists and irrationality rather than surrendered or jettisoned.
For those unaware of it, today is the Carl Sagan Blog-A-Thon. If you are reading this and don't have a blog of your own, just contribute a comment here or elsewhere. There is now a meta-post with links to the various Carl Sagan Blog-A-Thon posts.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
One Stop Christmas Blogging
We've all heard of one-stop Christmas shopping, so I thought with the frenetic pace of holiday shopping, finding all the relevant holiday blogging experiences that are available might be a bit much to bear. Hence below are included links to many of the last couple of weeks' worth of blog entries on Christmas-related topics.
But let me not just offer links but some actual content. I've been reading Christian Origins: A People's History of Christianity, and in it there is a useful collection of Jewish birth stories which probably provided the pattern for those told about Jesus in the New Testament. For instance:
Both of the above quotes from primary sources are reproduced in Antoinette Clark Wire's chapter "Women's History From Birth-Prophecy Stories" in Christian Origins edited by Richard A. Horsley (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005) pp.74-75.
Now for the links I promised to other Christmas-related posts around the blogosphere:
Peter Kirk has a very recent post entitled Fully human and born of a virgin, to which Doug Chaplin has already responded.
Another astronomer is trying to explain the star of Bethlehem. But once one realizes that the star in Matthew's story behaves in a way that no star, planet, planetary conjunction, supernova or comet could (by leading the Magi first to Jerusalem, to ensure a slaughter will ensue, and then to a specific house in Bethlehem), the question of whether the story is based on a vague misremembered recollection of an actual astronomical phenomenon, or on nothing but symbolism, becomes impossible to determine and thus moot.
A Christmas-related interview with John Dominic Crossan
Crossan Speaks About Christmas and More
What a family home looked like in Jesus' time
Michael Halcomb offers several posts on the relationship between Christmas traditions and Scripture, and also asks Why December 25th?
Deane's blog discusses the incompatibility of the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke, a theme I've also tackled on this blog.
A call to Boycott Nativity Plays!
Santa Claus and Quantum Mechanics
Christ came as an embryo
Has all the early focus on Christmas totally displaced Advent?
The Mary we never knew (Syrian tradition)
Holy Mothers Of God
Wise Men Denied Security Permits To Visit Baby Jesus
God, vulnerable
Some of Ben Witherington's Christmas poems
Twelve Days Of Jesus Junk and Twelve Days of X-mas: The Bottom Line
And finally there is a video ofJesus breakdancing on his birthday
But let me not just offer links but some actual content. I've been reading Christian Origins: A People's History of Christianity, and in it there is a useful collection of Jewish birth stories which probably provided the pattern for those told about Jesus in the New Testament. For instance:
The Greek text of 1 Enoch 106:10-13,18:
Just now a child has been born to Lamech my son
and his form and his image are [not like human beings
and his color is] whiter than snow
and redder than a rose
and the hair of his head is whiter than wool
and his eyes are different - like the rays of the sun!
And he stood up from the midwife's hands
and opening his mouth he blessed the Lord of the age!
And my son Lamech was alarmed
and he fled to me
and he does not believe that it is his son
but that [it is] from the angels...
Then I [Enoch] answered saying,
"The Lord will renew order on the earth...
And this child that was born will be left to survive
and his three children will be saved when those on earth have died.
And he will wean the earth from the corruption that is in it.
And now say to Lamech,
'The child is yours rightly and purely.
Call his name Noah
for he will be your survivor on whom you can rest,
[he] and his sons from the earth's corruption
and all the sinners and all things fulfilled on the earth'."
Biblical Antiquities (Pseudo-Philo) 9.10
And the spirit of God fell on Miriam at night
And she saw a dream
and she recounted it to her parents that morning saying
"I saw [a dream] this night
and look! a man was standing there in linen clothing.
And he said to me
'Go and say to your parents
"Look! What is born from you will be thrown out in the water.
In the same way water will be dried up through him.
And I will do signs by him
and I will save my people
and he himself holds leadership always'."
And when Miriam recounted her dream
her parents did not believe her.
Both of the above quotes from primary sources are reproduced in Antoinette Clark Wire's chapter "Women's History From Birth-Prophecy Stories" in Christian Origins edited by Richard A. Horsley (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005) pp.74-75.
Now for the links I promised to other Christmas-related posts around the blogosphere:
Peter Kirk has a very recent post entitled Fully human and born of a virgin, to which Doug Chaplin has already responded.
Another astronomer is trying to explain the star of Bethlehem. But once one realizes that the star in Matthew's story behaves in a way that no star, planet, planetary conjunction, supernova or comet could (by leading the Magi first to Jerusalem, to ensure a slaughter will ensue, and then to a specific house in Bethlehem), the question of whether the story is based on a vague misremembered recollection of an actual astronomical phenomenon, or on nothing but symbolism, becomes impossible to determine and thus moot.
A Christmas-related interview with John Dominic Crossan
Crossan Speaks About Christmas and More
What a family home looked like in Jesus' time
Michael Halcomb offers several posts on the relationship between Christmas traditions and Scripture, and also asks Why December 25th?
Deane's blog discusses the incompatibility of the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke, a theme I've also tackled on this blog.
A call to Boycott Nativity Plays!
Santa Claus and Quantum Mechanics
Christ came as an embryo
Has all the early focus on Christmas totally displaced Advent?
The Mary we never knew (Syrian tradition)
Holy Mothers Of God
Wise Men Denied Security Permits To Visit Baby Jesus
God, vulnerable
Some of Ben Witherington's Christmas poems
Twelve Days Of Jesus Junk and Twelve Days of X-mas: The Bottom Line
And finally there is a video ofJesus breakdancing on his birthday
Blogger's Choice Award
Apparently my old blog has been nominated for a Blogger's Choice Award. Go cast a vote - or better yet, nominate my current blog!
Repost of a Christian-Atheist Dialogue
What follows is a lengthy discussion I had with an atheist earlier this year on my old blog. I thought it might be of interest to regular readers and to new visitors from Pharyngula and elsewhere around the blogosphere where I have been involved in conversations.
Andrew Krause was kind enough to send me an e-mail with comments that were too long for the 'comments' function on the web page. I am reproducing his e-mail below, with his permission:
_________________________________________
Think about the original promulgation of the Christian faith (and most other faiths). Its success cannot be credited just to those who espoused an inclusional, moderate, loving, turn-the-other-cheek approach. It owes its existence at least equally to saints and martyrs who would certainly be said to be far more militant, arrogant and strident than Dawkins. In fact, some were even torturers and murderers.
So I agree that Dawkins is a militant figure. And if that causes you to reach out to moderate atheists and believers to counter the dangers of faith (as Dawkins/Harris define it), while securing a future for what you believe faith in God should be about, that's great! I remember as a boy hearing from the fence-sitters on the race issue. Many just wished blacks (like atheists today), would somehow just disappear. Many were moved to follow the path of MLK mostly because they feared the alternative and more extreme paths espoused by Malcolm X or the Black Panthers. So if you feel militant atheists mock and insult the faithful and threaten to one day marginalize your beliefs, then continue your good work to encourage reason and education to make religion and its professed "true believers" less rationally ridiculous.
You don't like Dawkins semantics for faith, religion, and God and your attacks on him are primarily a pirouette around his semantics. I don't believe Dawkins is as ignorant as you suggest about the other possible meanings for God and faith. However, I would hope that you would concede that his definitions probably cover >90% of the "faithful". You are as much on the fringe in some of your positions as he is. In order to address your highly refined and moderate interpretations probably would have required doubling the size of his book and muddling his message.
I also think you need to take some of Dawkins semantics on face value and go from there. It is not fair for you or others to redefine faith, against Dawkins arguments, as anything other than believing without evidence. Dawkins' argument (and I like Harris' better) is not so much for science vs. faith as it is about reason vs. faith. Science is just one manifestation of reason just as religion is only one manifestation of faith. I think that Dawkins muddles this sometimes but Harris does not. To paraphrase Harris, no society has ever suffered from becoming too reasonable. But many have suffered from too much faith. I also believe that societies have suffered from too little reason and see no evidence that having insufficient faith has damaged any culture.
So in essence, as I define faith (congruent with Dawkins and Harris), it is not compatible with reason in making meaningful decisions about the universe or our lives. My challenge to you is to identify and explain those attitudes, beliefs, and actions, on both a personal and societal level, that really require faith with or without reason. And then explain how your superior way of faith cannot be achieved or matched through reason alone.
I would welcome debating you on these topics and others. I believe that you are a rational voice for good even though I disagree with many of your views and semantics.
Best regards,
Andy
Aside from Faith in God/Religion, can you tell me where faith is ever a virtue (a good) for a mature adult person? And if you can make that argument, can you tell me where it ever should trump reason (again, outside God/Religion)?
I understand how faith in authority can have evolutionary benefits, especially for children where it is apparently hard-wired. But children lack knowledge and reasoning ability. Otherwise faith as a suffix of hope seems a dangerous last resort in leading to any positive action.
I can't find any evidence that there is any regime (leaving God/religion aside) where adult reliance on faith can be expected to produce positive consequences. But the evidence for the contrary is legion. If you agree with me, why would a just, loving, and omniscient God wish to set the precedent and example that such faith is good? What good in man is God encouraging that we must meet him by faith rather than by evidence and reason? Otherwise, I can only conclude that God wishes us to embrace ways of thinking that can only screw us up before we get to heaven, or hell.
Please explain, because I've never been able to understand that.
Best regards,
Andy
_________________________________
Andrew Krause was kind enough to send me an e-mail with comments that were too long for the 'comments' function on the web page. I am reproducing his e-mail below, with his permission:
James McGrath:
I checked out your website and while I saw much intelligent commentary across several of your blogs and references, I did not find one mention of the "narrow way" there. Nor did I find one particularly cohesive argument that I might have inferred to be the "narrow way". I must have missed it or it isn't there, so please elaborate.
Nevertheless, I find much to agree with in your blogs. If you read mine, then you saw that I acknowledge the divisiveness of Dawkins. Here are just two quotes:
The fact that you may think Dawkins is an overly strident, intolerant, arrogant, know-it-all does not make your argument correct or his more likely to be wrong even if he is all those things. ... It might amuse you to know that Dawkins is so perceived by many atheists as well. I used to be among them to some degree. After all, I grew up being told I was going to hell and I didn't want to fight that intolerance with intolerance of my own.
I cannot fully disagree with those who say Dawkins turns off many people who we might hope can be rationally awakened. He does. But there are many who would not wake up from a more moderate voice. There is a place for Dawkins. By analogy, he is the pit-bull Malcolm X in contrast to the moderate Martin Luther King. I would argue that both types have their place and necessity in hastening a better world - a world where many fanatical irrational groups will eventually be able to acquire WMDs. Otherwise, I don't think our civilization will survive this century.On balance, I think that Dawkins aids the cause of reason more than he hurts it. But I would concede that his message is probably best suited to fence-sitters and for mobilizing those who already share his beliefs.
Think about the original promulgation of the Christian faith (and most other faiths). Its success cannot be credited just to those who espoused an inclusional, moderate, loving, turn-the-other-cheek approach. It owes its existence at least equally to saints and martyrs who would certainly be said to be far more militant, arrogant and strident than Dawkins. In fact, some were even torturers and murderers.
So I agree that Dawkins is a militant figure. And if that causes you to reach out to moderate atheists and believers to counter the dangers of faith (as Dawkins/Harris define it), while securing a future for what you believe faith in God should be about, that's great! I remember as a boy hearing from the fence-sitters on the race issue. Many just wished blacks (like atheists today), would somehow just disappear. Many were moved to follow the path of MLK mostly because they feared the alternative and more extreme paths espoused by Malcolm X or the Black Panthers. So if you feel militant atheists mock and insult the faithful and threaten to one day marginalize your beliefs, then continue your good work to encourage reason and education to make religion and its professed "true believers" less rationally ridiculous.
You don't like Dawkins semantics for faith, religion, and God and your attacks on him are primarily a pirouette around his semantics. I don't believe Dawkins is as ignorant as you suggest about the other possible meanings for God and faith. However, I would hope that you would concede that his definitions probably cover >90% of the "faithful". You are as much on the fringe in some of your positions as he is. In order to address your highly refined and moderate interpretations probably would have required doubling the size of his book and muddling his message.
I also think you need to take some of Dawkins semantics on face value and go from there. It is not fair for you or others to redefine faith, against Dawkins arguments, as anything other than believing without evidence. Dawkins' argument (and I like Harris' better) is not so much for science vs. faith as it is about reason vs. faith. Science is just one manifestation of reason just as religion is only one manifestation of faith. I think that Dawkins muddles this sometimes but Harris does not. To paraphrase Harris, no society has ever suffered from becoming too reasonable. But many have suffered from too much faith. I also believe that societies have suffered from too little reason and see no evidence that having insufficient faith has damaged any culture.
So in essence, as I define faith (congruent with Dawkins and Harris), it is not compatible with reason in making meaningful decisions about the universe or our lives. My challenge to you is to identify and explain those attitudes, beliefs, and actions, on both a personal and societal level, that really require faith with or without reason. And then explain how your superior way of faith cannot be achieved or matched through reason alone.
I would welcome debating you on these topics and others. I believe that you are a rational voice for good even though I disagree with many of your views and semantics.
Best regards,
Andy
The Narrow Way
April 9, 2007 12:13
Thank you Andy for your thoughtful reply to my post about Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion
I've been reading Daniel Dennett's book Breaking the Spell
As for faith and its definition, it may be true that the English word in its modern usage has connotations of believing without evidence. But it is not difficult to show that this is not the classic Christian usage. The New Testament Greek word translated by "faith" has connotations of trust, of faithfulness. There certainly have been religious believers in all ages that have been opposed to reason, and I am not interested in disputing that. But I am interested in disputing their interpretation of "faith" and of the Christian faith in particular, as well as disputing the impression such people have given and continue to give that faith and reason are fundamentally opposed.
For me, faith is about an attitude. It is an attitude that is expressed in and shared by many religious traditions, and it is one that people without any particular religious faith or worldview have also had. It is, in essence, the response of awe to existence (not only our existence), and a humble recognition that we are not ultimate (or in other words not God) and do not have a God's eye view of the universe or of our place in it. For me, and for other believers like me, this leads to humility and an awareness of my own human limitations. It does not lead me to seek scientific information in pre-scientific texts, or to fear increases in our understanding of the natural world or of our own selves. If you ask me what is religious about this, the answer is that I interpret our place in the universe as being meaningful. I would be the first to admit that any language I may use to speak about God, ultimate reality, transcendence and the spiritual is not only intrinsically metaphorical but intrinsically inadequate. But I do not see an alternative to the use of such language in avoiding reductionism and the suggestion that life is either ultimately meaningless or that meaning is something that we each individually give to life, or perhaps give to it on the level of cultures or even species. My language of God and faith is an expression of trust and hope that life is ultimately meaningful. This does not lead me to conclude that my own individual personality and ego will survive death. But it does lead me to hope that my species may survive extinction, and that all that we create as a species will not simply be obliterated in a cosmic catastrophe that marks an ultimate end to everything our universe may ever produce. Once again, I would be the first to admit that these hopes are an interpretation of the universe and not something inherently part of the data it provides, nor something that I feel one can rationally prove or disprove. For faith, in the sense that I am using the term, to be "rational", I require that it be in agreement with available evidence; it does not necessarily have to be a conclusion required by the evidence.
If there are levels of existence that transcend us and connect us all as part of something bigger, could we ever hope to see that, much less prove it, from our perspective? To use my favorite analogy, if we were cells in a human body, could we ever prove that there is a transcendent organism that unifies us? Could we ever find language that would adequately express what a human being is like? In short, is there anything more that we could attain than a mere hope and trust that there is transcendence, and meaning, and unity to our disperate existences beyond the horizons of our limited perspectives?
I'm not certain that I've addressed all your concerns - but that is what dialogue is for, so I'll ask you to reply and ask more questions, if you're willing. But I will conclude by summarizing that for me faith is part of my overall worldview which seeks to appreciate aspects of existence which I believe are compatible with reason but are not simply reducible to it. I think that, whatever accounts a biologist or a neuroscientist may give of the processes involved in falling in love, those are not a replacement for the experience. As I write this, I am listening to a new release on the Naxos label, Carson Cooman's Symphonies Nos. 2 & 3
Let me also add one more transcendent component of experience, namely humor, since I have just finished reading The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
[This discussion is between two bloggers, and thus it can also be followed at http://darwiniana.com/2006/10/23/marilynne-robinson-on-dawkins/#comment-68728]
Discussion Continues
April 10, 2007 08:43
James:
Thank you for the dialogue and another thoughtful submission. I find I'm enjoying these debates lately so much I'm not getting any productive work done. But I'm procrastinating for fun. God would approve wouldn't He? Or is procrastination a sin?
Anyway, let me first say that I cannot significantly disagree with anything in your first two paragraphs. In fact, I've had the same thoughts as you expressed and decided to play just one side of things for my argument. In reality, I'm on the fence, I've been a moderate if occasionally noisy heathen most of my life and only lately have I been tiptoeing in the militant's playpen. I think there is sound reasoning and historical evidence to support both your argument and mine. You may well be right and I wouldn't bet against you here. Revolutions, like the one I wish to see, do not succeed for good unless militants meld with moderates like you (and me?) at the right time and under the right conditions. Militants are volatile and potentially dangerous catalysts. History will judge.
Now let's move on to the semantics of "faith". You are correct, of course, from an historical Christian perspective, on the wider meaning of faith. So the wording of my admonition to you to stick with Dawkins' definition could certainly have been interpreted as arrogantly ignorant, as I think it did to Mr. Allen who commented on my previous blabbering too.
Where I think you both may miss the point is that I believe it was correct for Dawkins to distill his argument in faith as belief without evidence because that is at the essence of its putative opposition to reason. You have given me a cogent personal and historical Christian definition for faith I'm not sure most believers, much less most theologians and philosophers, would agree with. I am no theologian but I'm sure you would agree that we could get into a very involved argument on this subject alone. How many theologians have earned their degrees on this one topic I wonder? Of course, you shouldn't blame Dawkins for not wishing to fall into that trap.
I think you need to accept and address Dawkins' simplified semantic distillation in your arguments at face value and use your ancillary lemmas and definitions for faith to explain why faith, as Dawkins defines it, isn't really at the proper center of the debate (I think Kant and Kierkegaard would agree with Dawkins on this point, despite their alignment with you). I believe you have failed to do that in your response to me. Moreover, Dawkins has clearly anticipated your response and deliberately made his semantic adjustments to prevent what I believe promotes, rather than elucidates, semantic distortions that muddle arguments common in theology. Frankly, Dawkins does address your subjective attitudinal issues on faith (e.g., awe and transcendence), but he does so in the parts of his book devoted to the scientific explanation of spiritual and mystical phenomena. Incidentally, in my opinion, Sam Harris does a much better job at this than Dawkins and I'm no Dawkins groupie, or Harris groupie for that matter. I also wish to assert, as we carry on this debate, that my ideas are my own and I do not wish to be tied to those of others anymore. I'm no apologist either.
Since I'm on my own two feet, I'll also add my own two cents to your views on faith as beyond believing without evidence. You are essentially making claims to a type of evidence in your definition for faith which is tautologic. Moreover, you need to explain how people like me exist who do not believe in God and yet also experience awe, transcendence, and even rare amazing experiences like hypnogogic dreaming (in my case) that would certainly be explained by many religious people as religious "miracles". Of course, I anticipate that your answer may be that was God tapping on my shoulder and I refused to listen. But since this tapping has been going on throughout the ages on people of all faiths, or lack thereof, many without the benefit of scripture or knowledge of your god, the burden is on you to prove that, especially when there are alternative plausible scientific explanations. Can you understand why I believe your registration of such feelings with God probably has more to do with the religious indoctrination (a form of brainwashing in my opinion) that you likely received in Sunday school and/or via family, cultural, and peer pressure (as I experienced too and found hard to resist)? This is more in line with historical fact and evidence and is a major reason why Dawkins is so against such indoctrination and the labeling of children as Christian, Muslim, etc. I agree with him and have seen the damaging effects of same in my own family not to mention the world.
As you can see from my other blogs, I am both a dualist and physicalist who realizes there are some puzzling gaps. But to paraphrase myself, "Science is just one manifestation of reason just as religion is only one manifestation of faith." The fact that your subjective experiences may be outside science in some ways (which I do not yet concede) does not mean they are beyond the analysis of reason. Just because we lack a science of the subjective today does not mean we always will. I have a connectionist neuroscience background and emergent properties simulated in the lab can seem miraculous, but they aren't since I can create them (unless you'd like to give up now and acknowledge I'm God ;-)).
I think you make some truly beautiful and elegant points on the nature of humility, aesthetics, humor, and the meaning of life. I don't think by your prose even you are claiming those as a strong argument for God. I think your point of view here is best summed up when you say, "I have no doubt that there are ways of analyzing this music in terms of reason, as well as in terms of the history of music, aesthetics, physics, and in other ways. My faith is my way of saying that there is more to that, that acknowledging beauty and wonder is not simply a misguided human response to aspects of our existence, but does in fact tell us something about the nature of reality itself."
If you substitute "intuition" for "faith" I couldn't agree with you more (in fact, try that substitution throughout your blogs and see if that tells you something). Perhaps you would be surprised to learn that I, like most atheists, share your sense of wonder, awe, humility, and transcendence in our appreciation of nature and our approach to our fellow man. I certainly feel gratitude that I should be so fortunate to have been given this life even though I have no god to express it to. Understanding the essence of something, like the nature of a rainbow, does not make it less awesome to me. It's the other way around. I believe that many scientists have even more appreciation of this transcendent feeling than non-scientists because not only do they see the beauty of nature but the intrinsic beauty and elegance in the underlying mathematics and logic as well (which, unfortunately, most laymen never experience). Yes, some scientists, even a few brilliant ones, see this as even more evidence for God. But they are in the minority, an amazing fact considering the pressures and indoctrination to believe in God in our society and where >94% of Americans believe in God..
Please do not confuse intuition with faith as many do. Although we do not fully understand intuition, it has a rational basis as the mind’s subconscious ability to rapidly recognize patterns and meaning without conscious thinking. It is often wrong but it is right far more often than chance would allow. There are many reasons for intuition to have evolved, not least of which is that when a lion leapt out at us in the jungle, we often didn't have time to reason about it. We just had to run like hell. Likewise, most champion chess players make decisions they can't fully explain when push comes to shove. So intuition is rather like imperfect shadow reasoning and like science, it makes testable decisions that can be refined through experience, just as morality can be tested and improved by observing it's consequences. If our minds are at least partially hardwired for faith, as they are for language, this could also explain much of your subjective nature with or without added indoctrination. For you to fall back on intuition is based on rationality to some degree. To fall back on faith is not (as I define faith).
So I clearly don't buy your subjective argument for faith. Moreover, I find your deductions concerning life's meaning to be very limited and almost degrading in some ways, especially for someone who presumably understands and apparently appreciates the writings of Carl Sagan. I think that the meaning of life is limitless without God and far richer unless God’s meaning for our lives is also truly limitless (I can argue it isn't, in fact the Bible suggests it's highly constrained - but let's not argue this much). In fact, the two views could be identical with or without God since we have free will (I think). This is where I depart from many freethinkers in my philosophy. One non-theistic approach to defining meaning for our lives, as you say, is simply as we define it as individuals. But I believe that's too simplistic and misses context, dimensionality, and multiplicity. Did you see the movie A Beautiful Mind and can you recall Nash's thought experiment in Game Theory as how to best score with the babes in the bar in competition and cooperation with his comrades? He makes the statement, that contrary to Adam Smith's purely selfish theory, the best way to score was to do what's best for the individual and the group. Yes, perhaps the ultimate meaning of life is to optimize our reproduction. I'm not even sure that's true except in the narrow context of Darwinian evolution. Rather, the rich tapestry of our meaning is colored by other contexts of how we live our lives to that end with our hopes, talents, family, tribe, country, culture, and race infinitely arrayed. I love my job, my family and am part of a culture that sought for and reached the moon and that all gives my life and those around mine meaning. Should we reach the stars and conquer the galaxy, or evolve into some higher intelligence, that will add to our meaning too even after we die. Maybe man's deriviative purpose is to convert the matter of our universe into an infinite computer that can create its own universes - like God.
My son is an artist. I think artists are more important in history today than ever before, in large part, because I am a transhumanist. I believe that what defines man is going to be the central question, danger, and opportunity if and after we get beyond our current cultural and religious struggles. We need to face these issues soon with both objective and subjective rationality. I believe that art will better enable us to understand who we are before science can catch up. I think religion will lead to ruin unless you’re content to be Amish as we face a singularity where man's intelligence can be vastly superceded or potentially fused with intelligence beyond what anyone alive today can imagine. To such an intelligence, man today may seem to be as the ants in the garden.
If and when we get there, I suspect many of the questions you and I have will be answered, or found to be theoretically undecidable analogous to Goedel's Theorem. Unless your claim is that God can make 2+2=5 and break logic, these would be laws that even He couldn’t break. As such, these questions would become meaningless leaving God as an unnecessary and hollow deity.
The aforementioned is actually an overkill answer to your favorite analogy, "if we were cells in a human body, could we ever prove that there is a transcendent organism that unifies us? Could we ever find language that would adequately express what a human being is like?" Let me take out the sci-fi imagination and bring it down a notch to the more practical. First, I think you should revise your argument - perhaps to make it more like Chomsky's on dualism and language since I think he is arguing better for your position than you are. Otherwise, your analogy fails immediately since cells have absolutely no qualia or ability to think or reason and little, if any, ability to sense and communicate beyond their immediate neighborhood. So your analogy doesn't work. If the cells could think and sense and communicate they could certainly discover their "transcendent" larger organism.
There is a good argument there for you to make, but you haven't done so. Without taking the time to make your argument better, let me simply concede, as I did in a previous blog, that man's mind may have inherent limitations that prevent him from attaining certain types of knowledge just as a dog will never understand Plato. However, that doesn't mean that a more evolved and superior form of extraterrestrial or artificial intelligence couldn't exist that could attain such knowledge. You also need to accept that by reason and logic, mathematical and physical proofs exist showing that certain types of propositions are undecidable and/or unknowable as I stated previously.
Now, if God is pure physical transcendence, apart from and above all physical processes, you might have a half-decent argument for a god, but it would be a god virtually devoid of meaning or concern to men since we could never see him or visit him in any way. But I assume that like most Christians, you believe that God interacts with our world, whether he listens to prayers, performs miracles, harvests souls from our brain, or simply created it and set it adrift. If you believe this then God is testable, at least in part, by science and reason. Just as invisible particles leave vapor trails, God’s fingerprints would be everywhere. This will be difficult for you to reconcile unless you suppose God to be a trickster who likes to wipe off all his fingerprints. Maybe those fundamentalists are right then who say he also plants phony fossils and background microwave radiation to allow Satan to tempt our minds with sinful theories like evolution and the Big Bang.
