The Godfather III

(Yes, is is really the most disappointing of the series.)

The church has relented and will not require Joshua to have his special letter to be a Godparent.  Am I glad that his family will have their way?  Sure.  But the church really devalued itself in that decision.  What is the point of the church being involved at all?  Oh well.  There's not much more to say on this topic, I think.

S.A.M.

Forced to Choose: Science or Future With the Church

USA Today had a story this week about an Evangelical scholar who was forced out of his position with the church for posting a YouTube video about how he didn't deny evolution, and thought the church could run into trouble in the future by denying it.  Check out the story.  I'd love to show you the video but it had been taken down since he was asked to resign.  The organization that filmed it offers a more complete explanation here, and here's an excerpt of the description:

Waltke cautions, “if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.”
We are at a unique moment in history where “everything is coming together,” says Waltke, and conversations—like those initiated by BioLogos—are positive developments. “I see this as part of the growth of the church,” he says. “We are much more mature by this dialogue that we are having. This is how we come to the unity of the faith—by wrestling with these issues.”

The greatest thing about this in my opinion? DIALOGUE!  I heard about it on a radio talk show called Jon Grayson Overnight America.  I'll confess - I don't usually listen, but a friend texted me and told me Jon and his callers were having an incredible debate on the air about evolution. The host did a pretty good job of defending the scientific, even if he wasn't thrilled to be talking about such a serious topic on a normally "fluffy" show.  The conversation went on for almost the entire hour, and one caller -GET THIS- discussed the Creation movie!!!  That totally made my day!

S.A.M.

Atheists Plan to Arrest Pope

I know... a double dose of media postings today, but I just can't help it!  (Plus, I am "making up" for being so busy with school last week.  I had a big paper on Martin Heidegger due.)  ANYWAY.

The headlines are all over the British Media: Atheist Richard Dawkins backs campaign to arrest Pope.

Leading atheist Richard Dawkins has backed a campaign to have the Pope arrested for "crimes against humanity" when he visits the UK later this year.


Professor Dawkins said he "whole-heartedly" backed the initiative led by atheist Christopher Hitchens.

UK human rights lawyers are preparing a case to charge Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.

So... Okay. Am I the only one a little fuzzy on the logistics of this?  Besides that, creating a media circus like this lacks a certain decorum that I expect from educated authors and intellectuals. I'm not defending the pope - and I totally agree that he should be held legally accountable for his part in the cover-up. I just think that there could have been more tactful ways of approaching this. This is just being perceived as an "attack" on Catholicism, or a cheap grab to get Atheists in the headlines. Sure, speak about it - even hire the lawyers. Support an international investigation. Encourage religious people to examine and police their own leaders. But just throwing the idea out there that atheists are going to form a lynch mob and march into the Vatican to put the pope in handcuffs is not good for our PR campaign.

S.A.M.

"Eavesdropping on Atheists"

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Atheism's Effect on Religion

The Guardian had an excellent column over the weekend that contemplated the effect that New Atheism might be having on religion - or at least the religious book industry. (Read it here!) The writer, Madeline Bunting, wonders if, "perhaps New Atheism's publishing success is a case of winning a battle and losing the war." While I think the article is well-done, and I think she makes some great points about both the debate and the successes of both sides, I'd like to