I’d like to tie up my argument with some questions on faith that have always puzzled me about a God that is supposedly good, just, and omniscient and who, among other things, is said to have sent his only son as a teacher and pathway to Him. These questions are actually excerpted and paraphrased from another blog I wrote in at RichardDawkins.net. Please use my definition for faith (believing without evidence) in framing your reply but feel free to expand upon it as your argument dictates.
Mark 10:15 (New King James Version)
Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.
Luke 18:17 (New King James Version)
Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.
Aside from Faith in God/Religion, can you tell me where faith is ever a virtue (a good) for a mature adult person? And if you can make that argument, can you tell me where it ever should trump reason (again, outside God/Religion)?
I understand how faith in authority can have evolutionary benefits, especially for children where it is apparently hard-wired. But children lack knowledge and reasoning ability. Otherwise faith as a suffix of hope seems a dangerous last resort in leading to any positive action.
I can't find any evidence that there is any regime (leaving God/religion aside) where adult reliance on faith can be expected to produce positive consequences. But the evidence for the contrary is legion. If you agree with me, why would a just, loving, and omniscient God wish to set the precedent and example that such faith is good? What good in man is God encouraging that we must meet him by faith rather than by evidence and reason? Otherwise, I can only conclude that God wishes us to embrace ways of thinking that can only screw us up before we get to heaven, or hell.
Please explain, because I've never been able to understand that.
Best regards,
Andy
Delayed Reply About Procrastination
April 10, 2007 12:19
Thank you, Andy, for another thoughtful and thought-provoking reply! Perhaps it will spare us a needless argument over semantics if I cede Dawkins' point about faith as he defines it, and make my argument that faith, from a Christian perspective, ought to be something different a separate issue, which we can leave to one side for the time being.
I am not at all surprised by the fact that atheists (or, at least, people who consider themselves atheists) have experienced transcendence, awe, and even striking psychological phenomena. When I speak about God, I am not talking about one being among others, but about existence itself, Reality with a capital 'R', within which we live, and move, and exist, and of which we are a part. Probably no one has ever put this better than Paul Tillich in a famous passage from his The Shaking on the Foundations
The name of infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of our being is God. That depth is what the word God means. And if that word has not much meaning for you, translate it, and speak of the depths of your life, of the source of your being, of your ultimate concern, of what you take seriously without any reservation. Perhaps, in order to do so, you must forget everything traditional that you have learned about God, perhaps even that word itself. For if you know that God means depth, you know much about Him. You cannot then call yourself an atheist or unbeliever. For you cannot think or say: Life has no depth! Life itself is shallow. Being itself is surface only. If you could say this in complete seriousness, you would be an atheist; but otherwise you are not.
As for the Christian language I use (metaphorically and symbolically) to point to this characteristic of reality, it certainly must have something to do with upbringing, but the same could be said about the fact that I use English to discuss this subject. The two main reasons I use Christian language are as follows. One is because I had a profound religious experience of being "born again" in a Christian context. The other is because I have not found an alternative language that I think does better justice to the reality I am trying to speak about than this.
This is not to say that other language - your own language of transcendence, and that of other religious traditions - is somehow less adequate. My point is rather that I cannot try on these other languages and the experiences they relate to and still be true to my own experience. Nonetheless, I do recognize in the mystics of other traditions (in particular Sufism, but also Buddhism, Hinduism, and Judaism, to mention the few about which I have even a superficial knowledge) that the experience of reality that they express in different metaphors is the same sort of experience. The medieval Sufi poet Mahmud Shabistari said something similar:
When "I" and "You" are absent, I've no idea if this is a mosque, synagogue, church, or temple
Most mystics, cognizant of the ineffable quality of their experience, have agreed. Obviously this is not your modern Islamic fundamentalism. I won't try to suggest that fundamentalism does not have deep roots in all major religious traditions, but I still want to maintain that, historicall, it has never been the whole story.
I hope I made clear in previous posts that I do not find explanation of how something works to be in any way in conflict with an appreciation of it as a whole. My own personal religious experience was psychological - if it were not, it wouldn't be an experience, by definition! But even if such mystical and spiritual experiences really tell us about ourselves, we are part of existence, and so the very existence of people who have such experiences seems to me to tell us something about the world. But my whole point with the multiple-levels is that explaining something on one level is not in competition with its meaningfulness in completely different sorts of ways on another level. I'm sure on this basic point we don't disagree - it is simply the idea of emergent properties - even though we might disagree on its application to religion.
At any rate, I don't think I am confusing intuition and faith. In a sense, faith is a form of intuition - it may involve certain beliefs about the world, but it is more fundamentally an interpretation of the world and of our place in it. If we take this point back a few thousand years, I don't think any human being doubted that either storms and earthquakes were themselves personal forces, or that there were personal forces behind those phenomena. Religion was not about these common beliefs about the nature of reality per se, but a response to this understanding of the world. Now that we know so much more about the world, our response to such phenomena ought to be different. But a reverent response to that which lies beyond the horizon of our understanding and our control is not necessarily inappropriate in and of itself. At any rate, as science advances, our understanding of reality grows, and thus our view of God (for those of us who have one) grows as well. Moving closer to our time, when Galileo and his contemporaries debated cosmology, they were not debating the appropriateness of belief in the ultimate, nor were they debating the appropriateness of reverence and worship. They were debating philosophy (particularly the legacy of Aristotle), and they were debating science in response to new data. I have not seen evidence that there were not approaches to these matters that were both concerned with reason and deeply pious on both sides of the debate. The root problem with fundamentalism is that it tries to impose on people in the present a world view from the past. That paradigm shifts happen slowly, and that we do not too readily revise our worldviews, is not necessarily a problem. It is those who cling for dear life to an outmoded view of the world, make it part and parcel of their religion, and want to require it of others that give religion a bad name. Yet I have yet to find a Biblical author who clings stubbornly to an outmoded worldview. By New Testament times, the Ptolemaic view of the world, with the Earth as a sphere at the center and the heavens moving around it, had gained acceptance, and it is reflected in their writings. Of course, if any of them did cling to an earlier view, it would just show that they have the same human tendencies as we see today, and that is scarcely in doubt. But few have made the point as clearly and as cogently as Rudolf Bultmann that if the insight of the Biblical writings depends on accepting a pre-scientific worldview, then no one can be a Christian; on the other hand, it may be that the insights these authors expressed in and through the mythological language of their pre-scientific worldview can be reinterpreted and have meaning in our own context today, having been appropriately demythologized.
I certainly didn't mean to degrade those who find religious language inappropriate as a way of expressing their experience of the world, including the transcendent, nor did I mean to suggest that those who declare themselves atheists necessarily lack appreciation of beauty, meaning, and the various "other levels". Nor does any of that detract from or conflict with science. Indeed, some physicists have suggested that a theorem's beauty is more likely to be an indication that it is correct than its coherence with observation! That, however, may be taking things too far. That intuition, however, is (I would argue) a sort of faith stance - a conviction that beauty is fundamental to the working of the universe. This faith is not necessarily wrong. I might even go so far as to suggest (with Tillich) that anyone who genuinely appreciates transcendence and meaning as genuine facets of reality are not truly atheists - unless, as Dawkins tries to argue, anyone who believes in Einstein's God is really an atheist. But not believing in a supernatural God is not the same as not believing in God, as far as we theologians are concerned. It just means that one is a pantheist or a panentheist rather than a theist.
Just as views of gods as storms and natural phenomena, and then of gods as the causes behind the phenomena, and then the view of one big God who rolls them all into one, have all outlived some of their usefulness, eventually even the personal, human language will outlive its usefulness, if our species survives into the distant future. Because, as you point out, our descendants in the very far future may be any number of things, but one thing they won't be is human beings in the form we are today. But those of us who are aware that our language of transcendence is intrinsically metaphorical have no objection when new metaphors replace old ones, as our understanding of the universe expands.
I am not seeking, in all of this, to argue for a classic theistic or even deistic view of God. Whether that means that God is therefore insignificant is another question. Cell may not have the ability to ponder their existence, even on the most rudimentary level, but that is part of my point - that that which transcends us is not simply a big version of us, like the view of God as a bigger, more powerful and wiser version of ourselves, with his finger ever hovering above the 'SMITE' button. To suggest that this larger reality of which we are a part is insignificant seems to me to be suggesting that we ourselves are insignificant, and that the emergent phenomena distinctive of human existence are insignificant. I think that a God who isn't just a big person, and who doesn't change the laws of physics simply because I ask him to when I'm having a bad day, can be far more impressive and worthy of respect than one who does. But here too I am using an analogy with parental experience of my own, which may or may not be appropriate. I am aware that anything I might affirm about God is bound to be inadequate and has a high probability of being wrong, and thus my quest is to understand God and the universe, which are not for me separate quests. There is more to be known than we can ever know, as Dawkins affirms at the end of his book, and this affirmation of mystery is (for both him and me) a reason to keep seeking to understand, rather than a way of cutting short discussion and investigation. As another Sufi, Abd al-Qadir, who lived in Algeria in the 19th century, put it, "The search has no end: the knowledge of God has no end. He can not be known. He can only be known by that which proceeds from Him, as effects of His names, not His ipseity".
In response to your question about childlike faith, I am not persuaded that these ancient authors had anything like our modern psychological understanding of children and their willingness to believe, and that that is what the passages you quoted emphasized. More likely is that this was yet another teaching about the need for humility, for those who follow Jesus to take on the status of the very least in the society, rather than seeking their own honor (as they had been taught since childhood, in accordance with prevailing cultural values). As for the place of faith among the mature, let me finish this already lengthy post by quoting 1 Corinthians 13:
For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
I am not an inerrantist, and I do not think that just because Paul or any other New Testament author says this, it makes it automatically credible or applicable today. But I do think these authors had important insights, and when I call myself a Christian, I am seeking to keep those insights alive today, while also showing the willingness to revise earlier beliefs in light of new circumstances and situations that the New Testament authors themselves demonstrated.
Best wishes,
James
Continuing Conversation
April 11, 2007 08:33
Wow, James. And to think I was worried I covered too much ground in my last post for one sitting ;-) If we keep up this debate for much longer, I expect your university to grant me a degree in divinity - or at least some major course credits.
I had to read your post several times to take it all in and I'm quite disappointed yet still hold out hope. I think it might help if I give you additional context today why I'm engaging in our dialogue. I also reiterate that in my missive below I continue to use my definition of faith as belief without evidence. Although you ceded that, at least for awhile, at the beginning of your last response, you quickly backslid into obscuring this definition again and further encrusted it in associations I simply do not accept, not just on factual and rational grounds, but in the very manner in which you hope to convey meaningful information. I believe you honestly and sincerely think that the richer, more nuanced language and quotations you are using better explain your feelings and beliefs. But for me, they are obscuring them and making dialogue more difficult. You are giving words and feelings so many meanings they become almost meaningless. I have enough trouble with English; must I master your Christian language as well? My mother grew up in Holland. Every so often she'd use a Dutch word in an English sentence. This always meant there was no good corresponding word in English. But somehow, with a few well-chosen words and/or gestures, the meaning always came across.
My uncle always taught me, if you can't build a concept from simple sentences, you don't know what you're talking about. If there is real and profound truth buried in your Christian prose just let me offer you this one piece of advice. Figure out how to translate and express it in common understandable language and you'll convert the world! I realize it's presumptive, but your education as a philosopher/theologian is showing in the worst way. The philosophers I most admire are the seekers who bravely shed their skin and can express themselves as and to the naively intelligent men they once were.
This debate with you, like no other I've engaged in a long time, has caused me to reflect deeply on the stance I wish to take in confronting those of faith and figuring out what I want to achieve and how to do so. I was drawn to your "narrow way" because I am struggling with the approaches that I and other "people of reason" should take to help move us to a better and more enlightened world (in our view at least) where reason reigns instead of faith. Some on my side would argue there is no room for faith at all in this dream utopia (Dawkins and Harris(?)). Others think there's room but it must be severely discouraged (Harris?). And others like the late Stephan Jay Gould believe it is perfectly fine and has no ill effect as long as it is properly (and artificially in my view) compartmentalized. In no case do the former two types believe that faith should play ANY material role in issues of public policy and the last type would like to see faith take a back seat at least. But that seems impossible as long as major segments of the population live by faith. Certainly, right now, this aspiration looks like an impractical pipedream to me.
I used to think that reason would slowly win out and eventually reign when humanity was ready. I saw a steady progressive evolution in the Western World and even a bit in the Islamic when I was younger. I was never sure humanity was ready to dump faith and religion yet and it shouldn't be attempted by force of course - only by persuasion and education based on reason itself. I thought this more enlightened world was still a good way off, probably to be achieved after I'm dead, but with at least a powerful foothold planted in the lifetimes of my children. And unlike the radical atheists, I believe there are potential lasting modes for peaceful accommodation with moderate faith-based viewpoints. But unquestioning blind faith has got to go. That is the root of all fanaticism.
I still believe that if our civilization survives that reason will triumph because I'm basically an optimist. I still see its progression in much of the Western World particularly Western Europe where many countries are predominantly atheist/agnostic. But we've had a big hiccup in America and the Islamic world with fundamentalist expansion and polarization. Normally, that wouldn't worry me too much since there have been many such hiccups since the Enlightenment began. Unfortunately, this hiccup is very badly timed in a world where relatively small groups of religious fanatics (or the fanatics of other dogmas) will soon be able to possess WMDs. I'm not confident reason, much less our civilization, will prevail unless we find a way to catalyze a reaction towards reason soon. But what is the best approach? I'm sure that we can all agree they involve education and open-minded dialogue, but how should it be framed and executed?
I don't have an answer yet. I'm still seeking. There probably isn't one right approach so all I can really do is witness to my current journey and maybe share a discovery or two with traveling pals like you along the way, as we cross paths. Let me begin with Dawkins where my blogs started (on Marilynne Robinson's critique). I'll be honest; I haven't completely read the God Delusion. I skimmed all of it, read a lot - maybe 40% in full, and put it down entertained but not really moved. I didn't find any arguments in it that I hadn't heard before or already thought of myself independently. I love Dawkins' writing style and wit. I relish a crusader like him who will poke the religious bigots of this world in the eye unashamed without having to protect their own pet dogmas and superstitions - because he doesn't have any. As I argued previously, I believe he has a constructive place, but I'm aware of his shortcomings in achieving my hopes. It doesn't bother me when he calls stupid beliefs for what they are - stupid. We all should. But it seems to me that believers can too easily get the impression that Dawkins might revel in their feeling stupid about themselves too. I've never heard of curing someone of delusions by making them feel belittled. In that aspect, he appeals especially to the delight of the disaffected choir and that is also divisive - as you pointed out yourself. But don't judge us too harshly James. Remember that atheists have had their panties in a bunch ever since your God called us "fools".
But cries of "fool" are only the start of what Sam Harris would yell at our President were he to give a speech tomorrow pledging to end the minimum wage because his interpretation of ancient Greek scripture says Zeus demands it. I'd hope you'd join Harris and call for his immediate commitment to a nuthouse if impeachment won't suffice. In reality, here is man with his finger on over 100,000 megatons of explosives who said God wanted him to be President, believes in the Rapture, and the return of Jesus in his lifetime. As Patton Oswalt comedicly said, "...This guy didn't just want to be President, he wants to be the Last President. " OK, maybe I don't believe that - hmmm. But if some amazing set of coincidental calamities happened tomorrow, let's say a few hurricanes, communications blackouts, and WMDs set off in major cities worldwide including Washington and Tel Aviv, etc., do you think this President's faith will most likely help or hurt humanity in the days and years that followed?
For me, Sam Harris' books were much more of a revelation. I discovered I was too moderate, having compartmentalized my acceptance of faith like Gould. I realized that liberal and moderate people of faith (I would say they are people of reason AND faith) were not just part of the solution but also part of the problem because they take matters of faith off the table of complete open discourse. And they thereby enable fundamentalists to take refuge under that shield of religio-correctness. Stuff that you would ridicule as outlandish poppycock all of a sudden becomes sacrosanct when covered in a religious veil. Some of Harris' semantics bother me so I'm going to state my position in my own way. Except in extreme cases (like yelling fire in a crowded theatre or planning for violent overthrow), I believe faith should be tolerated. Otherwise, if toleration were to be abolished, atheists would be hypocrites for certainly we have traditionally been among the first to fry. However, toleration should not mandate respect or silence. James, I respect you as a person and some of your beliefs. But I only tolerate many of your beliefs - and many of the ones I tolerate I don't respect. And I don't expect you to respect my beliefs when you believe they are harmful. And you shouldn't be afraid to say so. I'm not wishing for the day when fools are punished or their rights revoked. I just want to see them laughed or booed off the stage. I'm betting that reason will win. Otherwise I realize that atheists will be the fools forever - or worse.
I believe religious faith should be accorded no special treatment in human discourse and the fact this has not yet come to pass is largely the fault of religious liberals and moderates of your kind. If I hope to score any victory in this debate I hope to get you and others to believe this and if you already believe it I want you to promulgate it almost as much as the word of God. Otherwise, you do your faith and humanity no service in my judgment, even if God exists.
I hope for no other victory. I certainly never expected to convert anyone from their faith. My debate with you is helping me to understand and refine what I believe and can truly support as I seek the Truth. That is enough. If I move someone from faith to reason, that's a nice bonus. I sense you are on a similar journey, just on a different road. If I had sensed you'd completed your travels and found the Truth, I never would have engaged you in discussion. I can always turn on the 700 Club.
I remain drawn to your "narrow path". What form should education and persuasion take? As I've said, I see value in Dawkins and Harris and many others both atheist and religious. I've read and seen lots of entertaining debates between the atheist and the religious. There are lots of books you can buy that attempt to explain or argue for atheism or Christianity. It's all been done it seems. Or has it? In my original engagement with your blog and in thinking about the "narrow way", perhaps what's been missing is for the opponents to have a genuine dialogue that enables them to really get into the head of the other in a manner that enables doubt, humility, and vulnerability, and ultimately, real humanity. As Harris wonderfully argues, there can be no true dialogue or successful negotiation without doubt. And I would add that humor, humility and vulnerability are great lubricants as long as they aren't taken or exploited as a sign of weakness.
So this is why I welcomed your willingness to humanely dissect your subjective experiences and try to relay their impact and meaning to you. We could begin a study of the qualia of faith and related subjective experiences together only to discover that those qualia have multiple valid interpretations. You could be deluded by them, or I may be forced to conclude there is something supernatural there. I suspect neither of us will answer the question to the other's satisfaction but the exercise may end up revealing what we most badly need to know - what unites us more than divides us. I think this would be a wonderful thing if we could really do this with each other. Then maybe we'd have something that would transcend our private email boxes and could move millions.
Unfortunately, your last post caused me to doubt this but I'm yet hopeful. I was originally going to dissect your post and debate the reasons as usual. I will do this if you insist but I'm exhausted now. Maybe you could take a fresh look at your post after some reflection and tell me what bothers me instead. If you think you can accommodate me in any way please let me know as well as anything I can do to better accommodate you. If we can't make reasonable accommodations for each other to truly communicate, then I don't think we've found the right partner for profound dialogue. Perhaps that's too much to expect but it would've been nice to get lucky.
Best wishes,
Andy
Profound Truths in Simple Language?
April 11, 2007 14:14
Thank you, Andy, for your candid and pointed reply. As an academic, I am keenly (and yet all too often insufficiently) aware of the issue of using technical terms as a convenient shorthand in a way that, for anyone listening in on the class who had not had the term explained, would obscure meaning rather than convey it more clearly. I am keenly aware that many in the Intelligent Design movement throw in hefty-looking logic symbols to give the impression that they are saying something profound (see also today's New York Times article about the formula for the perfect bacon sandwich). I agree completely that anything that can be said in fancy words can also be said in simple ones. Then again, it may take more words to do that, and I dread to think how long this post may become! :-) But perhaps I can be clear, succinct and focused - and if so, I will have accomplished something rare (at least for myself) thanks to our conversation!
I am opposed to fundamentalism and anti-rational stances in all their forms. I find Biblical (and other Scriptural) literalism troubling, as I do any sort of dogmatism. I find the practices derived from these approaches - whether the oppression of women or the justification of violence - disturbing and distasteful. I would not pretend that such practices are simply a distortion of the teachings of any given religion - often times organized religions and their adherents have engaged in shameful practices, and some of those practices end up enshrined in the writings they call Scriptures. I would, however, suggest that most religious traditions have general principles they consider foundational that can be appealed to as a basis for rejecting such oppressive and arrogant practices, attitudes and behaviors. We saw this in the debates over slavery in the U.S. Some people offered very coherent arguments about how Paul had safeguarded the institution of slavery in his letters. Others took what are clearly overarching principles, such as "Do to others what you would have them do to you" and realized that if one takes that teaching seriously, one cannot treat other human beings as property.
I would even agree with you that the world needs people like Dawkins, in at least one sense. There is always a need for people who can say, clearly and honestly, "the Emperor has no clothes on". I certainly try to do the same thing, in at least some respects. My own standpoint is that I should be critical from within of my own tradition, because that, to my thinking, is something significantly different from criticizing others. I also feel that arguments that take seriously where people are starting from, their presuppositions and the authorities that they accept will have a greater impact. You may be right that, in addition to people within a tradition offering self-criticism, there is a need for people outside it who, having dealt with their own issues of ignorance and prejudice, can offer critiques and challenges that will also have an important effect. I certainly agreed 100% with Dawkins that we should not simply tiptoe around religion, and treat any and all ideas as acceptable simply because they are religious. In an American context, where one's freedom of religion is amply protected, it is all the more appropriate for those who find ideas and practices offensive, even ridiculous, to raise serious questions about them, and to expect answers.
One reason why I feel it is important to declare my Christian faith at least as loudly as my criticism of Biblical literalism and inerrancy - apart from the fact that I really mean it, of course - is the fact that many people who need to have their views criticized and their false ideas and presuppositions challenged have well-honed abilities to tune out and dismiss criticisms by saying "Oh, he's just saying that because he's an atheist/a liberal/a Pastafarian/insert other basis for dismissing criticism here." I've found that, in the classroom in particular, I can help students who have sincere faith and claim to respect the Bible to begin actually noticing the things in the Bible that show the doctrine of inerrancy to be nonsensical. Because I've travelled that same road, I can help them along, step by step, in understanding that (for example) the Bible does not speak with a single voice, but includes a plurality of viewpoints and perspectives. Until they can understand that the Bible does not answer all their questions, and may provide more than one answer to some of them, they will make little progress in taking responsibility for their moral judgments, rather than shifting the burden onto selected proof-texts. And of course, as someone who has travelled the same path, I find that I can accomplish more by talking about how silly I was than how silly others now appear to me.
But in the context of America's safeguards of religious freedom, I'm not certain how else one might legally challenge fundamentalism apart from engaging in attempts at persuasion. Among the founders, there were many Baptists who argued for the separation of church and state based on their confidence that truth will out, that a powerful message needs no state support and can only be hindered if such help is offered. I may be as much a misguided optimist as you, but I genuinely believe that people's minds can be changed. The germ theory of disease is now taken for granted, as is heliocentrism. I don't see any way to proceed apart from simply "getting the word out". If there were not such big money behind certain fundamentalist institutions and endeavors, they would simply be one voice among many, and we would probably both be less worried than we are. The same situation accounts for the spread of Islamic fundamentalism - Wahabism on its own was a fringe movement, but now that it is has huge oil revenues to support it, the situation is different.
I think the most important thing we agree about is the need for humility, for openness to criticism, and willingness to genuinely hear others and to learn from them (assuming they have something to say that one can learn from, of course - there are definitely views from which we might learn nothing, except perhaps to avoid future discussions with such people, but all too often we assume people and views are in that category much too quickly).
Although it is a distinction I have made before, I will say again that I think that "faith", "religion" or whatever else we may talk about refers to two very different, almost diametically opposed things for different people. For some, it is about dogma, about what they claim to know with certainty. There, I would agree with you, the claims are usually based on flimsy evidence and weak arguments. But for others (and I wish to place myself in this category), faith is precisely about affirming that I/we do not know. We have an intuition that there is more to life, to existence, than meets the eye. We may even use the language of "knowing God" since the experience that we have had can resemble such interpersonal experiences as falling in love. But we are also honest enough to admit that if we talk to God, we are not expecting to hear a booming voice respond to us. From this perspective, it might indeed be argued that all language, all attempts to say anything about God other than that God is, is inherently idolatrous. The Biblical language warning about graven images can be applied by extension to our verbal and mental portraits of God, our attempts to define. If it were up to me, I might suggest that we all live in quiet, humble, reverent awe at this transcendant reality. But that won't do. Those of us who have had this sort of experience want to talk about it. It has been a positive experience in our lives and we want to share it. We thus grasp at inadequate words and hope they may do some small justice to what we perceive.
You might reply that God is just an imaginary friend, and that we have made God in our image. We are inevitably guilty on both counts - who could deny that we project our ideals and our (mis)conceptions on God? Who could deny that many people chit-chat with God in a way that is strikingly similar to an imaginary friend (with appropriate worry if they tell you they are getting verbal responses)? But I humbly suggest that we are projecting onto something, onto a genuine transcendent reality that our words do not accurately describe, but may at least point to. To quote the medieval Sufi Ibn Arabi,
God is not limited to the way he appears to you by making Himself appropriate to your ability to receive him. Therefore, no other creatures are obliged to obey the God you worship, for He appears to them in other forms.Don’t hang on exclusively to any particular creed so that you disbelieve the rest, or you will disregard much that is good and miss the real truth. Allah is omnipotent and omnipresent and is not contained by any one religion, for he say in the Qur’an "wherever you turn, there is the face of Allah."
Or to quote Rumi,
God said ‘ I appear uniquely to each of my servants. What each imagines me to be I become. Listen my servants. I am enclosed within these images. Purify your thoughts, for these are my home. Then see for yourself what is best for you - crying, laughing, fasting or praying - and do whatever will best lead you onward.
I quote Sufis so often because I have taught a class on Islam over the past few years, and have been reflecting on my own views in dialogue with these mystics. Indeed, it has been in studying their writings that I have become more convinced that there are religious divides that cut across rather than between the major religious traditions. Whether or not it corresponds precisely to the distinction I made earlier between two approaches to religion, there is definitely a distinction between dogmatic religion and experiential, although there are instances of overlap as well. But as the famous Latvian Lutheran pastor Juris Rubenis put it, it is quite common in faith traditions for someone to seek to express their experience in what they know is inadequate language, and then others come along and believe rigidly in the language. In contrast, it is those who have in fact had the experience that are most willing to change the metaphors. Not always, but often.
So what is this experience I have been talking about? Let me end by telling my own story, and see what you make of it. At age 15, I was at a stage in my life when I had begun thinking about matters of faith. I had been raised Catholic, but had drifted away from attending church with any frequency (and had a tendency to miss religious education classes in the evening because they were on at the same time as Charles in Charge). But I continued to believe in God, and clearly recall debating a friend of mine on this subject when we were both seriously drunk. Anyway, I had spent many years being something of a loner, a nerd, and can't say I was particularly happy - indeed quite the opposite. Once I started high school, however, it had been something of a new start, and since I was also very much involved in music at this point in my life, that helped me make friends and start having something of a different experience, but it didn't eliminate my inner sense of feeling that I hadn't found the meaning of life yet, that something was still missing. It was at this point that I happened to tune to a college radio station during an hour when they broadcast contemporary Christian music. I was struck by the music, because although I believed in God, I didn't find myself able to actually sing about it - it was as though these people had something real that they had experienced and yet I had not. I even tried forming a Christian band with a friend of mine, and when we asked another student, she thought it was weird because, from her perspective, we weren't even Christians. She did, however, invite us to a concert at her church (a Pentecostal church). To make a long story short, we went, and I was very moved by it. I went to the morning service the next day (Sunday), and as so often in stories like this one, I cannot remember what the sermon was about. What I do remember is that, after the service, I called out to God in my heart and said something like "God, I don't know what your way of living is, but mine isn't working, so whatever your way is, I want to try it". At that moment, a sense of peace washed over me.
It is perhaps significant that I was not responding to a particular set of dogmas, or a presentation of "four spiritual laws" or something of that sort. If that had been the context of my experience, perhaps I would not be able to separate my experience from doctrine in the way that I am. I do know that I instinctively began to speak about what had happened to me and had a different perspective because of it. The next day at work my boss was talking about how nothing matters more than money, and when I said that God is more important, he asked me when I became so religious, and I answered him honestly: "Yesterday"! But I do not think this experience proves anything about any particular set of doctrines: it doesn't prove the tomb was empty, it doesn't prove that seas parted, it doesn't prove anything about history. Most of those ideas are, I presume, people trying to put a concrete face on their experience, or interpreting events in light of such experiences. I don't feel the need to do that. If you ask me what my experience "proves", I would say that it proves that such experiences are possible. And having experienced this as something positive and life-transforming, I want to take it completely seriously, and even to share it with others who might benefit from such an experience. I did go through a very dogmatic, fundamentalist stage, but that was because I was taught to relate to this experience and to the Bible in that way - it wasn't something inherent in the experience itself. My discussions of theology are attempts to find appropriate language that does justice to all that we know about the world from science, reason, and other sources, and yet which allows me to describe however inadequately the experience that I've had, and my intuition that it doesn't just tell me something about my own individual psyche, but about the nature of reality more generally.
This is what I've got to share, and I hope that I have put it in words that are clear and, if not strictly rational (in the sense that one can prove something logically through them), are at least not irrational (i.e. not asking for blind leaps of faith, not counter to what we know from science, nor trying to claim that such experiences prove more than they do).
I do think we can communicate, and I do hope we can continue to do so. If you are left after this feeling like I still haven't understood where you are coming from or explained where I'm coming from, I hope you'll at least take the time to tell me so! Most of all, I would value knowing what someone coming from the perspective of atheism makes of me, particularly having told the details of my story and my experience in this way. I like to think I take criticism well, and my time spent in Northern Ireland taught me to insult others and be insulted as a form of humor, so please do be brutally honest! :-)
Best wishes,
James
Quote of the Day (Michael Polanyi)
"It is the height of intellectual perversity to renounce, in the name of scientific objectivity, our position as the highest form of life on earth, and our own advent by a process of evolution as the most important problem of evolution" (Michael Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967) p.47).
Italian Parma Spam
Here's a variation on the hoax allegedly from a French organization, this time connected with an Italian one. As with that one, a real organization is used, but the e-mail clearly is not from them. The address it was sent from is morphous@satx.rr.com and the other one mentioned is a Norwegian Yahoo! address. Don't fall for these scams!
Fondazion Di Vittorio, ITALY
http://www.fondazionedivittorio.it
BATCH NO: (N-222-6747,E-900-56)
Prize Notification
Congratulations as we bring to your notice, The Foundazion
Di Vittorio has chosen you by the board of trustees as one
of the final recipients of this year XMAS and NEW YEAR
cash Grant/Donation.To celebrate the 25th anniversary
celebration, We are giving out a yearly donation of
US$500,000.00 to 3 lucky recipients, as Christmas And New Year
Bonaza from the W.H.O,UN, and the EU in accordance with the
enabling act of Parliament.fill out below information and send it to
the Payment Remitance Office Via their email contact address:
Full Name:.................................
Residential Address:.................
Occupation:...............................
Country::....................................
Telephone:.................................
Fax Number:..............................
Winning/Batch BATCH NO: (N-222-6747,E-900-56)
(Payment Remitance Contact) Mr:Richerd Hawkins
E-Mail:ecowaspay_outoffice003@yahoo.no
http://www.fondazionedivittorio.it
__________________________________
Fondazion Di Vittorio, ITALY
http://www.fondazionedivittorio.it
BATCH NO: (N-222-6747,E-900-56)
Prize Notification
Congratulations as we bring to your notice, The Foundazion
Di Vittorio has chosen you by the board of trustees as one
of the final recipients of this year XMAS and NEW YEAR
cash Grant/Donation.To celebrate the 25th anniversary
celebration, We are giving out a yearly donation of
US$500,000.00 to 3 lucky recipients, as Christmas And New Year
Bonaza from the W.H.O,UN, and the EU in accordance with the
enabling act of Parliament.fill out below information and send it to
the Payment Remitance Office Via their email contact address:
Full Name:.................................
Residential Address:.................
Occupation:...............................
Country::....................................
Telephone:.................................
Fax Number:..............................
Winning/Batch BATCH NO: (N-222-6747,E-900-56)
(Payment Remitance Contact) Mr:Richerd Hawkins
E-Mail:ecowaspay_outoffice003@yahoo.no
http://www.fondazionedivittorio.it
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
How to be a good Christian
Lots of people take pleasure in denying the label "Christian" (or at least "real Christian" or "true Christian" to others). A story about a pious grandmother told on the Ancient Hebrew Poetry blog led me to ask yet again what it means to be a Christian, and how one defines a "good" one. That grandmotherly example, after a bit of reflection, might suggest the following:
1) Only read the good bits of the Bible (or at least only focus on those bits)
2) Have the honesty to acknowledge that you are reading selectively
3) Have the moral judgment to be able to discern between the good bits and the not so good ones
What do you think of this definition? Of course it is offered somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps there is some truth to it. What might you add or subtract, or propose as an alternative?
1) Only read the good bits of the Bible (or at least only focus on those bits)
2) Have the honesty to acknowledge that you are reading selectively
3) Have the moral judgment to be able to discern between the good bits and the not so good ones
What do you think of this definition? Of course it is offered somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps there is some truth to it. What might you add or subtract, or propose as an alternative?
Prophesize Me!
OK, I have finally submitted final grades, which were due today at 10am. This marks the end of what was probably the toughest semester thus far for me, just in terms of getting behind on grading. Dealing with getting my tenure dossier submitted, then a week-long conference trip, plus food poisoning twice and roughly seven colds - sheesh! But it is at long last over, and now I can try to finish up some writing projects and a few other loose ends before taking a trip to India later in the break. A colleague of mine talked about me having a 'great semester' - it sure didn't feel great at the time, but looking back I suppose when all is said and done, the most important things went really well.
I have decided that from now on I am going to state on my syllabi that there is a maximum grade one can get on an assignment that contains errors of spelling, punctuation, or grammar, or are incoherently worded.
Why do so many students use "prophesize"? There is no such word! Why do so many students here say "based off of" instead of "based on"? Why are students coming to university without having simple issues like spelling and clarity already sorted out? My guess is that students these days don't read as much actual well-written literature, which is presumably where one acquires these skills through exposure. I would suggest that young people who are considering higher education in the future at the very least invest in word-of-the-day toilet paper...
My least favorite experience of the semester is probably being contacted yesterday (the day before grades were due) saying they really need an 'A' in order to keep their scholarship, and are praying they'll get one. I'm not sure whether this is most offensive from an academic, emotional, or theological perspective. Academically, the student in question never once spoke up in class, as far as I can recall, either to ask a question or to participate in a discussion. They never came to see me during office hours to ask about what they can do to improve their work or make as sure as possible that they will get an A. Emotionally, surely they are not unaware that writing to say you really need an A and so much depends on it and you are praying for it is an attempt at emotional blackmail. Theologically, if they really are praying, they are trying to change the past, and there are just so many problems with that...
I have decided that from now on I am going to state on my syllabi that there is a maximum grade one can get on an assignment that contains errors of spelling, punctuation, or grammar, or are incoherently worded.
Why do so many students use "prophesize"? There is no such word! Why do so many students here say "based off of" instead of "based on"? Why are students coming to university without having simple issues like spelling and clarity already sorted out? My guess is that students these days don't read as much actual well-written literature, which is presumably where one acquires these skills through exposure. I would suggest that young people who are considering higher education in the future at the very least invest in word-of-the-day toilet paper...
My least favorite experience of the semester is probably being contacted yesterday (the day before grades were due) saying they really need an 'A' in order to keep their scholarship, and are praying they'll get one. I'm not sure whether this is most offensive from an academic, emotional, or theological perspective. Academically, the student in question never once spoke up in class, as far as I can recall, either to ask a question or to participate in a discussion. They never came to see me during office hours to ask about what they can do to improve their work or make as sure as possible that they will get an A. Emotionally, surely they are not unaware that writing to say you really need an A and so much depends on it and you are praying for it is an attempt at emotional blackmail. Theologically, if they really are praying, they are trying to change the past, and there are just so many problems with that...
Monday, December 17, 2007
All Roads Lead To Exploring Our Matrix
A lot of people have been finding their way here searching for information about the black screen after login problem on Windows Vista. I hope
Other popular search terms that have been leading people here over the past day or so include:
Other popular search terms that have been leading people here over the past day or so include:
indiana jones relevant archeologyMy favorite recent keyword search that brought someone here, however, is this gem:
dna research harappa
oh my gosh in hebrew
mousetrap tie clip
family tree great great great uncle
star wars christmas presents
andrian_mond@sify.com [an e-mail address connected with a scam]
email:kateuk2007@yahoo.com.hk [another e-mail address connected with a scam]
sterling who's who
madison whos who scam [I am glad the information I posted is useful]
bible what is the number 14 mean
jesus illegitimate child
don cupitt sucksOne more deserves mention. Someone came here searching for "arthur peacocke evolution book report" and "arthur peacocke evolution book report god and evolution". If you are a professor or teacher in the Netherlands and assigned a book report on this subject, you will want to check them against my blog for plagiarism...
What Matthew, Luke And Thomas Have In Common
The Gospels of Matthew, Luke and Thomas all share in common certain familiar parables. They also share the fact that each one supplements that core of common parables with others (presumably of their own creation, although some may also have been inherited from earlier sources, whether living, oral or written).
It had never occurred to me before to try a simple exercise, namely to compare the unique parables in each of these Gospels with the common core that they share in common, both stylistically and in terms of content, themes and vocabulary. Luke's unique parables are well known and quite distinctive in focusing on the marginalized (Samaritans, the poor, etc.) and in their story form with a challenging (and often surprising) ending. Matthew's parables tend to be allegorical, and there are also the stories of the Son of Man on his glorious throne, inspired by the Similitudes of Enoch.
Certainly there are unique elements in Thomas' special material. But is this material, on the whole, any less like the common core material that the special material in Matthew and Luke?
It had never occurred to me before to try a simple exercise, namely to compare the unique parables in each of these Gospels with the common core that they share in common, both stylistically and in terms of content, themes and vocabulary. Luke's unique parables are well known and quite distinctive in focusing on the marginalized (Samaritans, the poor, etc.) and in their story form with a challenging (and often surprising) ending. Matthew's parables tend to be allegorical, and there are also the stories of the Son of Man on his glorious throne, inspired by the Similitudes of Enoch.
Certainly there are unique elements in Thomas' special material. But is this material, on the whole, any less like the common core material that the special material in Matthew and Luke?
Congratulations! You Won A Lottery You Didn't Enter And Inherited Money From Someone You Didn't Know, All In One Day!
Really, how stupid do these spammers think people are? Would anyone send their personal information to someone who claims a dead guy in Nigeria left them money, or they won a UK lottery they didn't give their e-mail address to? Would anyone believe that the representative of the National Lottery in the UK has a Yahoo! e-mail address in Hong Kong?!
Here is the text of the two e-mails:
--
The National Lottery
P O Box 1010
Liverpool, L70 1NL
UNITED KINGDOM
(Customer Services)
Ref: UK/9420X/68
Batch: 074/05/ZY369
FINAL NOTIFICATION
We are pleased to inform you today that the 15 December 2007
about the result of the Winner of the UK NATIONAL LOTTERY ONLINE
PROMO PROGRAMME, lucky numbers: (12) (22) (25) (43) (46) (49) (10
bonus no.),
Visit the Online Website for your Result
http://www.lottery.co.uk/results/
All participants for the online version were selected randomly from
World Wide Web sites through computer draw system and extracted from
over 100,000 unions, associations, and corporate bodies that are listed
online. This promotion takes place weekly
You have therefore been approved to claim a total sum of £1,500,000
(One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pounds Sterling) in cash credited to
file KTU/9023118308/03. To file for your claim, please contact our
claims
agent;
Mr. Kate Moore
Email:kateuk2007@yahoo.com.hk
Provide her with the informations below:
1.Full Name:
2.Full Address:
3.Marital Status:
4.Occupation:
5.Age:
6.Sex:
7.Nationality:
8.Country Of Residence:
9.Telephone Number:
10. mode of claims... DELIVERY BY COURIER OR BANK TRANSFER
Good luck from me and members of staff of the UK NATIONAL LOTTERY.
Yours faithfully,
Richard K. Lloyd
Online coordinator for UK NATIONAL
LOTTERY,
Sweepstakes International Program.
________________________________________
From: The Manager,
Inter-Continental Bank Plc
Lagos-Nigeria
Dear Beneficiary,
This message might meet you in utmost surprise however it's just my
urgent need for a foreign partner that made me contact you for this
transaction. I got your contact during my search for a reliable, trust worthy
and honest person to introduce this transfer project with. My name is
Mr. John Blessed.I am the manager of Inter-Continental Bank Plc.
I seek your co-operation in transferring the left over funds US$9.5M of
one of my bank deceased client DR.Mark A Robert who died in the
charter plane which crashed in the Kenyan city of Sumburu along with his
family on 21st July, 2003. You can confirm the genuine of the deceased
death by clicking on this website:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/07/20/kenya.crash/index.html
I am inviting you for a business deal because as an officer of the
bank, I cannot be directly connected to this money thus I am impelled to
request for your assistance as a foreigner to receive this money into
your bank account. I intend to part 40% of this fund to you while 60%
shall be for me. I do need to stress that there are practically no risk
involved in this.
It is going to be a bank-to-bank transfer to your nominated bank
account anywhere you feel safer. All I need from you is to stand as the
original depositor of this fund.
Please acknowledge receipt of this message in acceptance of my mutual
business Endeavor by furnishing me with the following;
1. Your Full Names
2. Direct Telephone and Fax numbers.
3. Contact Address
Regards,
Mr.John Blessed
Phone Number:+234-802-846-4447
Email:john_blessed@netbg.com
And finally, no I do not have an Ortho Evra Birth Control patch lawsuit!!!
Here is the text of the two e-mails:
___________________________
--
The National Lottery
P O Box 1010
Liverpool, L70 1NL
UNITED KINGDOM
(Customer Services)
Ref: UK/9420X/68
Batch: 074/05/ZY369
FINAL NOTIFICATION
We are pleased to inform you today that the 15 December 2007
about the result of the Winner of the UK NATIONAL LOTTERY ONLINE
PROMO PROGRAMME, lucky numbers: (12) (22) (25) (43) (46) (49) (10
bonus no.),
Visit the Online Website for your Result
http://www.lottery.co.uk/results/
All participants for the online version were selected randomly from
World Wide Web sites through computer draw system and extracted from
over 100,000 unions, associations, and corporate bodies that are listed
online. This promotion takes place weekly
You have therefore been approved to claim a total sum of £1,500,000
(One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pounds Sterling) in cash credited to
file KTU/9023118308/03. To file for your claim, please contact our
claims
agent;
Mr. Kate Moore
Email:kateuk2007@yahoo.com.hk
Provide her with the informations below:
1.Full Name:
2.Full Address:
3.Marital Status:
4.Occupation:
5.Age:
6.Sex:
7.Nationality:
8.Country Of Residence:
9.Telephone Number:
10. mode of claims... DELIVERY BY COURIER OR BANK TRANSFER
Good luck from me and members of staff of the UK NATIONAL LOTTERY.
Yours faithfully,
Richard K. Lloyd
Online coordinator for UK NATIONAL
LOTTERY,
Sweepstakes International Program.
________________________________________
From: The Manager,
Inter-Continental Bank Plc
Lagos-Nigeria
Dear Beneficiary,
This message might meet you in utmost surprise however it's just my
urgent need for a foreign partner that made me contact you for this
transaction. I got your contact during my search for a reliable, trust worthy
and honest person to introduce this transfer project with. My name is
Mr. John Blessed.I am the manager of Inter-Continental Bank Plc.
I seek your co-operation in transferring the left over funds US$9.5M of
one of my bank deceased client DR.Mark A Robert who died in the
charter plane which crashed in the Kenyan city of Sumburu along with his
family on 21st July, 2003. You can confirm the genuine of the deceased
death by clicking on this website:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/07/20/kenya.crash/index.html
I am inviting you for a business deal because as an officer of the
bank, I cannot be directly connected to this money thus I am impelled to
request for your assistance as a foreigner to receive this money into
your bank account. I intend to part 40% of this fund to you while 60%
shall be for me. I do need to stress that there are practically no risk
involved in this.
It is going to be a bank-to-bank transfer to your nominated bank
account anywhere you feel safer. All I need from you is to stand as the
original depositor of this fund.
Please acknowledge receipt of this message in acceptance of my mutual
business Endeavor by furnishing me with the following;
1. Your Full Names
2. Direct Telephone and Fax numbers.
3. Contact Address
Regards,
Mr.John Blessed
Phone Number:+234-802-846-4447
Email:john_blessed@netbg.com
___________________________
And finally, no I do not have an Ortho Evra Birth Control patch lawsuit!!!
A Mathematician, A Computer Scientist And An Engineer Walk Into A Bar...I Mean, A Biology Classroom
The Uncommon Descent blog asks why so many skeptics of Darwinian evolution tend to be mathematicians, engineers and people qualified in similar fields. Finally, at least they are asking the right questions - at least implicitly, the question recognizes that biologists aren't skeptical, and that those who lead the antievolution campaigns aren't biologists.
The answer is simple: because they aren't biologists. All they need to do is study biology at university level. Young-earth creationists created their own schools because those who went to genuine university biology departments lost their young-earth convictions in the process.
In other words, the whole situation is those who don't understand a subject being skeptical of it but unwilling to get the education they would need to deal with the misunderstandings and incomplete knowledge that are at the heart of their skepticism.
I would challenge any young-earth creationist or cdesign proponentsists to actually go get a degree in biology (and for YECs, geology would perhaps be an even better choice). If, in the end, you have the same skepticism, I will give you a serious hearing. But to implicitly acknowledge that it is your lack of expertise in the relevant discipline that is at the heart of the matter, and to do nothing to rectify the situation, shows the real problem is one the Bible also addresses: you young-earth creationists and cdesign proponentsists are a stubborn, stiff-necked, hard-hearted people. The answer is staring you in the face, but you refuse to see it, because you are more interested in having what you already believe be the right answer, than finding the actual right answer.
The answer is simple: because they aren't biologists. All they need to do is study biology at university level. Young-earth creationists created their own schools because those who went to genuine university biology departments lost their young-earth convictions in the process.
In other words, the whole situation is those who don't understand a subject being skeptical of it but unwilling to get the education they would need to deal with the misunderstandings and incomplete knowledge that are at the heart of their skepticism.
I would challenge any young-earth creationist or cdesign proponentsists to actually go get a degree in biology (and for YECs, geology would perhaps be an even better choice). If, in the end, you have the same skepticism, I will give you a serious hearing. But to implicitly acknowledge that it is your lack of expertise in the relevant discipline that is at the heart of the matter, and to do nothing to rectify the situation, shows the real problem is one the Bible also addresses: you young-earth creationists and cdesign proponentsists are a stubborn, stiff-necked, hard-hearted people. The answer is staring you in the face, but you refuse to see it, because you are more interested in having what you already believe be the right answer, than finding the actual right answer.
This Is Only A Parody
DISCLAIMER: What follows is a parody. Any suspicion that what follows reflects actual events and the genuine involvement of the persons mentioned is misguided. None of the persons mentioned - Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, William Dembski, the Pope, FTK, cdesign proponentsists, flat earthers, penguins, camels, Barry Manilow and amoebas - has approved of this parody or any of the comments that it may generate.
I have no evidence that any real-life mathmematician actually calculated that there is no information in William Dembski's books, and that they thus can not have been intelligently designed. Nor do I have any evidence that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens kissed on stage during the Grammy awards, the International Freethinkers Book Award, or any other award ceremony. No actual penguins posted on discussion boards. No camels maintain blogs. The obediently-marching bedbugs are an allusion to the apocryphal Acts of John. No such bedbugs have actually been seen by any person living today, to my knowledge. The man-eating seals are an allusion to the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla. Any resemblance to any actual seals currently alive is entirely coincidental. The author of this parody does not intend to encourage any persons or animals to actually attempt to cross Niagara Falls, or any other body of water, ravine or other such space, on a tightrope, nor on any long piece of string, rope, yarn or other cord-like entity that might be mistaken for or misused as a tightrope. Any resemblance of any events recounted in this post to any events actual or imagined by other persons is entirely unintentional.
Now, for the parody...
Oh...never mind...
I have no evidence that any real-life mathmematician actually calculated that there is no information in William Dembski's books, and that they thus can not have been intelligently designed. Nor do I have any evidence that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens kissed on stage during the Grammy awards, the International Freethinkers Book Award, or any other award ceremony. No actual penguins posted on discussion boards. No camels maintain blogs. The obediently-marching bedbugs are an allusion to the apocryphal Acts of John. No such bedbugs have actually been seen by any person living today, to my knowledge. The man-eating seals are an allusion to the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla. Any resemblance to any actual seals currently alive is entirely coincidental. The author of this parody does not intend to encourage any persons or animals to actually attempt to cross Niagara Falls, or any other body of water, ravine or other such space, on a tightrope, nor on any long piece of string, rope, yarn or other cord-like entity that might be mistaken for or misused as a tightrope. Any resemblance of any events recounted in this post to any events actual or imagined by other persons is entirely unintentional.
Now, for the parody...
Oh...never mind...
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Tying The Score: Borders, Target and Atheist Books
I recently shared a picture under the title "Target 1, Atheism 0". A Target employee had managed to place a price sticker in such a way that the title of Christopher Hitchen's book became God is great (or more precisely God is [price sticker] great).
Target seems to have wanted to even things up. Below is a photo (shared by Pat McCullough) of the religion book section display at a Borders store.
Kind of evens things up.
Target seems to have wanted to even things up. Below is a photo (shared by Pat McCullough) of the religion book section display at a Borders store.
Kind of evens things up.
The Vista Black Screen After Login Mystery...Solved!
I have struggled for some time with a problem that I know has plagues other Windows Vista users too - after logging in, instead of going to the usual desktop, Vista would bring you to a black screen with Windows Explorer as the only thing visible. Many have discovered the work-around, which is to press CTRL+ALT+DELETE and run explorer as a new task. But this is not a solution to the problem.
I am happy to offer those struggling with this issue a genuine solution. It can presumably be accomplished by actually editing the Windows registry, but as I used a program that helps with startup problems, and since that is the best option for most users, I will describe that method here.
First, download the free Autoruns program, which is made by Sysinternals (a Microsoft-owned company). Thanks to Scott Dunn, whose article "Fast Windows Fixes" in the latest issue of PC World recommended this program.
Once you've downloaded and installed the program, right click on it and run it as an administrator.
Next, once the program is running, you will see a list of all the start-up functions in the registry and elsewhere. You will probably want to look for places where it says a file that the registry is supposed to load is not found, and either uncheck that entry or change the location to the one where the file is, if it still exists on your computer.
The key to solving the black screen is a file called lsass.sys. I found the problem initially because it was looking for that file in C:\Windows\Config\ instead of in C:\Windows\System32\ where it is actually located. But changing the location did not solve the problem (I mention my doing so simply because this was a step I took, and I have no way of telling whether it was significant in the resolution).
The final step I took that solved the problem was to uncheck the command to run lsass.sys at startup/login. Once I did this and then closed the program and restarted my computer, it worked properly.
I hope this is helpful - it is certainly a relief for me to finally have this issue sorted out. Now I'm struggling with another problem - when these other problems arose, another symptom was my printer no longer being recognized and functioning with the computer. Uninstalling and reinstalling the software/drivers that came with it doesn't help. Instead of installing the drivers, I get the bizarre message (stemming from rundll.exe and/or newdev.exe) that there is no program associated with this file! Any suggestions would be welcome.
Finally, there are things that can help Vista run faster on slower computers. Some are mentioned in the article in PC World I referred to earlier. But when trying one, namely SystemPropertiesProtection (type it in the 'search box' on the Start Menu), I discovered by accident that it is possible to switch off features such as icon shadows, animated drag-and-drop, and other features that have no value other than to make Windows "look cooler". If your computer is sluggish, switch off all these options and it will certainly help.
I am happy to offer those struggling with this issue a genuine solution. It can presumably be accomplished by actually editing the Windows registry, but as I used a program that helps with startup problems, and since that is the best option for most users, I will describe that method here.
First, download the free Autoruns program, which is made by Sysinternals (a Microsoft-owned company). Thanks to Scott Dunn, whose article "Fast Windows Fixes" in the latest issue of PC World recommended this program.
Once you've downloaded and installed the program, right click on it and run it as an administrator.
Next, once the program is running, you will see a list of all the start-up functions in the registry and elsewhere. You will probably want to look for places where it says a file that the registry is supposed to load is not found, and either uncheck that entry or change the location to the one where the file is, if it still exists on your computer.
The key to solving the black screen is a file called lsass.sys. I found the problem initially because it was looking for that file in C:\Windows\Config\ instead of in C:\Windows\System32\ where it is actually located. But changing the location did not solve the problem (I mention my doing so simply because this was a step I took, and I have no way of telling whether it was significant in the resolution).
The final step I took that solved the problem was to uncheck the command to run lsass.sys at startup/login. Once I did this and then closed the program and restarted my computer, it worked properly.
I hope this is helpful - it is certainly a relief for me to finally have this issue sorted out. Now I'm struggling with another problem - when these other problems arose, another symptom was my printer no longer being recognized and functioning with the computer. Uninstalling and reinstalling the software/drivers that came with it doesn't help. Instead of installing the drivers, I get the bizarre message (stemming from rundll.exe and/or newdev.exe) that there is no program associated with this file! Any suggestions would be welcome.
Finally, there are things that can help Vista run faster on slower computers. Some are mentioned in the article in PC World I referred to earlier. But when trying one, namely SystemPropertiesProtection (type it in the 'search box' on the Start Menu), I discovered by accident that it is possible to switch off features such as icon shadows, animated drag-and-drop, and other features that have no value other than to make Windows "look cooler". If your computer is sluggish, switch off all these options and it will certainly help.
Quote of the Day (Philip K. Dick)
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" (Philip K. Dick, "How to Build a Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later", 1978)
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Christianity's Core Curriculum
Those of us who teach at universities with professional majors but a strong Liberal Arts focus know something about how students view the 'core curriculum'. It is core in the sense that it is what everyone is supposed to take in common, alongside their courses for their majors. But rather than being viewed as 'core' in the usual sense, such courses are often despised as irrelevant, and at best regarded as tangential or peripheral to their majors.
If we think about the New Testament as Christianity's earliest "curriculum", I wonder what would be part of the "major" and what would be "tangential". In many forms of Christianity that are popular today, something rather unusual has happened. Not only has the whole focus come to be on some of the "fringe" texts of the New Testament, the less mainstream expressions of less common views, but everything else has been reinterpreted or ignored in light of that. It is as though a pharmacist were to approach all their chemistry and medicine courses as though they were literature classes, viewing them through the lens of a core English class and reinterpreting them as such. But assuming that the purpose of a core curriculum is to ensure breadth and diversity in education, rather than to turn a pharmacist into a philosopher, then we may ask whether the same is true of the teachings of the New Testament.
I mentioned one example in a recent post (in fact, it was in the comments section), the dominance of the language, imagery and interpretation of Jesus' death in Hebrews, so that all of the other metaphors for atonement are reduced to or constrained by this rather unusual author's distinctive perspective. Here are a few other examples of the same phenomenon:
What You Do Matters
Incarnation
Universality
In all these instances, there are forms of Christianity that allow a fringe voice in the Bible to drown out what the majority of texts are saying. The same is of course true when Christians focus on homosexuality and ignore issues of social justice. The question, ultimately, is whether what it means to be a Christian is determined by the majority's emphases or by those who speak the loudest, an issue that does not only relate to Biblical interpretation, but also to the fringe and extreme voices that are often perceived as speaking for Christianity today (even though such voices really do not deserve to be in the same category with Paul and John).
This post arose in connection with a response to a book that opposed the "Biblical Christ" to the "Jesusanity" of popular culture. In fact, the historical Jesus was perhaps first known in first-century Galilean popular culture, which we have no access to (I've recently begun reading Christian Origins: A People's History Of Christianity, Vol. 1
, edited by Richard Horsley, which includes some problematic statements, but nevertheless rightly points out that we cannot discover the view of the majority of Jews or Christians in the first century by reading the texts written by the literate elite). We have no way of knowing for sure whether the voices we hear in the literature of the New Testament do not co-opt Jesus to line up more with certain understandings of Jewish "orthodoxy" than he really did, just as later Gnostics made his teachings line up with their distinctive intellectual perspective. Jesus bypassed the cities and academies and addressed illiterate peasants. It is this fact that causes the historian such difficulty - Jesus did not focus on leaving a record for posterity that the literate could access. Christianity has presumably always been for most people something other than what theologians and intellectuals (whether "liberal" or "conservative" have said it should be). If any scholars are making an impact on popular culture - and certainly Bock and Wallace do that in popular conservative Evangelical culture as much as Borg and Crossan do in popular mainline and liberal Christian culture), both are probably examples of how different our own situation is today to that of the earliest Christians.
In conclusion, it seems our two main options are to focus on the historical Jesus as our key source, or to focus on the Church's teachings. To take the Church's Bible, with the canon determined by its reflection and use, and ultimately approved by its authoritative decisions, and treat that canon as authoritative but the church as not, is intrinsically incoherent. The pure "Biblical" option that Bock and Wallace offer simply isn't a real option, because the Bible did not drop down from heaven in a package (and when its separate parts were collected it was into a box labelled "some assembly required"). One can accept the Bible, and the traditions and authority of the Church that are responsible for its collection, and if one does so, I hope that this decision will not exclude the use of one's own rational faculties. Or one can take a primarily critical historical approach, and accept that ultimately it is us who decide what to emphasize in the Bible's diverse statements, and how to interpret and apply them.
If we think about the New Testament as Christianity's earliest "curriculum", I wonder what would be part of the "major" and what would be "tangential". In many forms of Christianity that are popular today, something rather unusual has happened. Not only has the whole focus come to be on some of the "fringe" texts of the New Testament, the less mainstream expressions of less common views, but everything else has been reinterpreted or ignored in light of that. It is as though a pharmacist were to approach all their chemistry and medicine courses as though they were literature classes, viewing them through the lens of a core English class and reinterpreting them as such. But assuming that the purpose of a core curriculum is to ensure breadth and diversity in education, rather than to turn a pharmacist into a philosopher, then we may ask whether the same is true of the teachings of the New Testament.
I mentioned one example in a recent post (in fact, it was in the comments section), the dominance of the language, imagery and interpretation of Jesus' death in Hebrews, so that all of the other metaphors for atonement are reduced to or constrained by this rather unusual author's distinctive perspective. Here are a few other examples of the same phenomenon:
What You Do Matters
The New Testament speaks almost with one voice that what one does matters, and that one will be held accountable for one's actions. In Revelation 20:12-13, judgment by works is clear. Matthew's parable of the sheep and the goats communicates the same message, as does the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount (radically reinterpreted in children's songs to refer to building one's life on the Lord Jesus Christ, rather than putting his teachings into practice). Even Jude's little postcard (vv14-16) gives the same impression - so it is there at the margins too, although who knows whether Jude represents a typical or atypical early Christian viewpoint?
At any rate, if Paul's message about salvation "apart from the works of the Law" is rightly understood by traditional Protestant lines of interpretation, then this still leaves Paul as one divergent voice on a subject on which there is otherwise general agreement. Of course, I think that there are other ways of interpreting Paul that can make better sense of what he wrote, and do justice to passages like Romans 2:6-16, where Paul seems to express agreement with the rest of the New Testament authors, saying in v6 that God "will give to each one according to what he has done" (which is in fact a quotation, showing that Paul and early Christians in general accepted this Jewish teaching expressed in places like Psalm 62:12 and Proverbs 24:12).
But if Paul is rightly understood in the Lutheran tradition, then that does not mean either that we should ignore his voice as marginal, nor allow it to completely dominate the discussion. The important thing to learn here is a principal that is much more widely applicable: make sure you don't mistake what the majority is saying, just because a minority is particularly vocal.
Paul, of course, is not alone, even if he is in the minority. The Gospel of John also has an unusual perspective on judgment. Probably in response to the "delay of the Parousia" (i.e. the fact that the "second coming" of Jesus did not occur as quickly as the earliest Christians had expected), the author of John brought many things that were expected at the end of history into the present. Rather than awaiting judgment and eternal life, these are made present realities, based on how one has responded to Jesus. Once again, we have a marginal viewpoint, in this case a reinterpretation of the earlier Christian viewpoint in light of new circumstances. But once we realize what the Gospel of John was doing in this instance, we need to ask whether the appropriate response is to allow John's reinterpretation to dominate, or to follow John's example by reinterpreting earlier traditions ourselves in light of all that has been learned and experienced by Christians in the intervening centuries.
Incarnation
There is no sense in which the incarnation can be viewed as a central teaching of the New Testament. If Paul uses the language of pre-existence at all, it is in passages that are poetic (and thus most likely metaphorical) in character. Philippians 2:6-11 and (if it is from Paul) Colossians 1:15-20. But it is noteworthy that Paul never speaks about Jesus in prose as though he pre-existed - indeed, he says things like the 'spiritual' Adam comes after the 'natural' (1 Corinthians 15:46). The language of Philippians 2 is most likely focused on comparing Jesus to Adam, and on Jesus being exalted to a status he did not have before, even to the point of being given the divine name.
The Gospel of John is unique among the Gospels in expressing such ideas, and is probably unique in the whole New Testament in applying such language to Jesus in a more literal fashion. In my book John's Apologetic Christology I explain some of the reasons I think the author made these developments, so I won't repeat those points here. In the present context, my point is that John is somewhat tangential (as he is on the subject of judgment). Here too, certain strands of Christianity take this marginal voice within the Bible as the Biblical voice.
In fact, the situation is even more complex. I recently responded to a book that contrasted "Jesusanity" with the "Biblical Christ". But the incarnational Christmas story as usually told is in fact a story of the "canonical Christ" that exists only in the combination of the Gospels, and is not in any one of them. The Gospel of John, taken on its own or with the Johannine Epistles, seems to depict the incarnation as occurring when Jesus was baptized. The reference in the prologue to the Baptist's activity before and after the incarnation (John 1:14), focuses on the Spirit descending on Jesus and remaining on him (John 1:33; Word and Spirit were not clearly distinguished in the Judaism of this period, or even in the earliest second century post-NT Christian writings), and the reference in 1 John 5:6 to Christ coming not only by water but also by blood (countering the view evidenced in other sources that the heavenly Christ came upon Jesus at his baptism but departed before the crucifixion).
It is only by lumping Matthew and Luke's focus on the infancy with John's incarnational emphasis that one ends up with the idea that the decisive moment in the incarnation was Jesus' birth. In other words, the Christmas story that will be told in the vast majority of Churches this year is not Biblical in the sense that it tells a story that is in the Bible, but canonical because it tells a story that is concocted by combining details that are in various parts of the New Testament to create a story different from that which any individual author tells.
Universality
The New Testament is pretty consistent in recognizing that those outside of the "chosen people" can often evidence more faith than the people of God. In addition to Paul's reference in Romans 2 to those Gentiles who do "by nature" what the Law requires, there is also the reference in John 1 to the Word as the Light that gives light to every human being, and Peter's acknowledgment that God "accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right" (Acts 10:35). And let's not forget Jesus' pronouncement that he had not found such faith in all Israel as he found evidenced by certain Gentiles, whom he praises and sends away without instructing them in the Jewish Law or giving them a tract with four things God wants them to know.
In all these instances, there are forms of Christianity that allow a fringe voice in the Bible to drown out what the majority of texts are saying. The same is of course true when Christians focus on homosexuality and ignore issues of social justice. The question, ultimately, is whether what it means to be a Christian is determined by the majority's emphases or by those who speak the loudest, an issue that does not only relate to Biblical interpretation, but also to the fringe and extreme voices that are often perceived as speaking for Christianity today (even though such voices really do not deserve to be in the same category with Paul and John).
This post arose in connection with a response to a book that opposed the "Biblical Christ" to the "Jesusanity" of popular culture. In fact, the historical Jesus was perhaps first known in first-century Galilean popular culture, which we have no access to (I've recently begun reading Christian Origins: A People's History Of Christianity, Vol. 1
, edited by Richard Horsley, which includes some problematic statements, but nevertheless rightly points out that we cannot discover the view of the majority of Jews or Christians in the first century by reading the texts written by the literate elite). We have no way of knowing for sure whether the voices we hear in the literature of the New Testament do not co-opt Jesus to line up more with certain understandings of Jewish "orthodoxy" than he really did, just as later Gnostics made his teachings line up with their distinctive intellectual perspective. Jesus bypassed the cities and academies and addressed illiterate peasants. It is this fact that causes the historian such difficulty - Jesus did not focus on leaving a record for posterity that the literate could access. Christianity has presumably always been for most people something other than what theologians and intellectuals (whether "liberal" or "conservative" have said it should be). If any scholars are making an impact on popular culture - and certainly Bock and Wallace do that in popular conservative Evangelical culture as much as Borg and Crossan do in popular mainline and liberal Christian culture), both are probably examples of how different our own situation is today to that of the earliest Christians.In conclusion, it seems our two main options are to focus on the historical Jesus as our key source, or to focus on the Church's teachings. To take the Church's Bible, with the canon determined by its reflection and use, and ultimately approved by its authoritative decisions, and treat that canon as authoritative but the church as not, is intrinsically incoherent. The pure "Biblical" option that Bock and Wallace offer simply isn't a real option, because the Bible did not drop down from heaven in a package (and when its separate parts were collected it was into a box labelled "some assembly required"). One can accept the Bible, and the traditions and authority of the Church that are responsible for its collection, and if one does so, I hope that this decision will not exclude the use of one's own rational faculties. Or one can take a primarily critical historical approach, and accept that ultimately it is us who decide what to emphasize in the Bible's diverse statements, and how to interpret and apply them.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Quote of the Day (Peter Kirk)
"My own tentative suggestion would be that sperm, perhaps Joseph’s, found its way into Mary’s womb by some unusual but scientifically explicable way" (Peter Kirk, in a comment on the Metacatholic blog).
The ongoing discussion there on the infancy narratives and the virgin birth are intelligent, in a way that my finding this statement amusing obviously is not...
Bank Phishing
Here's the latest banking scam spam to grace my inbox. I don't share stuff that my spam filter catches, only the ones that make it through. This one is supposedly from U.S. Bank. That was the first giveaway - I don't have an account with them. But even if you get an e-mail from a bank or company you know, never just click a link to go to them. Type in the address by hand. Or, at the very least, if you click, look to see if you've been taken to the site you want to go to. If it is something other than the bank's web site, or eBay's, or whoever's, then it is a fraud to get your information (commonly known as 'phishing'). In this case, another giveaway was that the e-mail address the message came from wasn't something@thecorrectaddress.com. If you get something claiming to be from eBay, for instance, and the address it was sent from isn't ________@ebay.com then you know something is wrong.
Play it safe. Don't believe any e-mail asking for your password, telling you you have a message, asking you to update your account, or anything of that sort.
Here's the text of the e-mail:
Internet Banking
We'd like to inform you that your Message Center has 1 new message.
Please login to your Internet Banking and visit the Message Center section in order to read the message.
Login to Internet Banking.
(The Message Center contains only important information about your account and online banking.)
Please do not reply to this e-mail. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered. To receive email notifications in plain text instead of HTML, update your preferences.
© 2007 U.S. Bancorp
Play it safe. Don't believe any e-mail asking for your password, telling you you have a message, asking you to update your account, or anything of that sort.
Here's the text of the e-mail:
_____________________________
Internet Banking
We'd like to inform you that your Message Center has 1 new message.
Please login to your Internet Banking and visit the Message Center section in order to read the message.
Login to Internet Banking.
(The Message Center contains only important information about your account and online banking.)
Please do not reply to this e-mail. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered. To receive email notifications in plain text instead of HTML, update your preferences.
© 2007 U.S. Bancorp
Target 1, Atheism 0
Standard sticker, in the standard place...but look what it did to the title of Christopher Hitchens' book!
HT Why Faith?
HT Why Faith?The Wittenburg Door
As someone who appreciates satire, and occasionally engages in it himself, I was delighted to discover a web site devoted to theological and religious satire, called The Wittenburg Door. I can't imagine that if you are reading this blog of your own free will (assuming you believe in that sort of thing), you will not enjoy paying The Wittenburg Door a visit.
The Worst Kind Of Creationist Is...
The worst kind of creationist is the Bible-believing, dinner-making, knife-wielding, drunk kind, as apparently they are liable to kill you.
HT Pharyngula
HT Pharyngula
What's Wrong With Penal Substitution?
For many people, the title of this post may be meaningless. "What is penal substitution?" would seem to them a better question. But if I explain that it is the idea that there is a penalty for sin, and God punished Jesus instead of us, they will immediately recognize it and say "That's what I believe!" So forgive the technical shorthand if it is unfamiliar to you.
I abandoned the penal substitutionary view of the atonement while I was an undergraduate student at an Evangelical Bible college in the UK, in spite of it being the view of the professor who taught Christian doctrines. I remember that I wrote an unsolicited essay for him, which I entitled "Salvation through Discipleship", about how the New Testament teaching lay elsewhere. I managed to persuade the professor, although (like Bock and Wallace in their interaction with Borg and Crossan) he asked why and whether this meant we ought to abandon this historic model of the atonement. Perhaps I interpreted some parts of Dethroning Jesus in light of this. I usually am a big supporter of finding middle ground, and so I suspect that, in addition to my concern that what was being found wasn't in fact the middle, I also may have been concerned that saying "We accept what you say, but we can keep what we already think alongside it" could lead to things remaining as they are, with no real creative rethinking of one's beliefs being necessary.
Much early Christian literature is focused on the cross. It is worth noting, however, that very little that Jesus says, and certainly little or nothing that can confidently be regarded as authentically going back to Jesus himself, focuses on the cross. This is easily explicable: the earliest Christians in the post-Easter were persuaded that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, and were persuaded that his death could not have been unforeseen but must have been foreordained. And so, beginning with Moses, they went back and made sense of what had happened with the help of Scripture. Probably even more helpful than "Moses" was 4 Maccabees 6, which presents a martyr praying "Be merciful to your people, and let our punishment suffice for them. Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange for theirs" (4 Macc. 6:28-29). Clearly there were ideas that existed in the Judaism of the time that helped make sense of the death of the righteous in terms of atonement.
Yet the New Testament does not use the language of punishment and exchange in the way 4 Maccabees (which was written after the early Christians had already interpreted the death of Jesus in atoning, sacrificial terms) does. Paul can talk about sacrifice (and discussing what sacrifice meant in the Judaism of this time would be a subject of its own), but he prefers to use the language of participation. One died for all, so that all died (2 Corinthians 5:14). This is not only different from substitution, it is the opposite of it. Jesus is here understood not to prevent our death but to bring it about! This fits neatly within his understanding of there being two ages, with Christ having died to one and entered the resurrection age, and with Christians through their connection to him having already died to the present age and thus made able to live free from its dominion.
It would be a very long post if I were to try to discuss all references to Jesus' death, the meaning of sacrifice, and all relevant topics, but if there is interest I will return to them. For those interested in the Letter to the Hebrews and the understanding of sacrifice in general, I strongly recommend Gordon Wenham's fantastic commentary on Leviticus
. It doesn't just make these seemingly obscure laws clear, it makes them interesting.
Let me conclude by noting what are perhaps the biggest problems with penal substitution. One is Biblical, the other is moral. First, the Bible regularly depicts God as forgiving people. If there is anything that God does consistently throughout the Bible, it is forgive. To suggest that God cannot forgive because, having said that sin would be punished, he has no choice but to punish someone, makes sense only if one has never read the penitential psalms, nor the story of Jonah. The penal substitution view of atonement takes the metaphor of sin as debt and literalizes it to the extent that one's actions are viewed in terms of accounting rather than relationship. It is not surprising this is popular: in our time, debts are impersonal and most people have them, and it is easier to think of slates being wiped clean and books being balanced than a need for reconciliation. But the latter is the core element if one thinks of God in personal terms. And for God to forgive, all that the Bible suggests that God has to do is forgive.
The moral issue with penal substitution is closely connected with the points just mentioned. Despite the popularity of this image, to depict God as a judge who lets a criminal go free because he has punished someone else in their place is to depict God as unjust.
The heart of the matter is that there is a stream of Christianity that soothes the conscience of Christians about the misdeeds they do by claiming that (1) God is the only one whose forgiveness matters, and (2) this forgiveness is already available and can wipe away your debt through a miracle of divine bookkeeping. All sense that anyone is harmed by what one does (whether God or other human beings), and that that is what matters, disappears from view entirely (cp. Job 35). Again, I can understand the popularity of this view. But it isn't popular because it is Biblical, neither is it popular because it is self-evidently true. It is popular because it makes people feel good about themselves in spite of their not following the challenging parts of the Bible that have to do with how we relate to others. I say this as someone who used to hold this view, and so my discussion of psychological motives for the popularity of this view, I am being first and foremost self-critical. Indeed, discovering that the Biblical view of sin and atonement is not that set forth in the penal substitutionary view was a key step in my ability to be self critical in precisely this way.
I abandoned the penal substitutionary view of the atonement while I was an undergraduate student at an Evangelical Bible college in the UK, in spite of it being the view of the professor who taught Christian doctrines. I remember that I wrote an unsolicited essay for him, which I entitled "Salvation through Discipleship", about how the New Testament teaching lay elsewhere. I managed to persuade the professor, although (like Bock and Wallace in their interaction with Borg and Crossan) he asked why and whether this meant we ought to abandon this historic model of the atonement. Perhaps I interpreted some parts of Dethroning Jesus in light of this. I usually am a big supporter of finding middle ground, and so I suspect that, in addition to my concern that what was being found wasn't in fact the middle, I also may have been concerned that saying "We accept what you say, but we can keep what we already think alongside it" could lead to things remaining as they are, with no real creative rethinking of one's beliefs being necessary.
Much early Christian literature is focused on the cross. It is worth noting, however, that very little that Jesus says, and certainly little or nothing that can confidently be regarded as authentically going back to Jesus himself, focuses on the cross. This is easily explicable: the earliest Christians in the post-Easter were persuaded that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, and were persuaded that his death could not have been unforeseen but must have been foreordained. And so, beginning with Moses, they went back and made sense of what had happened with the help of Scripture. Probably even more helpful than "Moses" was 4 Maccabees 6, which presents a martyr praying "Be merciful to your people, and let our punishment suffice for them. Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange for theirs" (4 Macc. 6:28-29). Clearly there were ideas that existed in the Judaism of the time that helped make sense of the death of the righteous in terms of atonement.
Yet the New Testament does not use the language of punishment and exchange in the way 4 Maccabees (which was written after the early Christians had already interpreted the death of Jesus in atoning, sacrificial terms) does. Paul can talk about sacrifice (and discussing what sacrifice meant in the Judaism of this time would be a subject of its own), but he prefers to use the language of participation. One died for all, so that all died (2 Corinthians 5:14). This is not only different from substitution, it is the opposite of it. Jesus is here understood not to prevent our death but to bring it about! This fits neatly within his understanding of there being two ages, with Christ having died to one and entered the resurrection age, and with Christians through their connection to him having already died to the present age and thus made able to live free from its dominion.
It would be a very long post if I were to try to discuss all references to Jesus' death, the meaning of sacrifice, and all relevant topics, but if there is interest I will return to them. For those interested in the Letter to the Hebrews and the understanding of sacrifice in general, I strongly recommend Gordon Wenham's fantastic commentary on Leviticus
. It doesn't just make these seemingly obscure laws clear, it makes them interesting.Let me conclude by noting what are perhaps the biggest problems with penal substitution. One is Biblical, the other is moral. First, the Bible regularly depicts God as forgiving people. If there is anything that God does consistently throughout the Bible, it is forgive. To suggest that God cannot forgive because, having said that sin would be punished, he has no choice but to punish someone, makes sense only if one has never read the penitential psalms, nor the story of Jonah. The penal substitution view of atonement takes the metaphor of sin as debt and literalizes it to the extent that one's actions are viewed in terms of accounting rather than relationship. It is not surprising this is popular: in our time, debts are impersonal and most people have them, and it is easier to think of slates being wiped clean and books being balanced than a need for reconciliation. But the latter is the core element if one thinks of God in personal terms. And for God to forgive, all that the Bible suggests that God has to do is forgive.
The moral issue with penal substitution is closely connected with the points just mentioned. Despite the popularity of this image, to depict God as a judge who lets a criminal go free because he has punished someone else in their place is to depict God as unjust.
The heart of the matter is that there is a stream of Christianity that soothes the conscience of Christians about the misdeeds they do by claiming that (1) God is the only one whose forgiveness matters, and (2) this forgiveness is already available and can wipe away your debt through a miracle of divine bookkeeping. All sense that anyone is harmed by what one does (whether God or other human beings), and that that is what matters, disappears from view entirely (cp. Job 35). Again, I can understand the popularity of this view. But it isn't popular because it is Biblical, neither is it popular because it is self-evidently true. It is popular because it makes people feel good about themselves in spite of their not following the challenging parts of the Bible that have to do with how we relate to others. I say this as someone who used to hold this view, and so my discussion of psychological motives for the popularity of this view, I am being first and foremost self-critical. Indeed, discovering that the Biblical view of sin and atonement is not that set forth in the penal substitutionary view was a key step in my ability to be self critical in precisely this way.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
More Science Fiction On Its Way To Becoming Science Fact
There has been so much exciting science news lately, and even just in everyday life I've encountered interesting new technology. At the new Central Library in Indianapolis the employees use Vocera, which is a short hop away from the badge-communicators that are standard Starfleet issue in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Kirk's communicator looks positively antiquated compared to today's cell phones; Sisko's badge will look lame in the not too distant future.
One exciting bit of news is that one of the extrasolar planets that has been discovered, one of two detected around Gliese 581, is the appropriate distance from its star to be potentially hospitable to life. This is not to say that there is even a strong chance it is habitable, much less inhabited. We have yet to observe a planet of this sort directly (apart from our own), and so there is simply no way to calculate the odds. But just knowing where such a planet is outside of our solar system is exciting.
There is also an ongoing series on the science of making a bionic woman. And here's a science blog entry about the Loch Ness Monster, shared mainly because the blog's owner is hoping the subject will draw more readers, and so I figure I can do my bit to help, and add Loch Ness Monster as a keyword hit to my own blog in the process!
Finally, even the Milky Way galaxy, our home, continues to surprise us.
One exciting bit of news is that one of the extrasolar planets that has been discovered, one of two detected around Gliese 581, is the appropriate distance from its star to be potentially hospitable to life. This is not to say that there is even a strong chance it is habitable, much less inhabited. We have yet to observe a planet of this sort directly (apart from our own), and so there is simply no way to calculate the odds. But just knowing where such a planet is outside of our solar system is exciting.
There is also an ongoing series on the science of making a bionic woman. And here's a science blog entry about the Loch Ness Monster, shared mainly because the blog's owner is hoping the subject will draw more readers, and so I figure I can do my bit to help, and add Loch Ness Monster as a keyword hit to my own blog in the process!
Finally, even the Milky Way galaxy, our home, continues to surprise us.
Poll Results: Mind Bloggling It Is!
Not long ago I posted a survey asking: Should something that is so baffling that you feel you must blog about it be called "mind blogging" or "mind bloggling"?
The results are in. "Mind blogging" received a mere 4 votes, while "mind bloggling" received 23. In other words, 85% of those who voted preferred "mind bloggling".
The will of the people has been expressed. The matter is settled. There is much going on out there right this instant that is mind bloggling. So do what must be done and blog about it!
The results are in. "Mind blogging" received a mere 4 votes, while "mind bloggling" received 23. In other words, 85% of those who voted preferred "mind bloggling".
The will of the people has been expressed. The matter is settled. There is much going on out there right this instant that is mind bloggling. So do what must be done and blog about it!
Award For Most Ridiculous Statement On An Exam
I've read some real gems over the years, but this is this year's best so far (and it is hard to imagine anyone could beat it):
"In 1941 an Italian expedition found the stone with Pointus Pilate engraved. Also found next to his name was the word that means Roman Empire. This find proves Pointus Pilate was a Roman Empire during the time suggested, just as said in the Bible".
I am at a loss for words...
"In 1941 an Italian expedition found the stone with Pointus Pilate engraved. Also found next to his name was the word that means Roman Empire. This find proves Pointus Pilate was a Roman Empire during the time suggested, just as said in the Bible".
I am at a loss for words...
Wabash Center Workshops
Anyone who teaches theology or religion and has never looked into the workshops and other resources and support that the Wabash Center has to offer are missing out. I benefitted immensely from the workshop I attended. In addition to the helpful opportunity to interact with other professors in similar and very different institutions, and to compare notes on our experiences and pedagogies, there was also an opportunity to apply for a follow-up grant for a separate research project. Take a look!
One-day workshops on teaching college introductory courses
http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/programs/article.aspx?id=12699
Pre-Tenure Workshop for faculty teaching in theological schools
http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/programs/article.aspx?id=9941
Pre-Tenure Workshop for faculty teaching undergraduates:
http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/programs/article.aspx?id=9942
Mid-Career Colloquy for faculty teaching undergraduates
http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/programs/article.aspx?id=10310
Online Course for theological school teaching online
http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/programs/article.aspx?id=12517
http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/programs/article.aspx?id=12699
Pre-Tenure Workshop for faculty teaching in theological schools
http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/programs/article.aspx?id=9941
Pre-Tenure Workshop for faculty teaching undergraduates:
http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/programs/article.aspx?id=9942
Mid-Career Colloquy for faculty teaching undergraduates
http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/programs/article.aspx?id=10310
Online Course for theological school teaching online
http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/programs/article.aspx?id=12517
Christians Who Hate and a Muslim Who Helps
For many Christians, being a Christian is about being right and everyone else being wrong. For such individuals, there is no actual understanding of what Christianity teaches, except on some vague level. Being a Christian is, for such people, not about living a certain way, or adhering to certain values that involve turning the other cheek.
Paul the apostle challenged those who considered themselves God's chosen ones and others automatically condemned because they are outsiders to think again. If he had lived today, he might have added a mention of an incident on a New York train, when Christians beat up a Jewish man and a Muslim came to his aid, in making his point in Romans 2:6-11.
In modern English "faith" is understood as believing certain things to be true, and thus being right (with the corollary that others are wrong). All of this leads to a gross misunderstanding of Paul's point about faith and works.
I don't know how to conclude this, except to say: Happy Hanukkah, and thank you Hassan Askari for being a "good Samaritan" (or more to the point, as Jesus might have actually said if he told the parable today, a good Muslim).
HT Pharyngula
Paul the apostle challenged those who considered themselves God's chosen ones and others automatically condemned because they are outsiders to think again. If he had lived today, he might have added a mention of an incident on a New York train, when Christians beat up a Jewish man and a Muslim came to his aid, in making his point in Romans 2:6-11.
In modern English "faith" is understood as believing certain things to be true, and thus being right (with the corollary that others are wrong). All of this leads to a gross misunderstanding of Paul's point about faith and works.
I don't know how to conclude this, except to say: Happy Hanukkah, and thank you Hassan Askari for being a "good Samaritan" (or more to the point, as Jesus might have actually said if he told the parable today, a good Muslim).
HT Pharyngula
Dethroning Jesusanity
I just finished reading the recent book Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture's Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ
by Darrell Bock and Daniel Wallace. My overall impression is that it makes some valid points, but because on the whole the book is dedicated to toeing the authors' understanding of the conservative theological party line, most of what could have been valuable in the book is thereby undermined. It is a book that arises out of seemingly unexamined, deep-rooted presuppositions, and will thus probably have little to say to those who don't share the authors' assumptions about how the questions should be approached.
A major problem with the book is that it lumps together the work of scholars like Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan with the Jesus tomb documentary and other such subjects, giving the impression that they are all dialogue partners of the same sort. Indeed, it is worse than that. Scholars and sensationalist filmmakers are lumped together under the subtitle's category of "popular culture" while Bock and Wallace are presumably allied with the other category, "the Biblical Christ". The problem with this distinction, which corresponds to their categories of "Jesusanity" vs. "Christianity", is that the latter is assumed to be the default position in much the way supernatural creation is by young-earth creationists. The authors seem to believe that, if they can pick enough holes in their opponents' arguments, then that demonstrates the validity of their own views. Although the authors make a fair point about there being more than two possible views (p.25), and seem willing to admit that their dialogue partners are right about many things, this certainly does not lead them to critically re-examine any significant component of the typical North American conservative Christian worldview. In other words, they at times offer valid criticisms of recent publications, but instead of offering a better, more critical examination of the subjects, they revert to their presuppositions. The book thus highlights problems, but offers no solutions.
The book starts off with a mythologized view of memory in ancient societies, a view fairly common among conservative Christians but not supported by recent research on oral cultures and oral tradition (pp.1-3). The authors then define Jesusanity as that which results from historical critical approaches to sources and historical skepticism in general (pp.4-5, 16-17), with particular "blame" being laid at the feet of universities (p.21). To be honest, such a description makes Jesusanity seem pretty appealing, since the alternative they offer is an uncritical acceptance of the Jesus in whom the early Christians placed their faith, the risen and exalted one, but without making an adequate attempt to assess how the "Christ of faith" relates to the Jesus of history, who is the focus of "Jesusanity".
Fair points are made about textual criticism, and much is done that is positive to challenge the impression that many people get from books like Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus
that we do not have a very good idea of what the originals of the New Testament documents looked like. It quotes the apologists' numbers of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts we have (p.51), but to be fair, it also quotes the relevant number - more than four dozen from within the first two centuries (p.50). The sheer number of manuscripts is of course irrelevant - if everyone who reads this blog makes an additional copy of a Greek manuscript, the number will go up, but not in a way that impacts the accuracy or inaccuracy of the text. But the truth is that we do have very early copies, and so while Ehrman's points about the uncertainties and problems are valid, they do not undermine our overall confidence that we have a good sense of what Paul wrote (to give one example).
The valid points are marred, however, by conservative assumptions about things like authorship. How can one have a fair discussion of the unity and diversity of earliest Christianity if one assumes that the definition given in 1 John is that of an eyewitness and member of the inner circle of apostles (p.82)? The authors seem to have a limited understanding of the nature of Gnosticism. On p.101 they write that "Jews and early Christians would not have been attracted to a creation story in which the God of Israel is a fourth-rate deity." But this is completely wrong. It was within the matrix of Judaism and/or Christianity that Gnosticism arose, or at the very least in dialogue with it. Unless one accepts the authority of Genesis in some real sense, Gnosticism cannot arise, since the Genesis account is taken as an accurate, literal account of creation - and that is precisely the problem, namely why a good God would behave in the ways depicted in the Jewish Scriptures, and create a material world that gives grief to those that inhabit it. Apart from a close connection to Judaism and/or Christianity, Gnosticism cannot appear. (This is a point that I hope to make in a separate post in relation to Lupieri's book The Mandaeans
).
The discussion of the material in the Gospel of Thomas is marred by a focus only on the date of written documents, with no allowance for the possibility that relatively late texts may reflect independent knowledge of authentic early forms of sayings and stories (pp.114-115). The authors express their bewilderment at why Thomas is valued more highly than John by scholars interested in the historical figure of Jesus (p.119). Yet the answer is simple: the parables and aphorisms of Thomas resemble the authentic sayings of Jesus in a way John's monologues in the unique Johannine style do not. In general it is the form of sayings found in Thomas, but are also known from the Synoptics as well, that some scholars are inclined to regard as authentic, and not (with one exception) the content unique to Thomas. This is precisely because form critical investigations had already led scholars to posit such forms as the likely more original ones even before the Gospel of Thomas was found. Nevertheless, Bock and Wallace are fair to speak of Thomas' "wax nose" (p.130) and suggest that one reason for the popularity of Thomas is its flexibility. It is easier to find there what one is looking for. Unless one is a conservative Christian, of course - then what one is looking for is more easily found in the canonical Gospels (read through the appropriate framework and with the appropriate presuppositions), so it is not surprising that most in the latter category prefer to look there.
The most baffling statement in the book is that "the Gospels intentionally subject themselves to historical inquiry" (p.128). I've never seen books subject themselves to anything. This rather silly statement is connected with Paul's reference to 500 who saw Jesus alive (1 Corinthians 15:6), which is of course a very weak hearsay argument. I've heard that large numbers of people, including at least some still alive today, all saw the Virgin Mary, or (in another instance) a UFO, but if I pass on that story to you now, it has no evidentiary weight. It is hearsay, which I got from others. I was neither one of the witnesses, nor did I speak directly to any of them. In Paul's case, we have no idea whether Paul spoke directly to one of those 500 or not. The authors are engaging in apologetics when they quote such passages, and not what historians regard as historical inquiry.
I will try on some other occasion to discuss the substitutionary idea of atonement. It is not there in the Bible, yet in typical fashion Bock and Wallace manage to read it into just about every place they look. I'll just point readers to 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, where Paul says not that one died for all, because all should have died, but Christ took our place, dying instead of us; but rather Paul says that one died for all, and therefore all died. I'll talk on another occasion about what this does mean, but it is clearly not penal substitution, the most popular understanding of the atonement among conservative Evangelicals.
The authors show that, at the end of the book, they have altogether missed the point that authors like Borg and Crossan have made about stories as parables. They argue that Thomas would not be persuaded by a parable or story, but only by an actual historical encounter with the risen Jesus (p.165). Can you see what is in their blind spot? They are assuming that this story is a factual historical account! Yet that is the very issue, and they fail to address it adequately. Their statement that visions and spiritual experiences could not account for the "sure hope" of the early disciples after Easter just shows that they must not themselves have had such experiences. Those of us who have know their power to transform our lives - just as those of us who have reflected critically about them know that they cannot be used to circumvent the need for evidence in addressing historical questions.
The conclusion of the book shows clearly the authors' aim: they want the exalted Jesus of early Christian sources, without the troubling matters, doubts and uncertainties connected with historical investigation. In short, if you don't care about whether the Jesus you worship has anything to do with the actual historical figure Jesus of Nazareth (one of the twenty or so significant individuals named Jesus who lived in this period - p.203), then there is nothing stopping you from following Bock and Wallace's understanding of Christianity. On the other hand, if you find you cannot set aside historical questions, then perhaps Jesusanity is more appealing than these authors suggest. But it is not just historical study that raises questions about Bock and Wallace's views. The Bible itself does not fit neatly into the uniform vision of early Christianity they offer. And that being the case, the reader is left with the impression that Bock and Wallace have no anchor for their beliefs other than their own conservative Evangelical presuppositions and worldview, since their views are not connected in any fundamental either to the historical Jesus or to the New Testament in all its intriguing diversity.
by Darrell Bock and Daniel Wallace. My overall impression is that it makes some valid points, but because on the whole the book is dedicated to toeing the authors' understanding of the conservative theological party line, most of what could have been valuable in the book is thereby undermined. It is a book that arises out of seemingly unexamined, deep-rooted presuppositions, and will thus probably have little to say to those who don't share the authors' assumptions about how the questions should be approached.The book starts off with a mythologized view of memory in ancient societies, a view fairly common among conservative Christians but not supported by recent research on oral cultures and oral tradition (pp.1-3). The authors then define Jesusanity as that which results from historical critical approaches to sources and historical skepticism in general (pp.4-5, 16-17), with particular "blame" being laid at the feet of universities (p.21). To be honest, such a description makes Jesusanity seem pretty appealing, since the alternative they offer is an uncritical acceptance of the Jesus in whom the early Christians placed their faith, the risen and exalted one, but without making an adequate attempt to assess how the "Christ of faith" relates to the Jesus of history, who is the focus of "Jesusanity".
Fair points are made about textual criticism, and much is done that is positive to challenge the impression that many people get from books like Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus
that we do not have a very good idea of what the originals of the New Testament documents looked like. It quotes the apologists' numbers of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts we have (p.51), but to be fair, it also quotes the relevant number - more than four dozen from within the first two centuries (p.50). The sheer number of manuscripts is of course irrelevant - if everyone who reads this blog makes an additional copy of a Greek manuscript, the number will go up, but not in a way that impacts the accuracy or inaccuracy of the text. But the truth is that we do have very early copies, and so while Ehrman's points about the uncertainties and problems are valid, they do not undermine our overall confidence that we have a good sense of what Paul wrote (to give one example).The valid points are marred, however, by conservative assumptions about things like authorship. How can one have a fair discussion of the unity and diversity of earliest Christianity if one assumes that the definition given in 1 John is that of an eyewitness and member of the inner circle of apostles (p.82)? The authors seem to have a limited understanding of the nature of Gnosticism. On p.101 they write that "Jews and early Christians would not have been attracted to a creation story in which the God of Israel is a fourth-rate deity." But this is completely wrong. It was within the matrix of Judaism and/or Christianity that Gnosticism arose, or at the very least in dialogue with it. Unless one accepts the authority of Genesis in some real sense, Gnosticism cannot arise, since the Genesis account is taken as an accurate, literal account of creation - and that is precisely the problem, namely why a good God would behave in the ways depicted in the Jewish Scriptures, and create a material world that gives grief to those that inhabit it. Apart from a close connection to Judaism and/or Christianity, Gnosticism cannot appear. (This is a point that I hope to make in a separate post in relation to Lupieri's book The Mandaeans
).The discussion of the material in the Gospel of Thomas is marred by a focus only on the date of written documents, with no allowance for the possibility that relatively late texts may reflect independent knowledge of authentic early forms of sayings and stories (pp.114-115). The authors express their bewilderment at why Thomas is valued more highly than John by scholars interested in the historical figure of Jesus (p.119). Yet the answer is simple: the parables and aphorisms of Thomas resemble the authentic sayings of Jesus in a way John's monologues in the unique Johannine style do not. In general it is the form of sayings found in Thomas, but are also known from the Synoptics as well, that some scholars are inclined to regard as authentic, and not (with one exception) the content unique to Thomas. This is precisely because form critical investigations had already led scholars to posit such forms as the likely more original ones even before the Gospel of Thomas was found. Nevertheless, Bock and Wallace are fair to speak of Thomas' "wax nose" (p.130) and suggest that one reason for the popularity of Thomas is its flexibility. It is easier to find there what one is looking for. Unless one is a conservative Christian, of course - then what one is looking for is more easily found in the canonical Gospels (read through the appropriate framework and with the appropriate presuppositions), so it is not surprising that most in the latter category prefer to look there.
The most baffling statement in the book is that "the Gospels intentionally subject themselves to historical inquiry" (p.128). I've never seen books subject themselves to anything. This rather silly statement is connected with Paul's reference to 500 who saw Jesus alive (1 Corinthians 15:6), which is of course a very weak hearsay argument. I've heard that large numbers of people, including at least some still alive today, all saw the Virgin Mary, or (in another instance) a UFO, but if I pass on that story to you now, it has no evidentiary weight. It is hearsay, which I got from others. I was neither one of the witnesses, nor did I speak directly to any of them. In Paul's case, we have no idea whether Paul spoke directly to one of those 500 or not. The authors are engaging in apologetics when they quote such passages, and not what historians regard as historical inquiry.
I will try on some other occasion to discuss the substitutionary idea of atonement. It is not there in the Bible, yet in typical fashion Bock and Wallace manage to read it into just about every place they look. I'll just point readers to 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, where Paul says not that one died for all, because all should have died, but Christ took our place, dying instead of us; but rather Paul says that one died for all, and therefore all died. I'll talk on another occasion about what this does mean, but it is clearly not penal substitution, the most popular understanding of the atonement among conservative Evangelicals.
The authors show that, at the end of the book, they have altogether missed the point that authors like Borg and Crossan have made about stories as parables. They argue that Thomas would not be persuaded by a parable or story, but only by an actual historical encounter with the risen Jesus (p.165). Can you see what is in their blind spot? They are assuming that this story is a factual historical account! Yet that is the very issue, and they fail to address it adequately. Their statement that visions and spiritual experiences could not account for the "sure hope" of the early disciples after Easter just shows that they must not themselves have had such experiences. Those of us who have know their power to transform our lives - just as those of us who have reflected critically about them know that they cannot be used to circumvent the need for evidence in addressing historical questions.
The conclusion of the book shows clearly the authors' aim: they want the exalted Jesus of early Christian sources, without the troubling matters, doubts and uncertainties connected with historical investigation. In short, if you don't care about whether the Jesus you worship has anything to do with the actual historical figure Jesus of Nazareth (one of the twenty or so significant individuals named Jesus who lived in this period - p.203), then there is nothing stopping you from following Bock and Wallace's understanding of Christianity. On the other hand, if you find you cannot set aside historical questions, then perhaps Jesusanity is more appealing than these authors suggest. But it is not just historical study that raises questions about Bock and Wallace's views. The Bible itself does not fit neatly into the uniform vision of early Christianity they offer. And that being the case, the reader is left with the impression that Bock and Wallace have no anchor for their beliefs other than their own conservative Evangelical presuppositions and worldview, since their views are not connected in any fundamental either to the historical Jesus or to the New Testament in all its intriguing diversity.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Quote of the Day (Stephen Moshier)
“Many of us at Christian colleges really grieve at what a problem this young-earth creationism makes for the Christian witness. It’s almost like they’re adding another thing you have to believe to become a Christian. It’s like saying, You have to believe the world is flat to be a Christian, and that’s absolutely unreasonable” (Stephen Moshier, Chair of the Department of Geology at Wheaton College; quoted in a Christianity Today blog entry the title of which says it all: "Young Earth Creationism Makes Life Difficult For Everyone").
LOST Teaser: Oh My Gosh, Charlie Is In It!
OK, so I'm enough of a fan that I waited for the LOST trailer to load even over dial-up. It is worth seeing, even though (like most clips of this sort) it is quick snippets going by very fast.
The most interesting shot? Charlie. He's dead, but the dead have returned on the island before. In fact, I remember the actor who plays him saying it would be cool to have him come back in Obi-Wan Charlie form.
Which leads naturally to a mention of the post on the Possibly Irritating Essays blog about Jesus as Jedi Master...
When LOST returns, we may not get that many episodes. Also check out the "mobisodes" if you haven't done so yet.
The most interesting shot? Charlie. He's dead, but the dead have returned on the island before. In fact, I remember the actor who plays him saying it would be cool to have him come back in Obi-Wan Charlie form.
Which leads naturally to a mention of the post on the Possibly Irritating Essays blog about Jesus as Jedi Master...
When LOST returns, we may not get that many episodes. Also check out the "mobisodes" if you haven't done so yet.
O Little Town Of Nazareth
Biblical Archaeology has offered two perspectives on a discussion that is also gaining momentum in the blogosphere. Michael Halcomb and Metacatholic are exchanging posts, and of course I have shared some thoughts on the subject in the past. In this particular exchange, I have to side with those who are against forcing a harmonization of the two stories - although I am not for that reason in favor of cancelling your Christmas pageant. The combined story is no more and no less historical than the incompatible separate versions in Matthew and Luke, and all three are to be appreciated for their historical, cultural, theological and mythical value.
As for the place of Jesus' birth historically speaking, I'd have to go with Nazareth, since the name "Jesus of Nazareth" points so decisively in that direction, and it is hard to make a case for Bethlehem on the basis of two relatively late and incompatible narratives. Presumably if I were in Britain I'd be part of that group of one in ten deemed to have got the question wrong on a recent survey...
In other news, there is apparently a new LOST trailer available. I haven't seen it yet (since I'm typing this on a computer with a dial-up connection), but it is bound to be good, and undoubtably of interest!
As for the place of Jesus' birth historically speaking, I'd have to go with Nazareth, since the name "Jesus of Nazareth" points so decisively in that direction, and it is hard to make a case for Bethlehem on the basis of two relatively late and incompatible narratives. Presumably if I were in Britain I'd be part of that group of one in ten deemed to have got the question wrong on a recent survey...
In other news, there is apparently a new LOST trailer available. I haven't seen it yet (since I'm typing this on a computer with a dial-up connection), but it is bound to be good, and undoubtably of interest!
Kid Nation
Tonight the last episode of Kid Nation aired. The show will be missed, although this is not to suggest that children should have been or should be kept away from their families for longer periods of time, for our entertainment. But the show didn't just invent a new reality TV gimmick. It gave a group of kids an educational experience, and in doing so also gave the rest of us a basis for hope for the future.
I admit that I started out as a Kid Nation skeptic. The initial commercial was horrifying - take a bunch of kids and leave them on their own to see how they cope. Well gosh, doesn't that sound like a good idea?!?! But as should have been obvious, for the kids to be filmed, there would have to be grown ups there. This is not to suggest, however, that their being left to cope for themselves was an illusion. The kids were left to make their own decisions, and live with consequences of their actions, in a way that perhaps happens too rarely in real life, where the parental instinct is to shelter and supervise.
The kids on the show made their parents proud of them, and made each other proud. Thank you, CBS, for giving us hope for the future. Parents everywhere look forward to the future with great expectations knowing our kids share a world with the kids of Bonanza City.
Kid Nation
I admit that I started out as a Kid Nation skeptic. The initial commercial was horrifying - take a bunch of kids and leave them on their own to see how they cope. Well gosh, doesn't that sound like a good idea?!?! But as should have been obvious, for the kids to be filmed, there would have to be grown ups there. This is not to suggest, however, that their being left to cope for themselves was an illusion. The kids were left to make their own decisions, and live with consequences of their actions, in a way that perhaps happens too rarely in real life, where the parental instinct is to shelter and supervise.
The kids on the show made their parents proud of them, and made each other proud. Thank you, CBS, for giving us hope for the future. Parents everywhere look forward to the future with great expectations knowing our kids share a world with the kids of Bonanza City.
Kid Nation
Scam E-Mail From Barrister Daniel Sampah
Just as I was posting the last entry, I received another one! This one starts 'Dear Friend' (what lawyer contacting someone about an inheritance would start a letter that way?) and reassures you that it isn't a scam. But of course, it is. The details of the scam e-mail follow:
______________________________________
Dear Friend,
This message might meet you in utmost surprise, First of all I want you to Know that this is not a scam mail.Because based on what is going on all over the internet world, people find it very difficult to believe things like this any more.If you can guarantee me from your own side, your trust,honestly I will be able to work with you.I will appreciate if you can come down your self and see things for your self before we proceed and this will make things clearer for you.
But Why I 'm sending you this letter, I think if that situation has a place in internet, maybe one out of 1000 has a real fund for transaction.
I, am Barrister Daniel Sampah, a personal lawyer to one late Mr.Ruth Fred Leo An American oil Contractor with the Ivoirien Solid Minerals Corporation, here in Abidjan Ivory Coast who died in an auto Crash in september 2006. later Mr. Ruth Fred leo before his untimely death, made some deposit of funds with a Finance firm here and did not declare any information of any of his relatives to the said fund deposit at the time of deposit.
Where you come in is that I needed your good collaboration to pull out these funds to overseas for investments because, he left with me the deposit information and no body could come around to lay claim if not I and a foriegner in good collaboration since he did not leave any information of any of his relatives.
I will apprecaite if you can send me the following,
1.Your Full Names.
2.Your current Mobile telephone and fax numbers.
3.Your age.
4.Occupation.
5.Your Current address.
6.company name
Kindly get back to me inorder to bring you to the detail arrangement to move out the funds accross to your destination.
Kind Regards,
Barrister Daniel Sampah
(legal Practitioners and Advocates
______________________________________
Dear Friend,
This message might meet you in utmost surprise, First of all I want you to Know that this is not a scam mail.Because based on what is going on all over the internet world, people find it very difficult to believe things like this any more.If you can guarantee me from your own side, your trust,honestly I will be able to work with you.I will appreciate if you can come down your self and see things for your self before we proceed and this will make things clearer for you.
But Why I 'm sending you this letter, I think if that situation has a place in internet, maybe one out of 1000 has a real fund for transaction.
I, am Barrister Daniel Sampah, a personal lawyer to one late Mr.Ruth Fred Leo An American oil Contractor with the Ivoirien Solid Minerals Corporation, here in Abidjan Ivory Coast who died in an auto Crash in september 2006. later Mr. Ruth Fred leo before his untimely death, made some deposit of funds with a Finance firm here and did not declare any information of any of his relatives to the said fund deposit at the time of deposit.
Where you come in is that I needed your good collaboration to pull out these funds to overseas for investments because, he left with me the deposit information and no body could come around to lay claim if not I and a foriegner in good collaboration since he did not leave any information of any of his relatives.
I will apprecaite if you can send me the following,
1.Your Full Names.
2.Your current Mobile telephone and fax numbers.
3.Your age.
4.Occupation.
5.Your Current address.
6.company name
Kindly get back to me inorder to bring you to the detail arrangement to move out the funds accross to your destination.
Kind Regards,
Barrister Daniel Sampah
(legal Practitioners and Advocates
Thai Lottery Scam Spam
It seems like more spam is making it past the spam filters recently than usual. Here's another scam - as though in Thailand they would have a lottery that gives money away to people who have never been there, never mind having bought a ticket. And the lottery exec, as always, has a free Yahoo! e-mail address. Sheesh! Beware, all you gullible people out there!
Anyway, here's the text of this particular bit of scam spam:
___________________________
THAI INTERNATIONAL LOTTERY ORGANIZATION
CONGRATULATIONS!
Thailand International Lottery Organization
Bangkok Branch Office
Address: 3 Rajdamnern Avenue
Bangkok 10200 Thailand
Congratulations from our members of staff. We are THAILAND LOTTERY
AGENCY, You don't have to purchase a ticket to enter this lottery, your
email indicating you as a winner in the lottery programs held by the Thai
Lottery Organization.
Following official publication results of the Email electronic on line
Sweepstakes organized by the Thai lottery corporation, the Slide
circular award and in conjunction with the foundation for the promotion of
software products, (F.P.S.) held on the 1st of November 2007, in Bangkok
Thailand.
All 25 winning email addresses were randomly selected from a batch of
50,000,000 international emails each from Canada, Australia, United
States, Asia, Europe, Middle East, Africa and Oceania as part of our
international promotions program which is conducted annually, consequently,
you have been approved for a total pay out of ONE MILLION UNITED STATE
DOLLARS ( $1, 000. 000.000 USD).
This Lottery was promoted and sponsored by a conglomerate of some
multinational companies as part of their social responsibility to the
citizens in the communities where they have operational base. Further more
your details(e-mail address) falls within our Bangkok representative
office in Bangkok Thailand, as indicated in your play coupon and your
prize of ( $1, 000.000.00 USD) will be released to you from this regional
branch office in bangkok Thailand.
Your fund is now deposited with our Bank/Security Company Bangkok
Thailand and insured in your name. Due to mix up of some numbers and names,
we ask that you keep this award from public notice until your claim has
been processed, and your winning Cheque have being sent to you or
remitted to your account, as this is part of our security protocol, to
avoid double claiming and unwarranted taking of advantage of this program
by participants, as has happened in the past.
HOW TO CLAIM YOUR PRIZE
These are your identification numbers.
Ticket number.....................085-12876077-09
Serial number.......................51390-0
Lucky number...................03-05-12-14-28-38
Ref number...................N.EGS/3662367114/13
To begin your lottery claims, Please contact our Thai Lottery
Co-ordinator as follows Mr. Kane Iva.
Name:Mr. Kane Iva
Email:mr_kaneiva11@yahoo.com
Tel: +(66)853516124
You are to send the completed verification form below to the
co-ordinator whose email address is given above so that you will be advised on
what to do to get your prize money. Congratulations once more!!
1. FULL NAME..........................................
2. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN........................
3. PRESENT ADRESS...............................
4.DATE OF BIRTH................
5. OCCUPATION.......................................
6. TELEPHONE NUMBER......................
6. FAX NUMBER .....................................
7. MARITAL STATUS..............................
8. WINNING NUMBERS.........................
9. YOUR PRIVATE EMAIL ADDRESS..
Remember, all prize money must be claimed not later than 30th of
December 2007. Any claim not made by this date will be returned to HIS
MAJESTYS DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY.
CONGRATULATIONS!!!! Once again from all members of our staff and thank
you for being a part of our International Promotions program.
We wish you continued good fortunes.
Yours Sincerely,
DR. Raymond Hisashi
Vice President
Thai! Lotto Org.
Mrs. Tina Akira,
President
Thai! Lotto Org.
Anyway, here's the text of this particular bit of scam spam:
___________________________
THAI INTERNATIONAL LOTTERY ORGANIZATION
CONGRATULATIONS!
Thailand International Lottery Organization
Bangkok Branch Office
Address: 3 Rajdamnern Avenue
Bangkok 10200 Thailand
Congratulations from our members of staff. We are THAILAND LOTTERY
AGENCY, You don't have to purchase a ticket to enter this lottery, your
email indicating you as a winner in the lottery programs held by the Thai
Lottery Organization.
Following official publication results of the Email electronic on line
Sweepstakes organized by the Thai lottery corporation, the Slide
circular award and in conjunction with the foundation for the promotion of
software products, (F.P.S.) held on the 1st of November 2007, in Bangkok
Thailand.
All 25 winning email addresses were randomly selected from a batch of
50,000,000 international emails each from Canada, Australia, United
States, Asia, Europe, Middle East, Africa and Oceania as part of our
international promotions program which is conducted annually, consequently,
you have been approved for a total pay out of ONE MILLION UNITED STATE
DOLLARS ( $1, 000. 000.000 USD).
This Lottery was promoted and sponsored by a conglomerate of some
multinational companies as part of their social responsibility to the
citizens in the communities where they have operational base. Further more
your details(e-mail address) falls within our Bangkok representative
office in Bangkok Thailand, as indicated in your play coupon and your
prize of ( $1, 000.000.00 USD) will be released to you from this regional
branch office in bangkok Thailand.
Your fund is now deposited with our Bank/Security Company Bangkok
Thailand and insured in your name. Due to mix up of some numbers and names,
we ask that you keep this award from public notice until your claim has
been processed, and your winning Cheque have being sent to you or
remitted to your account, as this is part of our security protocol, to
avoid double claiming and unwarranted taking of advantage of this program
by participants, as has happened in the past.
HOW TO CLAIM YOUR PRIZE
These are your identification numbers.
Ticket number.....................085-12876077-09
Serial number.......................51390-0
Lucky number...................03-05-12-14-28-38
Ref number...................N.EGS/3662367114/13
To begin your lottery claims, Please contact our Thai Lottery
Co-ordinator as follows Mr. Kane Iva.
Name:Mr. Kane Iva
Email:mr_kaneiva11@yahoo.com
Tel: +(66)853516124
You are to send the completed verification form below to the
co-ordinator whose email address is given above so that you will be advised on
what to do to get your prize money. Congratulations once more!!
1. FULL NAME..........................................
2. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN........................
3. PRESENT ADRESS...............................
4.DATE OF BIRTH................
5. OCCUPATION.......................................
6. TELEPHONE NUMBER......................
6. FAX NUMBER .....................................
7. MARITAL STATUS..............................
8. WINNING NUMBERS.........................
9. YOUR PRIVATE EMAIL ADDRESS..
Remember, all prize money must be claimed not later than 30th of
December 2007. Any claim not made by this date will be returned to HIS
MAJESTYS DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY.
CONGRATULATIONS!!!! Once again from all members of our staff and thank
you for being a part of our International Promotions program.
We wish you continued good fortunes.
Yours Sincerely,
DR. Raymond Hisashi
Vice President
Thai! Lotto Org.
Mrs. Tina Akira,
President
Thai! Lotto Org.
Quote Of the Day (Arthur Peacocke)
“Theology has been most creative and longlasting when it has responded most positively to the challenges of its times” (Peacocke, Theology for a Scientific Age: Being and Becoming: Natural. Divine and Human (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993) p. 7, quoted here)
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Best Available Knowledge
Would it be fair to say that the Bible, at the time it was written, based its statements about the cosmos, anthropology and other subjects on the best available knowledge? I cannot think of an instance where a Biblical author advocates a particular view of "scientific" question over against others. For instance, when Paul assumes the heart is the locus of thought and will, he doesn't tell people to not get misled by the 'headists', even though there were debates in that time about the subject.
There is a lot that Christians can learn from the Biblical authors' approach today - if we pay attention to what they were doing in relation to their context and historical setting, rather than merely focusing on what they wrote.
There is a lot that Christians can learn from the Biblical authors' approach today - if we pay attention to what they were doing in relation to their context and historical setting, rather than merely focusing on what they wrote.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Literal Days vs. 24-Hour Days, and Adam vs. Christ
In a comment Geocreationist left on an earlier post of mine about 'literal days', he helpfully points out that literal days do not, as a rule, have precisely 24 hours in them. Sunrise and sunset (the basis for reckoning days in the ancient world, including in Genesis 1, where it has "evening and morning") vary over the course of the year. The idea of a "literal 24-hour day" depends on that relatively recent invention, the clock. So the next time someone tells you they believe Genesis meant "literal 24-hour days", you should ask them "Which do you believe in, literal days or 24 hour days?"
Another comment from Jeff on the same post asked about the consequences for other Christian doctrines of accepting evolution. I have been wanting for a while to start working on a book on the "But what about...?" passages. Evolution is not, for many Christians, simply about the creation stories, but those stories in turn are intertwined with various other parts of the Bible.
If I can find the time to write the book, it will not simply focus on the ways in which the creation stories are symbolic and analyse human existence in general, rather than the specific experience of two human ancestors and them alone, although it will start with that. Not only is the story in Genesis 2-3 about a character named Human or Man (not 'Adam' as though that were his name) and his wife, but many things that are said make sense only if taken symbolically. For instance, if the point of husband and wife becoming one flesh was really a literal creation from the man's rib, then this story would make all husbands and wives utterly unlike Adam and Eve, and thus undermine its own point.
In Romans 5, one of Paul's key presuppositions (the comparison between Adam and Christ) comes to the surface explicitly (which it does rather infrequently). In making a comparison between Adam and Christ, clearly the point is not about two different ways of being genealogically related to individuals. If that were the point, not only Adam but also Christ becomes a problem. But if the relationship has to do with two different modes of existence, two different ways of being human, characterized by the behavior ascribed to each in the stories about them, then the point becomes clearer. To focus on being 'genetically related to Adam' is to miss the point, that this is about 'typical human existence' and an answer to humanity's experience of alienation from God.
Evolutionary explanations of some of our instincts - to survive, to eat, to reproduce - fits nicely with the Rabbinic idea of human beings have two impulses, the good impulse and the evil impulse. It has been suggested (e.g. by W. D. Davies in his study of Paul and Rabbinic Judaism
) that Paul's idea of the 'flesh' or 'sinful nature' derives from this part of his Rabbinic heritage. The rabbis were quite clear that these instincts are only 'evil' inasmuch as they lead us into evil behavior when we give them free reign. They are, however, also necessary to our survival. What makes human beings unique is precisely our ability to reflect on our behavior, to question what we do on instinct, and in these ways to choose to disobey our 'selfish genes' in favor of other sorts of altruistic behavior.
There is a lot more that can be said, and I hope to (eventually). But hopefully for the time being this will provide some suggestions and avenues to explore for those who find the evidence for evolution persuasive, but wonder about this or that passage that might be affected. In my experience thus far, exploring these passages in light of evolution has left me feeling that, in the end, I've understood them better, since often the things I used to focus on seem to me, with hindsight, to have been tangential distractions from the main point of the passages in question.
Another comment from Jeff on the same post asked about the consequences for other Christian doctrines of accepting evolution. I have been wanting for a while to start working on a book on the "But what about...?" passages. Evolution is not, for many Christians, simply about the creation stories, but those stories in turn are intertwined with various other parts of the Bible.
If I can find the time to write the book, it will not simply focus on the ways in which the creation stories are symbolic and analyse human existence in general, rather than the specific experience of two human ancestors and them alone, although it will start with that. Not only is the story in Genesis 2-3 about a character named Human or Man (not 'Adam' as though that were his name) and his wife, but many things that are said make sense only if taken symbolically. For instance, if the point of husband and wife becoming one flesh was really a literal creation from the man's rib, then this story would make all husbands and wives utterly unlike Adam and Eve, and thus undermine its own point.
In Romans 5, one of Paul's key presuppositions (the comparison between Adam and Christ) comes to the surface explicitly (which it does rather infrequently). In making a comparison between Adam and Christ, clearly the point is not about two different ways of being genealogically related to individuals. If that were the point, not only Adam but also Christ becomes a problem. But if the relationship has to do with two different modes of existence, two different ways of being human, characterized by the behavior ascribed to each in the stories about them, then the point becomes clearer. To focus on being 'genetically related to Adam' is to miss the point, that this is about 'typical human existence' and an answer to humanity's experience of alienation from God.
Evolutionary explanations of some of our instincts - to survive, to eat, to reproduce - fits nicely with the Rabbinic idea of human beings have two impulses, the good impulse and the evil impulse. It has been suggested (e.g. by W. D. Davies in his study of Paul and Rabbinic Judaism
) that Paul's idea of the 'flesh' or 'sinful nature' derives from this part of his Rabbinic heritage. The rabbis were quite clear that these instincts are only 'evil' inasmuch as they lead us into evil behavior when we give them free reign. They are, however, also necessary to our survival. What makes human beings unique is precisely our ability to reflect on our behavior, to question what we do on instinct, and in these ways to choose to disobey our 'selfish genes' in favor of other sorts of altruistic behavior.There is a lot more that can be said, and I hope to (eventually). But hopefully for the time being this will provide some suggestions and avenues to explore for those who find the evidence for evolution persuasive, but wonder about this or that passage that might be affected. In my experience thus far, exploring these passages in light of evolution has left me feeling that, in the end, I've understood them better, since often the things I used to focus on seem to me, with hindsight, to have been tangential distractions from the main point of the passages in question.
Avenues For Research On The Mandaeans
I'm reading and collecting resources, gearing up to focus on the Mandaean language and Mandaean texts over the summer. I may even have a student who will do some independent research on the same topic over the summer. At present I'm reading Edmondo Lupieri's The Mandaeans: The Last Gnostics, which is a nice brief introduction to their history and texts. When one reads about details like the writing of three sacred names in the sand, or the importance of dawn on the third day, when the unmarked tomb of a deceased Mandaean is opened so that the soul can leave the body and begin its voyage, it is easy to get excited! Yet the danger of parallelomania is real, as is the potential to reverse the most plausible direction of influence. Even the question of whether the group has its origins in Palestine is far from certain. Nevertheless, when one considers their exclusive use of living (= flowing) water, which they call iardna (most likely related to Jordan), and the term nasuraiia (meaning those possessing knowledge, i.e. "Gnostics"), which is so similar to the term "Nazorean" found in early Christian texts, where it seems to represent a well-defined pre-existing group, it is (again) easy to get excited. But there are far more intriguing questions than clear answers.
One interesting line of inquiry would be to compare the details of the Mandaean manda, a form of hut-temple, with the "cave of John the Baptist". There is a whole site devoted to it, including a photo gallery of the cave, and some will be familiar with it from James Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty. It would also be interesting to do DNA testing on the Mandaeans to see whether that can shed light on their relation to other peoples in the Middle East.
Before signing off, let me also draw attention to an interesting discussion on (and between) Ancient Hebrew Poetry and Dr. Jim West about the role of archaeology in dating texts, which will also be of interest to many readers.
, which is a nice brief introduction to their history and texts. When one reads about details like the writing of three sacred names in the sand, or the importance of dawn on the third day, when the unmarked tomb of a deceased Mandaean is opened so that the soul can leave the body and begin its voyage, it is easy to get excited! Yet the danger of parallelomania is real, as is the potential to reverse the most plausible direction of influence. Even the question of whether the group has its origins in Palestine is far from certain. Nevertheless, when one considers their exclusive use of living (= flowing) water, which they call iardna (most likely related to Jordan), and the term nasuraiia (meaning those possessing knowledge, i.e. "Gnostics"), which is so similar to the term "Nazorean" found in early Christian texts, where it seems to represent a well-defined pre-existing group, it is (again) easy to get excited. But there are far more intriguing questions than clear answers.One interesting line of inquiry would be to compare the details of the Mandaean manda, a form of hut-temple, with the "cave of John the Baptist". There is a whole site devoted to it, including a photo gallery of the cave, and some will be familiar with it from James Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty. It would also be interesting to do DNA testing on the Mandaeans to see whether that can shed light on their relation to other peoples in the Middle East.
Before signing off, let me also draw attention to an interesting discussion on (and between) Ancient Hebrew Poetry and Dr. Jim West about the role of archaeology in dating texts, which will also be of interest to many readers.
Yahoo! Beta Mail Scam
I'm going to try to make a habit of posting on scam spam (there's so much of it perhaps we should just call it scpam for short), for the benefit of the gullible. People regularly find their way to my blog searching for information about scams and hoaxes. Here's a recent addition to my inbox. This one is pretty obvious - it didn't come from Yahoo! and the contact e-mail address isn't at Yahoo! either. The English is also poor - clearly not a native speaker. The most obvious feature that gives away that this is a hoax, however, is this: NO ONE SIMPLY GIVES AWAY MONEY FOR NO REASON!!! The text of the message follows:
YAHOO BETA MAIL PROMOTION
This is to inform you that you have won a prize money of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for the YEAR 2007 Lottery promotion which is organized by YAHOO LOTTERY INC for the introduction of the new YAHOO BETA MAIL which all YAHOO users are required to switch onto.
YAHOO! & MICROSOFT WINDOWS, arranged and gathered all the e-mail addresses of the people that are active online, among the millions that subscribed to Yahoo and Hotmail, and others we only select FIVE (5) candidates annually as our winners through Electronic Balloting System (EBS) without the candidate applying, we congratulate you for being one of the people
selected.
PAYMENT OF PRIZE AND CLAIM POLICY
NOTE: Any information that is been provided by winners must be correct as provision of wrong information by winners may lead to disqualification of a winner and you also have to keep your winning numbers/notification confidential as to avoid double claiming which can result to disqualification, be warned!
These are your identification numbers:
Batch number.....................YBM-EBS-390AF
Ref number........................YBM-EBS-110AF
Winning number...............YBM-EBS-798AF
Please contact the agent below via email for further instructions on what next to do to claim your winning fund.
Claims agent name: Mr Andrian Raymond
Claims agent email : andrian_mond@sify.com
You are therefore advised to send the following information to him to facilitate process of your prize fund.
Send your Identification Numbers/Your Personal Information to him immediately:
Personal Information
1. Full name..................
2. Country....................
3. Contact Address...........
4. Telephone Number.........
5. Marital Status..............
6. Occupation..................
7. Age.........................
8. Sex.........................
Congratulations once again.
Yours in service,
We hope you're enjoying your Yahoo! Mail account.
Now take the next step and claim your money and say thanks to Yahoo!.
You select how to transfer the prize money to you:
Cheque Delivery To Your Address
Bank Account Transfer
Diplomatic Means
NOTE: NOBODY WILL TOUCH YOUR MONEY FOR ANY REASON AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF
CLAIM WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BANK, BEFORE THE BANK CAN RELEASE YOUR
MONEY.
If you have questions or wish to claim your prize money kindly contact this email:andrian_mond@sify.com see the instructions at the body of this message.
From:Yahoo Beta Mail Promotion
______________________
YAHOO BETA MAIL PROMOTION
This is to inform you that you have won a prize money of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for the YEAR 2007 Lottery promotion which is organized by YAHOO LOTTERY INC for the introduction of the new YAHOO BETA MAIL which all YAHOO users are required to switch onto.
YAHOO! & MICROSOFT WINDOWS, arranged and gathered all the e-mail addresses of the people that are active online, among the millions that subscribed to Yahoo and Hotmail, and others we only select FIVE (5) candidates annually as our winners through Electronic Balloting System (EBS) without the candidate applying, we congratulate you for being one of the people
selected.
PAYMENT OF PRIZE AND CLAIM POLICY
NOTE: Any information that is been provided by winners must be correct as provision of wrong information by winners may lead to disqualification of a winner and you also have to keep your winning numbers/notification confidential as to avoid double claiming which can result to disqualification, be warned!
These are your identification numbers:
Batch number.....................YBM-EBS-390AF
Ref number........................YBM-EBS-110AF
Winning number...............YBM-EBS-798AF
Please contact the agent below via email for further instructions on what next to do to claim your winning fund.
Claims agent name: Mr Andrian Raymond
Claims agent email : andrian_mond@sify.com
You are therefore advised to send the following information to him to facilitate process of your prize fund.
Send your Identification Numbers/Your Personal Information to him immediately:
Personal Information
1. Full name..................
2. Country....................
3. Contact Address...........
4. Telephone Number.........
5. Marital Status..............
6. Occupation..................
7. Age.........................
8. Sex.........................
Congratulations once again.
Yours in service,
We hope you're enjoying your Yahoo! Mail account.
Now take the next step and claim your money and say thanks to Yahoo!.
You select how to transfer the prize money to you:
Cheque Delivery To Your Address
Bank Account Transfer
Diplomatic Means
NOTE: NOBODY WILL TOUCH YOUR MONEY FOR ANY REASON AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF
CLAIM WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BANK, BEFORE THE BANK CAN RELEASE YOUR
MONEY.
If you have questions or wish to claim your prize money kindly contact this email:andrian_mond@sify.com see the instructions at the body of this message.
From:Yahoo Beta Mail Promotion
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Around the Blogosphere
Ben Witherington has a nice little Christmas sermon, although there are many difficulties with his depiction of what happened (whether on a literary level or a historical one). He is certainly right that "there was no inn in the room". The word translated "inn" in many English versions of the story is translated "upper room" later in Luke, and is better translated "guest room" or "extra room". The word for a commercial inn does appear in Luke's Gospel, in the only context where such an inn is appropriate - in the story of the 'good Samaritan'. A Samaritan is just the sort of individual travelling in Judea who might use a commercial inn. Note how Paul the Apostle, travelling all across the Roman Empire, makes use of the hospitality network, as would be expected. He never tries to "check into a hotel". Those interested in this subject should read Kenneth Bailey's classic study. The manger, rather than being "around the back", was probably in the main room of the house where the animals would have been brought in at night. On the subject of whether Jesus was suspected to have been illegitimate, I'll simply point readers to my article on the subject in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus.
Theo Geek discusses whether pistis christou is best translated "faith(fulness) of Christ"
Jim West has drawn attention to another post on The View From Jerusalem about the now infamous documentary on the Talpiot tomb. The Jesus Dynasty blog has a different perspective to offer.
Find And You Shall Seek discusses an article in Harper's about belief in hell.
Hypotyposeis continues to explore the topic of Matthew's counting in his genealogy.
Metacatholic discusses the topic of educated preachers in relation to the Church of England's 39 Articles. Kata Ta Biblia has a discussion of Anabaptists and nonviolent theories of the atonement. The Lead shares a number of interesting pieces, including one on Oliver Cromwell's "war on Christmas".
Someone shared a link to a post of mine in a comment at the Flying Spaghetti Monster (sauce and heapings of fresh basil be upon him) site. ERV has a prayer request.
Finally, here are a few more keyword searches that have led people to my blog (I find it so interesting to know what people are looking for and where they end up as a result):
Theo Geek discusses whether pistis christou is best translated "faith(fulness) of Christ"
Jim West has drawn attention to another post on The View From Jerusalem about the now infamous documentary on the Talpiot tomb. The Jesus Dynasty blog has a different perspective to offer.
Find And You Shall Seek discusses an article in Harper's about belief in hell.
Hypotyposeis continues to explore the topic of Matthew's counting in his genealogy.
Metacatholic discusses the topic of educated preachers in relation to the Church of England's 39 Articles. Kata Ta Biblia has a discussion of Anabaptists and nonviolent theories of the atonement. The Lead shares a number of interesting pieces, including one on Oliver Cromwell's "war on Christmas".
Someone shared a link to a post of mine in a comment at the Flying Spaghetti Monster (sauce and heapings of fresh basil be upon him) site. ERV has a prayer request.
Finally, here are a few more keyword searches that have led people to my blog (I find it so interesting to know what people are looking for and where they end up as a result):
an animation vs 50 other animations and jesus
are there any true transitional forms? (I hope they now know the answer!)
mitochondrial dna and aryan invasion
lebanese genetic origins
infancy narratives vs. the gospel of john (Not 'and' but 'vs.'!)
unchristian ways (I'm very surprised that leads one to my blog!!!)
behe admits believes in evolution (I hope the person who did this search will come back and say more!)
star wars christmas presents (I'm glad some of my less academic posts are useful)
therese banyan (I'm glad I'm helping the legend live on)
Indianapolis Marion County Public Library's New Central Library Grand Opening Today!
Indianapolis Marion County Public Library's new Central Library building will be having its grand opening to the public in a little over an hour from now. I got to see it Friday at a reception for friends and family of employees, donors and friends of the library. It is spectacular and gives any public library anywhere in the world a run for its money, with its resources for children of all ages, its atmosphere, and even the technology used by employees for communication and other purposes. It is state of the art. There have already been letters to the editor of the Indianapolis Star questioning both the architecture and the large investment of money that was required to bring this about. But as an academic who knows that Indianapolis at times has a hard time attracting and keeping the best candidates for jobs here when such individuals are used to the cultural life, including libraries, of cities like New York, I can say that the new library is worth it. I hope the people of Indianapolis will enjoy this wonderful resource and put it to good use as an opportunity to expose themselves to great literature, information, music and education. I hope it instills in our city's children an excitement about going to libraries, reading books, and learning. Thank you, Indianapolis Marion County Public Library, for making this resource available to us. I am already trying to figure out how much time I can spend working in the inspiring surroundings you offer in the new central library. Thank you!
In other news, there seem to be so many interesting astronomical discoveries making headlines lately. New Scientist announced that the earliest galaxies seem to have already held the building blocks of life, and this is but one story in their Special Report on Astrobiology.
Jim West has, among other tidbits, a follow-up on April DeConick's New York Times op-ed piece on the Gospel of Judas.
In other news, there seem to be so many interesting astronomical discoveries making headlines lately. New Scientist announced that the earliest galaxies seem to have already held the building blocks of life, and this is but one story in their Special Report on Astrobiology.
Jim West has, among other tidbits, a follow-up on April DeConick's New York Times op-ed piece on the Gospel of Judas.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
ID Like To Make A Prediction
A recent post at Uncommon Descent offered a prediction about what ought to be the case regarding E. coli, with an invitation to 'anyone' that might be interested in running the experiment. As I read the post, it struck me that the study of this hypothesis would neither support nor disprove anything about ID, as it is unclear what about the independent development of E. coli in humans and baboons would provide support for 'intelligent design'.
A genuine prediction, in the sense of one that tests a hypothesis or theory, should have a clear focus. If the hypothesis is disproved, that should in most cases be the end of the story. In the case of a theory, which already has other supporting evidence, it may be appropriate to revise rather than discard the theory in light of such a result.
Darwinian evolution, for instance, predicted that, if it is correct, there should be concrete elements of heredity, and that there should be intermediate forms in the fossil record (in time periods that can likewise be predicted), and a long enough history for evolution to occur. All of these predictions were disputed, were tested, and were confirmed.
If ID is ready to start doing actual science, it needs more than hunches. It needs specific predictions that ID requires in order to be correct.
I've got a suggestion. Since ID predicts that the designer acted by means of interventions that can be detected, rather than through natural processes, then presumably the designer (being intelligent) knew its creations would study such design and desired this. We should therefore expect that on cells of all life forms, there should be written "Created by an intelligent designer. All rights reserved". I will grant some leeway in the wording, but a view of creation that believes the creator to have left clear evidence of his (or her) creative work should expect such evidence, and not the vague sorts of "evidence" ID is currently offering us.
If young-earth creationism were correct, we would have expected the Grand Canyon (created during the great flood) to be inscribed with the words "Let this be a lesson to you".
A student of mine believes that Starbuck is a cylon on the new Battlestar Galactica series. The evidence is that Starbuck seemed to have died and now has reappeared (cylons do that), and the producers promised that all five of the 'final five' cylons would be revealed in the season finale. His theory makes a clear prediction: no one else will be revealed as the last remaining human-model cylon.
Theory, prediction, testability, result. Can ID really offer us something of this sort? Is it will to give up its 20-year plan to become the dominant viewpoint, and intstead offer testable predictions that have the potential not only to make, but also to break, Intelligent Design?
For those theologians open to input from science, the issue is not how to prove that the concept of God we already have is demonstrated by the scientific evidence, but how the exciting new data that science brings to light leads us to ask new and unexpected questions, and leads to new insights about the universe, which leads us to exciting new lines of inquiry about God and about our place in the universe.
A genuine prediction, in the sense of one that tests a hypothesis or theory, should have a clear focus. If the hypothesis is disproved, that should in most cases be the end of the story. In the case of a theory, which already has other supporting evidence, it may be appropriate to revise rather than discard the theory in light of such a result.
Darwinian evolution, for instance, predicted that, if it is correct, there should be concrete elements of heredity, and that there should be intermediate forms in the fossil record (in time periods that can likewise be predicted), and a long enough history for evolution to occur. All of these predictions were disputed, were tested, and were confirmed.
If ID is ready to start doing actual science, it needs more than hunches. It needs specific predictions that ID requires in order to be correct.
I've got a suggestion. Since ID predicts that the designer acted by means of interventions that can be detected, rather than through natural processes, then presumably the designer (being intelligent) knew its creations would study such design and desired this. We should therefore expect that on cells of all life forms, there should be written "Created by an intelligent designer. All rights reserved". I will grant some leeway in the wording, but a view of creation that believes the creator to have left clear evidence of his (or her) creative work should expect such evidence, and not the vague sorts of "evidence" ID is currently offering us.
If young-earth creationism were correct, we would have expected the Grand Canyon (created during the great flood) to be inscribed with the words "Let this be a lesson to you".
A student of mine believes that Starbuck is a cylon on the new Battlestar Galactica series. The evidence is that Starbuck seemed to have died and now has reappeared (cylons do that), and the producers promised that all five of the 'final five' cylons would be revealed in the season finale. His theory makes a clear prediction: no one else will be revealed as the last remaining human-model cylon.
Theory, prediction, testability, result. Can ID really offer us something of this sort? Is it will to give up its 20-year plan to become the dominant viewpoint, and intstead offer testable predictions that have the potential not only to make, but also to break, Intelligent Design?
For those theologians open to input from science, the issue is not how to prove that the concept of God we already have is demonstrated by the scientific evidence, but how the exciting new data that science brings to light leads us to ask new and unexpected questions, and leads to new insights about the universe, which leads us to exciting new lines of inquiry about God and about our place in the universe.
Many Paths Lead To Exploring Our Matrix
Some keyword searches that have led people to my blog. Others have shared theirs and I've found them amusing. Mine can scarcely compete, but at least they illustrate the range of interests our fellow human beings have. The words in parentheses are my comments.
deja vu god has made up his mind
study on dihydrogen monoxide
death by a black hole dihydrogen monoxide
guillermo gonzalez astrologer
christmas in mark's gospel
i want seminar on practice makes man perfect
lost bentham hedonic calculus jack
tim lahaye quotes (which led them to this page )
why did mark go to bethlehem
doctor who christian blog
quotation marks journalism (don't get me started on this again...)
a mind is like... g k chesterton
luke skywalker for his sister (eww)
science study what cannot be sean (led to a post about Sean B. Carroll...who can be seen - I know, I've seen him)
neil peart poetry
Jesus is counter cultural
funny romanian phrases (led here)
michio kaku is an idiot
Friday, December 7, 2007
When Parody Mirrors Reality
I did not, in actual fact, receive an e-mail from Christopher Hitchens. I had presumed that, if nothing else, the "P.S. Please don't tell anyone" added at the end of the message which I posted on my blog would give it away.
That anyone could take it seriously indicates that what FTK does is precisely what one would expect an atheist to do in order to undermine Christianity by pretending to be one, yet behaving in profoundly unchristian ways. FTK censors comments on her blog and claims to be doing what she does 'for the kids', yet on ERV she calls that blogger a "frothing bitch". I apologize for even repeating such language; FTK apparently thinks that it is the way to share the Gospel.
So, the sum of the matter is this. The most likely scenario: atheists don't need to pretend to be Christian bloggers behaving in irrational and unchristian ways, because there are Christians who are willing to do this work for them. To reverse the famous quote about Darwin, "Antievolutionists came and, under the guise of a friend, did the work of an enemy". An alternative scenario: I made a lucky guess, and FTK really is someone trying to undermine Christianity by pretending to be a Christian and yet behaving in unchristian ways. The scary and profoundly sad part is that it is impossible to tell which. The sad part for Christians is that this leaves me having to apologize to Christopher Hitchens for jokingly associating his name with this individual who claims that she is one.
For a discussion about/with "For The Kids", who (if she really is a soccer mom) apparently thinks her kids are best served by spending long amounts of time blogging about things that she has no expertise in, visit Unreasonable Kansans. It is a forum set up to discuss FTK's posts on her blog, where she censors comments, not to prevent the use of vulgarity on the internet, but to prevent anyone making it obvious on her blog itself that she has misunderstood the nature of both science and her own faith tradition.
That anyone could take it seriously indicates that what FTK does is precisely what one would expect an atheist to do in order to undermine Christianity by pretending to be one, yet behaving in profoundly unchristian ways. FTK censors comments on her blog and claims to be doing what she does 'for the kids', yet on ERV she calls that blogger a "frothing bitch". I apologize for even repeating such language; FTK apparently thinks that it is the way to share the Gospel.
So, the sum of the matter is this. The most likely scenario: atheists don't need to pretend to be Christian bloggers behaving in irrational and unchristian ways, because there are Christians who are willing to do this work for them. To reverse the famous quote about Darwin, "Antievolutionists came and, under the guise of a friend, did the work of an enemy". An alternative scenario: I made a lucky guess, and FTK really is someone trying to undermine Christianity by pretending to be a Christian and yet behaving in unchristian ways. The scary and profoundly sad part is that it is impossible to tell which. The sad part for Christians is that this leaves me having to apologize to Christopher Hitchens for jokingly associating his name with this individual who claims that she is one.
For a discussion about/with "For The Kids", who (if she really is a soccer mom) apparently thinks her kids are best served by spending long amounts of time blogging about things that she has no expertise in, visit Unreasonable Kansans. It is a forum set up to discuss FTK's posts on her blog, where she censors comments, not to prevent the use of vulgarity on the internet, but to prevent anyone making it obvious on her blog itself that she has misunderstood the nature of both science and her own faith tradition.
Archaeology News: Large House Adjacent Temple Mount
A large house has been discovered adjacent to the temple mount in Jerusalem, dating from the second temple period. The Jerusalem Post also has a story about this, and a video clip.
See Biblical Archaeology for all the latest news!
See Biblical Archaeology for all the latest news!
Peer Review a Career Stopper?
There are lots of discussions of tenure and peer review, particularly as relates to evolution, intelligent design and such topics. Here's what I wrote in a comment responding to someone who suggested that peer review, rather than intelligent design, is the career-killer:
Peer review prevents the academy from being hijacked by people-pleasers who say what a certain constituent wants to hear, untroubled by facts and other such nuisances. Please do propose an alternative. Perhaps you prefer the media's approach, which is to always allow someone to represent 'the other side', even if the other side is one person with a mental illness. Peer review may at times lead to it being difficult for someone to challenge the status quo. But in academia, the consensus is reached by careful investigation, and so overturning a generally accepted theory SHOULD be difficult. That it happens constantly anyway just shows that the system works, forcing creativity to go hand in hand with careful research and documentation.Panda's Thumb has charts of the effects of Intelligent Design on the careers of various scientists.
Quote of the Day (John Pieret)
"I suppose it is only to be expected in a place famous for watch making" (John Pieret, about the Swiss creationist movement).
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Christmas Present For Star Wars Fans
For those not boycotting Christmas because it is either too Christian, or not Christian enough, or too commercialized, or not commercialized enough, let me recommend the Star Wars Miniatures Game
. It is nowhere near as complex as your typical role playing game, but a lot more flexible and imaginative than the typical constraints of the average board game. One plays the role of individuals from the Star Wars universe, and you can either reenact battles and scenes from the movies, or just engage in battles between two sides. You can stick to the script, or set an army of the fiercest Sith every against the Jedi heroes of all eras. Fun for all ages. On eBay they have some rare items (like the Target exclusive Battle of Hoth scenario pack, sold out at Target in my area) and individual miniatures as well as starter sets. Makes a great gift!
. It is nowhere near as complex as your typical role playing game, but a lot more flexible and imaginative than the typical constraints of the average board game. One plays the role of individuals from the Star Wars universe, and you can either reenact battles and scenes from the movies, or just engage in battles between two sides. You can stick to the script, or set an army of the fiercest Sith every against the Jedi heroes of all eras. Fun for all ages. On eBay they have some rare items (like the Target exclusive Battle of Hoth scenario pack, sold out at Target in my area) and individual miniatures as well as starter sets. Makes a great gift!
Breaking News: FTK Admits He Is Really Christopher Hitchens
FTK (or "For The Kids") is the name of a blogger who engages in antiscientific tirades using unchristian rhetoric allegedly for the benefit of Christ and her own children.
In a top secret memo leaked today, anonymous blogger FTK has acknowledged being none other than atheist author Chris Hitchens.
In a top secret memo leaked today, anonymous blogger FTK has acknowledged being none other than atheist author Chris Hitchens.
Dear Prof. McGrath,
Okay, I admit it. I'm really Christopher Hitchens. To be honest this was a joke that went too far. I didn't think anyone would actually believe I was a Christian opposing evolution, what with my unchristian rants, lack of willingness to listen to anyone who actually knew something about the subject, and radical departure from the historic Christian faith. I can't believe it has taken so long for the truth to be told. Apparently far fewer people understand what Christianity is about and what Christian behavior involves than even I would have guessed.
Sincerely,
Christopher Hitchens (aka For The Kids)
P.S. Please don't tell anyone.
Coining a term
I've posted a poll in the right hand column to let you decide. I want to coin a new term for something that baffles you so much that you feel you must blog about it. Should we say such things are "mind blogging" or "mind bloggling"?
How To Choose A Republican Candidate
The questioner who asked "Do you believe every word in this book?" said that that question will tell us "everything we need to know" about the Republican candidates. I think he is right, although I'm not sure if the way I assess the answers is the same as the questioner's intent.
Giuliani was courageous and said that Jonah and the whale is an allegory. I like him - not simply pandering to voters (although I'm not suggesting he never does that - just that in this instance, he knew what many people wanted to hear, but didn't give it to them).
Mitt Romney changed the question, hoping we wouldn't notice. Mike Huckabee's answer was really good. He said no one takes "pluck out your eye" literally, and said that we should focus on love your neighbor and not get caught up in the other stuff until we've got those basics sorted out. He also said that anyone who thinks they have God all sorted out has a God that is too small. He has a degree in theology, and here put it to good use.
He hasn't always done that consistently, e.g. in a statements about Islam. There he not only talked about a 'theocratic war' (!) but said that he would not allow for 'sanctuary cities'. Perhaps this refers to a Republican plan I'm not aware of, but it sounds to me like the language of the Bible, which had cities of refuge. So is he saying that it is a war over God, and to win it he will disregard the Bible? I'm not sure what he meant. At any rate, the overall feel of what he said on that occasion troubles me.
Romney will give a speech later today about faith and the presidency. Many are thinking about Kennedy's famous speech, and the Bad Idea Blog suggests that Republican voters will not be happy with a speech from Romney that mirrors Kennedy's. As we wait to see what happens, let us remind ourselves that the question that will tell us all we need to know has already been asked. The good news is that some of the Republican candidates had the honesty and intelligence to say "I don't take it all literally. No one does. Some parts are more important than others". The bad news is that no one said that judging candidates by such a religious test is unconstitutional, and ultimately shouldn't matter even if that weren't the case, since people who say they believe the Bible (and perhaps even say they believe every word) base very different sorts of policies and practices on their alleged literal interpretation.
Romney's speech is live-blogged here. Street Prophets has added a post about Romney's "Kennedy Moment". See also earlier posts by the LA Times, The God & Culture Blog, The Washington Post and Mother Jones on both the earlier debate and more recently Romney and anti-Mormon fundamentalism. Notes From Off-Center has a post on Huckabee and science. Peter Wall has some thoughts on Romney pandering to Evangelicals. Nathan's Blog thinks the candidates reek of insincerity, and the New York Times also covered Romney's speech, as has Randall Balmer. More recent posts have appeared at Levellers, Mainstream Baptist, Melissa Rogers, On Faith, and multiple posts at Street Prophets. The text of Romney's speech is at Real Clear Politics. Last of all, thanks to Find And You Shall Seek for sharing this humorous picture.
Finally, for no real reason, those of you exasperated by the way religion is discussed in relation to the presidency may want to learn more about the Church of Google. Regardless whether you accept its theology, is there no some truth in saying that the internet will have a hand in choosing our next president?
Giuliani was courageous and said that Jonah and the whale is an allegory. I like him - not simply pandering to voters (although I'm not suggesting he never does that - just that in this instance, he knew what many people wanted to hear, but didn't give it to them).
Mitt Romney changed the question, hoping we wouldn't notice. Mike Huckabee's answer was really good. He said no one takes "pluck out your eye" literally, and said that we should focus on love your neighbor and not get caught up in the other stuff until we've got those basics sorted out. He also said that anyone who thinks they have God all sorted out has a God that is too small. He has a degree in theology, and here put it to good use.
He hasn't always done that consistently, e.g. in a statements about Islam. There he not only talked about a 'theocratic war' (!) but said that he would not allow for 'sanctuary cities'. Perhaps this refers to a Republican plan I'm not aware of, but it sounds to me like the language of the Bible, which had cities of refuge. So is he saying that it is a war over God, and to win it he will disregard the Bible? I'm not sure what he meant. At any rate, the overall feel of what he said on that occasion troubles me.
Romney will give a speech later today about faith and the presidency. Many are thinking about Kennedy's famous speech, and the Bad Idea Blog suggests that Republican voters will not be happy with a speech from Romney that mirrors Kennedy's. As we wait to see what happens, let us remind ourselves that the question that will tell us all we need to know has already been asked. The good news is that some of the Republican candidates had the honesty and intelligence to say "I don't take it all literally. No one does. Some parts are more important than others". The bad news is that no one said that judging candidates by such a religious test is unconstitutional, and ultimately shouldn't matter even if that weren't the case, since people who say they believe the Bible (and perhaps even say they believe every word) base very different sorts of policies and practices on their alleged literal interpretation.
Romney's speech is live-blogged here. Street Prophets has added a post about Romney's "Kennedy Moment". See also earlier posts by the LA Times, The God & Culture Blog, The Washington Post and Mother Jones on both the earlier debate and more recently Romney and anti-Mormon fundamentalism. Notes From Off-Center has a post on Huckabee and science. Peter Wall has some thoughts on Romney pandering to Evangelicals. Nathan's Blog thinks the candidates reek of insincerity, and the New York Times also covered Romney's speech, as has Randall Balmer. More recent posts have appeared at Levellers, Mainstream Baptist, Melissa Rogers, On Faith, and multiple posts at Street Prophets. The text of Romney's speech is at Real Clear Politics. Last of all, thanks to Find And You Shall Seek for sharing this humorous picture.
Finally, for no real reason, those of you exasperated by the way religion is discussed in relation to the presidency may want to learn more about the Church of Google. Regardless whether you accept its theology, is there no some truth in saying that the internet will have a hand in choosing our next president?
Heresy: Try It, It's Good For You!
A colleague shared with me issue 56 of Philosophy Now magazine, which was devoted to the subject of heresy. If you can get access to it, there is a great cartoon by Chris Madden on p.27, a variation on another of his famous cartoons.
Since I can't share the cartoon, I'll have to settle for sharing a quote: "Religions are kept alive by heresies, which are really sudden explosions of faith. Dead religions do not produce them" (Gerald Brenan, Thoughts In A Dry Season, quoted in the aforementioned issue of Philosophy Now, p.7).
I found myself thinking about Gnosticism over the past few days. In one sense, most educated Christians today are probably 'gnostics' in the sense in which Clement of Alexandria used the term, just by virtue of being educated in a way most Christians down the ages never had the opportunity to be; and as a result, reflecting on our faith in relation to questions raised by our knowledge.
Taken symbolically rather than literally, it is much easier to appreciate many things the Gnostics (in the usual 'full' sense, with a capital 'G') had to say. On the one hand, they are dealing with the data the 'intelligent design' crowd are, but much more honestly. On the one hand, they had no way to account for apparent design than by appeal to a deity's direct action; on the other hand, they took the evidence of less than perfect design fully seriously too, and thus reached the conclusion that the creation is the work of an inferior demiurge. In a sense, Christians who accept evolution have something in common with these ancient Gnostics: a willingness to let the evidence lead wherever it takes us, even if that means acknowledging that the creation is not a direct artifice of God most high, but the work of an at times inept (yet nevertheless clearly skillful) creator, in this case evolution rather than a personal demiurge.
Gnosticism also takes seriously what mystics have always claimed, namely that beyond the anthropomorphic deity of Scriptures and doctrines there is a reality that transcends such language and conceptualization, which is infinitely greater. When one ascends past that (image of) god, one finds that beyond it there is so much more to be ineffably known and experienced. Paul Tillich referred to this ultimate reality in terms the Gnostics would have been happy with, as "the God beyond God".
Taken literally, Gnosticism's system probably lacks any real appeal to most people today. There are alternative systems that seem preferable. But taken symbolically, as with any religious tradition, there are important questions it raises, and much to be learned in the process
.
Since I can't share the cartoon, I'll have to settle for sharing a quote: "Religions are kept alive by heresies, which are really sudden explosions of faith. Dead religions do not produce them" (Gerald Brenan, Thoughts In A Dry Season, quoted in the aforementioned issue of Philosophy Now, p.7).
I found myself thinking about Gnosticism over the past few days. In one sense, most educated Christians today are probably 'gnostics' in the sense in which Clement of Alexandria used the term, just by virtue of being educated in a way most Christians down the ages never had the opportunity to be; and as a result, reflecting on our faith in relation to questions raised by our knowledge.
Taken symbolically rather than literally, it is much easier to appreciate many things the Gnostics (in the usual 'full' sense, with a capital 'G') had to say. On the one hand, they are dealing with the data the 'intelligent design' crowd are, but much more honestly. On the one hand, they had no way to account for apparent design than by appeal to a deity's direct action; on the other hand, they took the evidence of less than perfect design fully seriously too, and thus reached the conclusion that the creation is the work of an inferior demiurge. In a sense, Christians who accept evolution have something in common with these ancient Gnostics: a willingness to let the evidence lead wherever it takes us, even if that means acknowledging that the creation is not a direct artifice of God most high, but the work of an at times inept (yet nevertheless clearly skillful) creator, in this case evolution rather than a personal demiurge.
Gnosticism also takes seriously what mystics have always claimed, namely that beyond the anthropomorphic deity of Scriptures and doctrines there is a reality that transcends such language and conceptualization, which is infinitely greater. When one ascends past that (image of) god, one finds that beyond it there is so much more to be ineffably known and experienced. Paul Tillich referred to this ultimate reality in terms the Gnostics would have been happy with, as "the God beyond God".
Taken literally, Gnosticism's system probably lacks any real appeal to most people today. There are alternative systems that seem preferable. But taken symbolically, as with any religious tradition, there are important questions it raises, and much to be learned in the process
.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Mandaean Refugee Petition
Most readers will know that I'm turning part of my research attention to the Mandaeans. While I'll be working mainly on their ancient texts, the Mandaeans are still around today, and as many of you are aware, their existence is threatened by the recent upheavals in their traditional homeland, Iraq.
April DeConick shared a link to a petition on her blog. The petition asks that the Mandaeans be granted refugee status. I'm sharing the link here to increase the number of people who may become aware of, and take action on, this important issue.
April DeConick shared a link to a petition on her blog. The petition asks that the Mandaeans be granted refugee status. I'm sharing the link here to increase the number of people who may become aware of, and take action on, this important issue.
At this site, you will find http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/852950474. In order to see the petition, you will have to click the link marked "letter," which I admit is rather small and easy to miss. I urge you to sign the petition and to spread the word to others to do likewise. Thank you very much.(hat tip: Forbidden Gospels Blog)
A Plan To Undermine Intelligent Design - But Someone Beat Me To It!
If I really wanted to undermine intelligent design, this is what I would do. I would create a web site (with blog) that talks about the earth being intelligently designed recently, combining ID and young earth creationism so that it is harder than ever to argue that there is any real distinction between them. Then I would fill the blog with irate nonsense and malicious accusations, making much of Darwin beating a puppy (as though young-earth creationists are always kind to animals) and sex-change operations, and engaging in the sorts of arguments that no Christian would spend time focusing on. In other words, engage in satire but present it as though it were completely serious.
Apparently someone beat me to it. Thanks, Salvador Cordova, for your work in undermining Intelligent Design. It is much appreciated! I assume you just sit back and laugh when people read your nonsensical posts and take them seriously, right? You must get a real kick out of it!
Thanks also to "For The Kids" for all the same reasons. I'm so utterly convinced that no one could so badly misunderstand the nature of the scientific evidence that you are making ridiculous arguments partly for entertainment of the educated (we love parody) and partly to undermine the credibility of young-earth creationists and cdesign proponentsists.
For instance, at Reasonable Kansans, "For The Kids" has the following clip art posted:
Apparently someone beat me to it. Thanks, Salvador Cordova, for your work in undermining Intelligent Design. It is much appreciated! I assume you just sit back and laugh when people read your nonsensical posts and take them seriously, right? You must get a real kick out of it!
Thanks also to "For The Kids" for all the same reasons. I'm so utterly convinced that no one could so badly misunderstand the nature of the scientific evidence that you are making ridiculous arguments partly for entertainment of the educated (we love parody) and partly to undermine the credibility of young-earth creationists and cdesign proponentsists.
For instance, at Reasonable Kansans, "For The Kids" has the following clip art posted:
It is presumably intended to highlight the fact that, had God created the universe through miraculous means rather than through natural processes, and wanted us to be able to detect his having done so, all he had to do was stamp "MADE BY GOD (c) 6,000 BC" on the DNA of all living things (in Hebrew, English - it wouldn't really matter) and the message would be clear. Yet in all the focus on the alleged clarity of the evidence, ID doesn't explain why God, who supposedly wanted the evidence to be clear, didn't make it clear in precisely this way. Thank you for highlighting this, FTK. Thank you as well for the humorous because implausible way you suggest that you, allegedly a Christian, could take delight at an atheist's pain, even if self-inflicted.
Take Those Days Literally!
I have no doubt that the days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis are "literal days". They each involve morning and evening, and so we can be even more specific: they are days according to traditional Jewish reckoning, beginning at sundown. Personally, I think that these literal days are part of a larger, extended metaphor of a divine "work-week", but that isn't the issue I want to focus on here.
There is at least one other place in the Bible where it is just as clear that literal days must be in view. In Matthew 12:38-40, Jesus is recorded as saying that the Son of Man will be in the belly of the earth for three days and three nights. Not 'days' in a broad, partial sense, but days and nights, in the literal sense.
From a scholarly perspective, this detail is a reinterpretation of the "sign of Jonah" by the author of Matthew's Gospel. Originally, the "sign of Jonah" meant "no sign" since Jonah had given no sign (compare Mark and Luke on this point). And we already know from his genealogy that Matthew was interested in the symbolic value of numbers rather than numeric precision.
For those who claim to be Biblical literalists, scholarly considerations of that sort shouldn't matter. Instead, self-proclaimed "Biblical literalists" should be arguing for the celebration either of Good Thursday or of Easter Monday.
But I have a better suggestion. If you are someone that wants a perfect Scripture that speak inerrantly and with precision, please go elsewhere. Stop trying to force Christianity and the Bible into this mold. It just doesn't fit, and in trying to force it to, you do harm to the reputation of the Bible and its appreciation by those who actually read and study it, in detail, and are genuinely interested in understanding it on its own terms.
There is at least one other place in the Bible where it is just as clear that literal days must be in view. In Matthew 12:38-40, Jesus is recorded as saying that the Son of Man will be in the belly of the earth for three days and three nights. Not 'days' in a broad, partial sense, but days and nights, in the literal sense.
From a scholarly perspective, this detail is a reinterpretation of the "sign of Jonah" by the author of Matthew's Gospel. Originally, the "sign of Jonah" meant "no sign" since Jonah had given no sign (compare Mark and Luke on this point). And we already know from his genealogy that Matthew was interested in the symbolic value of numbers rather than numeric precision.
For those who claim to be Biblical literalists, scholarly considerations of that sort shouldn't matter. Instead, self-proclaimed "Biblical literalists" should be arguing for the celebration either of Good Thursday or of Easter Monday.
But I have a better suggestion. If you are someone that wants a perfect Scripture that speak inerrantly and with precision, please go elsewhere. Stop trying to force Christianity and the Bible into this mold. It just doesn't fit, and in trying to force it to, you do harm to the reputation of the Bible and its appreciation by those who actually read and study it, in detail, and are genuinely interested in understanding it on its own terms.
Quote of the Day (Ken Schenck)
"We might summarize Piper's theology here as "God so loved himself that He sent His only Son (admiring Himself greatly for so doing), that whoever He has chosen to save will irresistably believe and so have eternal life." Love has no meaning whatsoever in Piper's system. It amounts to little more than divine masturbation" (Ken Schenck)
Immanuel: A Birth and a Sign
Who was 'Immanuel', the child referred to in Isaiah 7-9? I'm not asking who it has been applied to - I know that the answer to that question is Jesus. I'm asking what the most likely reference is in the book's original context. Clearly it makes no sense to have Isaiah offer as a sign to king Ahaz that the kings he is worried about will be no more by the time a child is born seven centuries from then.
Nor is the sign said to be anything to do with the child's birth. Rather, the sign is that before the child is chewing solid food or saying his first words, the present threat will be over. The key issue is thus not whether the Hebrew word means 'virgin' or 'young woman', since nothing is made of the mode of conception. Even if the woman was a virgin at the time, virgins get pregnant (usually through a loss of virginity), and so that question has nothing to do with the fact that the sign is the time frame rather than the mode of conception.
It is possible that the child was Hezekiah - a royal heir would certainly be a great sign. But more likely is that the child in question was Isaiah's own son, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (not to be confused with this one, or this one). If one objects that he was not named Immanuel, I respond "Neither was Jesus" - in Matthew's Gospel, the verse from Isaiah is quoted, and then they name the child Jesus. Immanuel was the child's significance, and not the name he actually bore, in either case.
The mentions of Immanuel/God is with us surround the mention of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (who from time to time secretly wished they had named him 'Immanuel'). The birth of a child is predicted. The birth of a child is mentioned. The meaning of the symbolic birth is consistent. Immanuel=Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, in the original context - case closed?
The contemporary perspective has three 'wise men' (i.e. scientists) who have posted on things to do with virgin births in the past few days:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/2007/12/whats_the_deal_with_virgin_bir.php
http://scienceblogs.com/digitalbio/2007/12/did_she_or_didnt_she_genetic_t.php
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2007/12/the_bible_as_ethnography_05_th.php
Open Theology has an article about Mary of Nazareth, with whom this passage from Isaiah was later associated.
Finally, let me wish all readers a happy Hannukkah, and to local ones and others to whom it may apply: enjoy the first snow!
Nor is the sign said to be anything to do with the child's birth. Rather, the sign is that before the child is chewing solid food or saying his first words, the present threat will be over. The key issue is thus not whether the Hebrew word means 'virgin' or 'young woman', since nothing is made of the mode of conception. Even if the woman was a virgin at the time, virgins get pregnant (usually through a loss of virginity), and so that question has nothing to do with the fact that the sign is the time frame rather than the mode of conception.
It is possible that the child was Hezekiah - a royal heir would certainly be a great sign. But more likely is that the child in question was Isaiah's own son, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (not to be confused with this one, or this one). If one objects that he was not named Immanuel, I respond "Neither was Jesus" - in Matthew's Gospel, the verse from Isaiah is quoted, and then they name the child Jesus. Immanuel was the child's significance, and not the name he actually bore, in either case.
The mentions of Immanuel/God is with us surround the mention of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (who from time to time secretly wished they had named him 'Immanuel'). The birth of a child is predicted. The birth of a child is mentioned. The meaning of the symbolic birth is consistent. Immanuel=Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, in the original context - case closed?
The contemporary perspective has three 'wise men' (i.e. scientists) who have posted on things to do with virgin births in the past few days:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/2007/12/whats_the_deal_with_virgin_bir.php
http://scienceblogs.com/digitalbio/2007/12/did_she_or_didnt_she_genetic_t.php
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2007/12/the_bible_as_ethnography_05_th.php
Open Theology has an article about Mary of Nazareth, with whom this passage from Isaiah was later associated.
Finally, let me wish all readers a happy Hannukkah, and to local ones and others to whom it may apply: enjoy the first snow!
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Quote of the Day (Arthur Peacocke)
"for Jesus to be fully human he had, for both biological and theological reasons, to have a human father as well as a human mother and the weight of the historical evidence strongly indicates that this was so - and that it was probably Joseph. Any theology for a scientific age which is concerned with the significance of Jesus of Nazareth now has to start at this point" (Arthur Peacocke, Evolution: The Disguised Friend Of Faith? (Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2004) p.228).
Peacocke earlier quoted C. J. Cadoux, who wrote: "Nor indeed is it enough for scholars to leave the issue open, on the sole ground that the evidence for the miraculous birth is insufficient. If a miracle is asserted to have occurred, and cogent evidence for its occurrence cannot be adduced, and belief in it can be readily accounted for along other lines, the duty of scholars is not to leave the reality of it open to question, but to reject it, not as inconceivable, but as in all probability not true" (C. J. Cadoux, The Life Of Jesus (West Drayton: Penguin Books, 1948) p.30; quoted Peacocke, op. cit., pp.223-224).
YouTube for Scientists
There is already a YouTube, and it has a lot of science-related (but also a lot of pseudoscience and anti-science related) clips uploaded and shared. But now there is something new, specifically for scientists: Sci-Vee. I've also just discovered Bloggingheads TV, which includes clips on science, politics and other subjects.
The New Perspective on Paul – Mirror Reading ‘the Works of the Law’
I remember reading Galatians as a teenager and thinking I understood what Paul was saying, and then reaching 5:21 and wondering what was going on. I had been reading Paul's letter in the typical Protestant way, assuming that he was saying that 'works in general don't matter for salvation', and then could make little sense of why he seemed to change his mind at the end of the letter, when he had seemed so adamant up until now. When I finally encountered Dunn's commentary on Romans, and the "new perspective on Paul" more generally, not only was this mystery resolved, but so was Paul's (to an uninitiated modern reader seemingly abrupt and inexplicable) 'shifts' from "works of the Law" to circumcision and the Gentiles.
Luther’s influence on the way we read Paul is considerable, and I have no intention of criticizing Luther's application of Paul's writings to his own time and experience: that is a separate issue. But it is certainly a priorilikely that the situation Paul confronted in the context of 1st century Judaism was not exactly the same as that which Luther addressed in 16th century Catholicism, a millenium and a half later.
Paul keeps coming back to one particular work of the Law: circumcision. But few seem to notice that this is probably the least appropriate ‘work of the Law’ for him to choose to represent or symbolize self-justification and self-righteousness. Circumcision was normally done when one was 8 days old (and I don't recall being concerned to justify myself before God through my own accomplishment at that age, although my memory is admittedly spotty for that particular stage in my life), and it is done to the male infant by someone else. Hardly an obvious choice of works to represent human accomplishment and the attempt to 'earn one's way to heaven'.
So what did circumcision signify in this period? First and foremost, the distinction betwee Jews and Gentiles. Here are some typical Jewish views of the works of the Law and of Gentiles in the Judaism of this period:
We should also ask whether the Law itself seems to have been opposed to grace, since Paul seems to be arguing not against mere self-righteousness as a misunderstanding of the Law, but about something universal and intrinsic to the Law itself. Read Deuteronomy 9:4-6. If anything, this sounds like the opposite of merit-based divine favor.
Was early Judaism completely legalistic, as some have assumed? There were surely legalists then, but there are legalistic Christians today; the question is about the overall character of the religion as a whole. Worth noting is the hymn from Qumran which says: “I know that righteousness does not belong to men nor perfection of path to the sons of men. To God Most High belong all righteous deeds.” At the very least, not all were legalists.
Tom Wright has been particularly vocal in pointing out that Paul's target seems to be less a legalistic individualistic self-righteousness, and more a corporate, election-based nationalistic righteousness. This has sometimes met with a reaction that asks what the relevance of this inner-Jewish critique might be for Christians today (Richard Hays tells a story about a pastor who asked a question after a talk he gave, saying that while he was persuaded Hays was right to argue that this is what Paul meant, he was pastor of a church where there were no Jews anywhere in the vicinity, and he now wondered what if anything the text meant for his congregation today
There is an answer to that question, and a good one, since many Christians today have (ironically) developed a theology that more closely resembles that of Paul's opponents than Paul's own. In emphasizing the 'works of Torah', many Jews of Paul's time were focusing on boundary markers rather than on fundamentals. The people of God are the circumcised, not those who love God and neighbor with all their heart. If we address the same challenge to ourselves as Christians, how do we identify a true Christian? Many would, in practice, revert to the proper dress, carrying a large leather Bible (KJV), not drinking, smoking, or swearing. Maybe voting Republican, too, although there are some signs that that is becoming less of a 'work of the Church' even as we speak. The Jews did not have too much emphasis on their own achievement; they had too much emphasis on their election and status as God's chosen ones, marked out by symbolic exterior distinctives and customs.
Paul's challenge was to put the emphasis on 'faith' - a word that meant 'faithfulness' rather than believing propositions without evidence. To hear Paul's message as Christians the way Paul's contemporaries would have heard it, we have to paraphrase Romans 2 and insert the contemporary Christian equivalents: "There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Christian, then for the non-Christian; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Christian, then for the non-Christian. For God does not show favoratism" (Romans 2:9-11 paraphrased).
Paul's message, when rediscovered and heard afresh, has changed lives and even the course of history on more than one occasion. I believe the time has come for such a fresh encounter with Paul once again in our time.
Luther’s influence on the way we read Paul is considerable, and I have no intention of criticizing Luther's application of Paul's writings to his own time and experience: that is a separate issue. But it is certainly a priorilikely that the situation Paul confronted in the context of 1st century Judaism was not exactly the same as that which Luther addressed in 16th century Catholicism, a millenium and a half later.
Paul keeps coming back to one particular work of the Law: circumcision. But few seem to notice that this is probably the least appropriate ‘work of the Law’ for him to choose to represent or symbolize self-justification and self-righteousness. Circumcision was normally done when one was 8 days old (and I don't recall being concerned to justify myself before God through my own accomplishment at that age, although my memory is admittedly spotty for that particular stage in my life), and it is done to the male infant by someone else. Hardly an obvious choice of works to represent human accomplishment and the attempt to 'earn one's way to heaven'.
So what did circumcision signify in this period? First and foremost, the distinction betwee Jews and Gentiles. Here are some typical Jewish views of the works of the Law and of Gentiles in the Judaism of this period:
Letter of Aristeas 139,142: In his wisdom the Lawgiver (i.e. Moses)…surrounded us with unbroken fences and with walls of iron, so that we might not be permitted to mix with any other people in any respect…Thus, in order to protect us from corruption through contact with others or through association with bad influences, he surrounded us on all sides with strict traditions relating to eating, drinking, hearing, touching and seeing, in the manner of the Law.[Apologies to any Gentile readers who found the above quote offensive]
Jubilees 22:16: Separate yourselves from the Gentiles: Do not eat with them, and do not do the things that they do, and do not have fellowship with them. For all their deeds are defiled, and all their ways are corrupt, and depraved, and disgusting.
We should also ask whether the Law itself seems to have been opposed to grace, since Paul seems to be arguing not against mere self-righteousness as a misunderstanding of the Law, but about something universal and intrinsic to the Law itself. Read Deuteronomy 9:4-6. If anything, this sounds like the opposite of merit-based divine favor.
Was early Judaism completely legalistic, as some have assumed? There were surely legalists then, but there are legalistic Christians today; the question is about the overall character of the religion as a whole. Worth noting is the hymn from Qumran which says: “I know that righteousness does not belong to men nor perfection of path to the sons of men. To God Most High belong all righteous deeds.” At the very least, not all were legalists.
Tom Wright has been particularly vocal in pointing out that Paul's target seems to be less a legalistic individualistic self-righteousness, and more a corporate, election-based nationalistic righteousness. This has sometimes met with a reaction that asks what the relevance of this inner-Jewish critique might be for Christians today (Richard Hays tells a story about a pastor who asked a question after a talk he gave, saying that while he was persuaded Hays was right to argue that this is what Paul meant, he was pastor of a church where there were no Jews anywhere in the vicinity, and he now wondered what if anything the text meant for his congregation today
There is an answer to that question, and a good one, since many Christians today have (ironically) developed a theology that more closely resembles that of Paul's opponents than Paul's own. In emphasizing the 'works of Torah', many Jews of Paul's time were focusing on boundary markers rather than on fundamentals. The people of God are the circumcised, not those who love God and neighbor with all their heart. If we address the same challenge to ourselves as Christians, how do we identify a true Christian? Many would, in practice, revert to the proper dress, carrying a large leather Bible (KJV), not drinking, smoking, or swearing. Maybe voting Republican, too, although there are some signs that that is becoming less of a 'work of the Church' even as we speak. The Jews did not have too much emphasis on their own achievement; they had too much emphasis on their election and status as God's chosen ones, marked out by symbolic exterior distinctives and customs.
Paul's challenge was to put the emphasis on 'faith' - a word that meant 'faithfulness' rather than believing propositions without evidence. To hear Paul's message as Christians the way Paul's contemporaries would have heard it, we have to paraphrase Romans 2 and insert the contemporary Christian equivalents: "There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Christian, then for the non-Christian; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Christian, then for the non-Christian. For God does not show favoratism" (Romans 2:9-11 paraphrased).
Paul's message, when rediscovered and heard afresh, has changed lives and even the course of history on more than one occasion. I believe the time has come for such a fresh encounter with Paul once again in our time.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Should Astrologers Get Tenure?
The cdesign proponentsists are up in arms about the fact that those involved in Guillermo Gonzalez' tenure review discussed his support of intelligent design. Imagine that! What next? Will they discuss whether astronomers are astrologers who believe the stars hold sway over human events? Will they dare to start expecting that people who will teach physics actually accept the existence of atoms? Will they next refuse to give tenure to someone who, when having students disect a frog, emphasizes that the slain are an offering to Heqet?
How could anyone discussing the academic achievement or otherwise of a scientist not discuss the individual's open involvement in a movement that seeks to undermine the foundations of modern science and drag us back to the dark ages when astrology and alchemy were the cutting edge of research?
As has been pointed out before, if Gonzales' supporters want to claim that he was discriminated against, then there is only one serious course of action open to them: admit that Intelligent Design is in fact a religious viewpoint and that this amounts to discrimination on religious grounds. But adhering to a viewpoint that has been exposed as at best a parody of science, and seeking tenure teaching science, should not end in different results than in the Gonzales case.
How could anyone discussing the academic achievement or otherwise of a scientist not discuss the individual's open involvement in a movement that seeks to undermine the foundations of modern science and drag us back to the dark ages when astrology and alchemy were the cutting edge of research?
As has been pointed out before, if Gonzales' supporters want to claim that he was discriminated against, then there is only one serious course of action open to them: admit that Intelligent Design is in fact a religious viewpoint and that this amounts to discrimination on religious grounds. But adhering to a viewpoint that has been exposed as at best a parody of science, and seeking tenure teaching science, should not end in different results than in the Gonzales case.
A Review Essay on Orality and the Bible by Werner Kelber
Review of Biblical Literature just announced that "ORALITY AND BIBLICAL STUDIES: A REVIEW ESSAY" by Werner H. Kelber has been posted on their web site.
External Delivery The Future - Just Santa Clausism With A Wedge?
There is a funny parody site about ED Theory - i.e. external delivery. This is a great pre-Christmas present. Enjoy!
(ht: Pharyngula)
(ht: Pharyngula)
Should You Avoid Being Left Behind?
Sean the Baptist has posted a blog entry on a subject that I've long thought about, but never written about (until now). In Matthew's Gospel (chapter 24), the image of some being 'taken' and others being 'left (behind)' is used, but in a way that in fact suggests that those who are left are the "saved", while those taken away are judged, like those taken away by Noah's flood.
Sean shares what a number of key commentators have to say on the subject. On the whole, it seems like the Left Behind series may have to be rewritten (although not necessarily renamed) in order to fit this Biblical passage. Maybe that's why I've always preferred Right Behind
to Left Behind.
Sean shares what a number of key commentators have to say on the subject. On the whole, it seems like the Left Behind series may have to be rewritten (although not necessarily renamed) in order to fit this Biblical passage. Maybe that's why I've always preferred Right Behind
to Left Behind.
What is Christianity? More on Judas, Gnosticism and the Historical Jesus
In some recent discussions both on this blog and elsewhere, the question of whether someone like me, who is far from being a fundamentalist, is a 'Christian'. This leads naturally to the question 'What is Christianity?' The problem is that, while fundamentalists make the most noise, and thus can seem to be speaking for Christianity in general, there is plenty of evidence to show that fundamentalism is a reaction to modernity, and not something that existed prior to the modern era.
Yet even scholars can work under the impression that there is one thing that can be clearly defined as 'Christianity', with the result that anything that does not fit that definition is not. For instance, on his blog Ben Witherington wrote (in response to the April DeConick op-ed piece):
I sympathize with Witherington. There is so much controversy and so much poor information around (for instance, CBS recently claimed that there have been Christians in Iraq "since the time of Jesus") that it can lead a scholar to dismay (and religion journalists to quit). But trying to oversimplify in the direction of the scholarly consensus doesn't seem to be more helpful.
No one examines the evidence in a vacuum. Just as for some, the idea that there has always been an obvious (probably conservative) Christianity, departures from which were clearly heresy and/or apostasy, can be comforting, for others the idea that their dissatisfaction with a particular form of Christianity, even if it happens to be mainstream Christianity, is nothing new and not necessarily a departure from Christianity itself, can also be helpful.
I don't wish to be misunderstood - I have, since my first encounter with Witherington's scholarship, been a big fan and found it helpful, balanced and sensible. Perhaps when scholars move into the blogosphere there is a danger as well as numerous positive aspects - perhaps in this instance he has expressed himself less precisely than he might tend to in a book for publication in traditional print format. Be that as it may, it seems clear that there is significant diversity in the early Christian movement. How early that diversity included something like Gnosticism is not an easy question to answer, but neither should this difficulty lead us to assume some particular default position or other, whether that of an early Gnosticism or a late one. Some things that Jesus himself seems to have said, such as his statement that Moses gave the divorce law but it didn't express God's will for humankind, are radical and difficult, and could seem to fit much more naturally with those early Jewish Christian movements that regarded some parts of the Torah as non-divine interpolations, than with modern fundamentalist Christianity which claims to regard it all as equally inerrant (while of course ignoring any parts that are inconvenient or felt to be uninteresting).
On the one hand, full-blown Gnosticism seems most likely to be a later development than the forms of Christianity evidenced by the New Testament writings. On the other hand, very early developments such as the interpretation of Jesus' death as an atoning sacrifice, seem to most scholars to be much earlier but nonetheless post-Easter interpretations of events with the benefit of hindsight. So in the end, the question becomes why one would seek to get back to the earliest church and stop there. If we are going to try to connect contemporary Christianity to a genuinely historical Jesus, why should we stop at the level of the earliest Christian interpretations of Jesus, as opposed to being open to the possibility that, like his followers today, even some of the earliest followers may have misunderstood him? Indeed, the earliest followers of Jesus about whom we have evidence seem to have accused one another or precisely that.
I suspect the reason for seeking 'original Christianity' rather than the 'historical Jesus' is that the former is far easier to confirm using the tools of historical inquiry, and thus relieves us of far more responsibility for making up our own minds than the quest for the historical Jesus does. And that is very comforting - but the fact that something is comforting does not mean it is necessarily correct, healthy, or the best approach. That is what needs to be discussed more frequently than it currently tends to be.
Yet even scholars can work under the impression that there is one thing that can be clearly defined as 'Christianity', with the result that anything that does not fit that definition is not. For instance, on his blog Ben Witherington wrote (in response to the April DeConick op-ed piece):
As many of us have been saying for some time, the author or authors of this document were not Christians at all. They were anti-Christians, and they had a very serious ax to grind against orthodox Christians and their faith, including having a major problem with the idea that Jesus' death atoned for the sins of the world...If one is 'Christian' the other is not, or else the law of non-contradiction must be deemed to have ceased to function in the discussion of earliest Christianity.It doesn't take much thought to realize that this is simply not true, and certainly not as obviously the case as Witherington seems to suppose. If the New Testament documents take us back to the earliest period for which we have written sources, as Witherington himself states (and I would concur), then a careful examination of the sources indicate the diversity of views that existed in the earliest church. The sources themselves are significantly diverse, and they also through their polemic indicate the existence of others within the Christian movement whose writings did not get included.
I sympathize with Witherington. There is so much controversy and so much poor information around (for instance, CBS recently claimed that there have been Christians in Iraq "since the time of Jesus") that it can lead a scholar to dismay (and religion journalists to quit). But trying to oversimplify in the direction of the scholarly consensus doesn't seem to be more helpful.
No one examines the evidence in a vacuum. Just as for some, the idea that there has always been an obvious (probably conservative) Christianity, departures from which were clearly heresy and/or apostasy, can be comforting, for others the idea that their dissatisfaction with a particular form of Christianity, even if it happens to be mainstream Christianity, is nothing new and not necessarily a departure from Christianity itself, can also be helpful.
I don't wish to be misunderstood - I have, since my first encounter with Witherington's scholarship, been a big fan and found it helpful, balanced and sensible. Perhaps when scholars move into the blogosphere there is a danger as well as numerous positive aspects - perhaps in this instance he has expressed himself less precisely than he might tend to in a book for publication in traditional print format. Be that as it may, it seems clear that there is significant diversity in the early Christian movement. How early that diversity included something like Gnosticism is not an easy question to answer, but neither should this difficulty lead us to assume some particular default position or other, whether that of an early Gnosticism or a late one. Some things that Jesus himself seems to have said, such as his statement that Moses gave the divorce law but it didn't express God's will for humankind, are radical and difficult, and could seem to fit much more naturally with those early Jewish Christian movements that regarded some parts of the Torah as non-divine interpolations, than with modern fundamentalist Christianity which claims to regard it all as equally inerrant (while of course ignoring any parts that are inconvenient or felt to be uninteresting).
On the one hand, full-blown Gnosticism seems most likely to be a later development than the forms of Christianity evidenced by the New Testament writings. On the other hand, very early developments such as the interpretation of Jesus' death as an atoning sacrifice, seem to most scholars to be much earlier but nonetheless post-Easter interpretations of events with the benefit of hindsight. So in the end, the question becomes why one would seek to get back to the earliest church and stop there. If we are going to try to connect contemporary Christianity to a genuinely historical Jesus, why should we stop at the level of the earliest Christian interpretations of Jesus, as opposed to being open to the possibility that, like his followers today, even some of the earliest followers may have misunderstood him? Indeed, the earliest followers of Jesus about whom we have evidence seem to have accused one another or precisely that.
I suspect the reason for seeking 'original Christianity' rather than the 'historical Jesus' is that the former is far easier to confirm using the tools of historical inquiry, and thus relieves us of far more responsibility for making up our own minds than the quest for the historical Jesus does. And that is very comforting - but the fact that something is comforting does not mean it is necessarily correct, healthy, or the best approach. That is what needs to be discussed more frequently than it currently tends to be.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
A Former Colleague, Jesus and Lunacy
I have to share one more item today, since there may be colleagues of mine here at Butler who will find this interesting (as may others). John Beversluis, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy who retired from teaching at Butler University not long after I started teaching here, wrote a book on C. S. Lewis, from which a short excerpt has been posted on the Debunking Christianity blog as a discussion-starter. I will have to read his book sometime in the not too distant future, since from the short excerpt I'm not particularly impressed, but that may have more to do with the lack of context than anything else.
I miss John's entertaining e-mails, in which he would do things like express agonized dismay over the cancellation of department meetings.
Today I just started reading The Year Of Living Biblically, which is highly entertaining, as I hoped it would be. I'll have more to say about that at some point soon as well.
(Debunking Christianity has since offered a follow-up post with the preface to the second edition of Beversluis' book).
I miss John's entertaining e-mails, in which he would do things like express agonized dismay over the cancellation of department meetings.
Today I just started reading The Year Of Living Biblically, which is highly entertaining, as I hoped it would be. I'll have more to say about that at some point soon as well.
(Debunking Christianity has since offered a follow-up post with the preface to the second edition of Beversluis' book).
Around the Blogosphere
Ancient Hebrew Poetry asks whether blogging about the Bible is a waste of time. James Tabor highlights April De Conick's op-ed piece in the New York Times. So does Josh McManaway, Chuck Blanchard, The Uncredible Hallq, Irenic Thoughts, Paul Edwards, Jim Davila, Claw of the Conciliator and millinerd. April De Conick has herself responded to some of these follow-up pieces. Metacatholic discusses Scripture's "fuzzy edges".
John Pieret discusses Mary Midgley's latest piece on creationism and evolution. Pharyngula has been following a creationist presentation by John West and also mentions a news piece critical of Ken Ham. Respectful Insolence can do little but sigh at how tiresome it is that young-earth creationists regurgitate the same arguments with no updating even after they have been answered by scientists.
Answers in Genesis BUSTED offers a collection of critiques of various forms of anti-scientific creationism. Chuck Blanchard has just got around to posting about the Chris Corner controversy (that's the Texas education official asked to resign recently).
At the library today I had a chance to read some magazines. Jim West had already posted about one item in the latest Smithsonian yesterday, the question of whether Jesus, Mary and the Ark of the Covenant all have in common their time spent in Ethiopia. Note the locals' statements about 'facts' and 'proof'!
Chris Heard ponders the irony of the religious meaning of the names of three leading atheists. Theo Geek follows a thread started elsewhere about the divisiveness of Calvinism. I wasn't predestined to be a Calvinist, so I'm staying out of it.
Peter Leithart suggests that Docetism isn't limited to denying Jesus' humanity, but any view of Jesus that denies the very specific features of his human existence can also be said to have docetic tendencies.
Qalmlea has a discussion of religious freedom and how some apply the concept differently in relation to themselves and in relation to others.
Nick Norelli dares to suggest...that the original Star Wars trilogy should be remade using current technology.
Paul Copan has a few thoughts about Richard Dawkins' statements regarding the Biblical story of Abraham and Isaac.
Pisteuomen has a review of Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity.
The next anthropology carnival Four Stone Hearth will be at Remote Central.
John Pieret discusses Mary Midgley's latest piece on creationism and evolution. Pharyngula has been following a creationist presentation by John West and also mentions a news piece critical of Ken Ham. Respectful Insolence can do little but sigh at how tiresome it is that young-earth creationists regurgitate the same arguments with no updating even after they have been answered by scientists.
Answers in Genesis BUSTED offers a collection of critiques of various forms of anti-scientific creationism. Chuck Blanchard has just got around to posting about the Chris Corner controversy (that's the Texas education official asked to resign recently).
At the library today I had a chance to read some magazines. Jim West had already posted about one item in the latest Smithsonian yesterday, the question of whether Jesus, Mary and the Ark of the Covenant all have in common their time spent in Ethiopia. Note the locals' statements about 'facts' and 'proof'!
Chris Heard ponders the irony of the religious meaning of the names of three leading atheists. Theo Geek follows a thread started elsewhere about the divisiveness of Calvinism. I wasn't predestined to be a Calvinist, so I'm staying out of it.
Peter Leithart suggests that Docetism isn't limited to denying Jesus' humanity, but any view of Jesus that denies the very specific features of his human existence can also be said to have docetic tendencies.
Qalmlea has a discussion of religious freedom and how some apply the concept differently in relation to themselves and in relation to others.
Nick Norelli dares to suggest...that the original Star Wars trilogy should be remade using current technology.
Paul Copan has a few thoughts about Richard Dawkins' statements regarding the Biblical story of Abraham and Isaac.
Pisteuomen has a review of Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity.
The next anthropology carnival Four Stone Hearth will be at Remote Central.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Quote of the Day (Lee Smolin)
"When people join a scientific community, they give up certain childish but universal desires: the need to feel that they are right all the time or the belief that they are in possession of the absolute truth. In exchange, they receive membership in an ongoing enterprise that over time will achieve what no individual could ever achieve alone. They also receive expert training in a craft, and in most cases learn much more than they ever could on their own. Then, in exchange for their labor expended in the practice of that craft, the community safeguards a member's right to advocate any view or research program he or she feels is supported by the evidence developed from its practice" (Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006) pp.302-303).
Thomas: The Other Gospel of Judas
A review of Thomas, the Other Gospel
by Nicholas Perrin (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007).
by Nicholas Perrin (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007).The Gospel of Thomas, attributed to "Didymus Judas Thomas", is the extracanonical Gospel whose contents are taken most seriously in historical Jesus studies, as potentially connecting us in some way with the historical figure of Jesus. Nicholas Perrin's recent book is an argument that this Gospel in fact is most naturally regarded as a composition produced in late 2nd century Syria.
I do not intend to engage in a detailed analysis of this main point for two reasons. First, the treatment in this book is a more popularized form of a case made in a more detailed, academic fashion elsewhere. As such, I intend to evaluate the case made here on its own terms, rather than the case made elsewhere (I hope to return to Perrin's more scholarly publications on some other occasion). Second, the question of whether the Gospel of Thomas, in the earliest version that corresponds to the 'complete' form we know from Greek fragments and Coptic manuscripts, was written in Syriac in the late second century, is not the only question, or even the most fundamental one in relation to the questions other scholars have been focused on, although clearly it is not irrelevant. But even if the author of Thomas used Tatian's Diatessaron, the extremely interesting question of what other sources may have been used remains unaddressed in this book.
There is much in Perrin's book that is useful, such as the summary of the positive aspects of the work of other scholars, the presentation of the evidence for the date of the complete Gospel of Thomas.
Some weak points include the following:
1) When it comes to the possibility that Thomas was harmonized with the other Gospels at a late stage of copying, this can in no way be said to be implausible (cf. pp.23-24). In manuscripts of the Synoptic Gospels, harmonization regularly occurs, e.g. in Luke's version of the Lord's Prayer, where scribes often 'fixed' it to agree more closely with Matthew's.
2) Perrin claims that the Synoptic Gospels viewed Jesus as divine, and then goes on to quote Paul - and Simon Gathercole! See pp.44-45. Sometime I must work through Gathercole's claims in detail, but that will have to be a separate post.
3) Perrin fails to appreciate the way in which it would have served John's aims to have Thomas acknowledge the bodily resurrection in an appropriate Johannine confession. He also assumes that Thomas' statement about going to die with him is 'heroic', which is possible but by no means obvious.
4) Although it remains to be seen whether there was in fact a clear tradition associated with the name of Thomas or Judas Thomas in the first or even early second century, texts like GThom 13, rather than indicating a completed canon known to the author of Thomas, or his use of the Diatessaron, would most naturally fit a time before the Gospels of Luke and John were widely circulated. I will be the first to admit that this is slim evidence, but if one is going to look for evidence not only of a document's final date but other important dates in the development of its contents, then such evidence needs to be taken seriously, as does the reference to James' leadership.
5) Perrin's argument against DeConick on p.60 is clearly on the wrong track. Luke was not an eyewitness, whatever one may wish to say about other Gospel authors. To say that Luke was...more comfortable relying on others' written accounts than simply scribing down his own remembrances" (p.60) overlooks this most elementary consideration. (His use of Papias is also open to criticism, since the rabbis also expressed a preference for discipleship to book learning, not because of a preference for orality or the authority of eyewitnesses, but for a preference for lived examples).
6) Perrin uses a rather ridiculous argument from a literate society, and even here it does not fit particularly well (p.68). The example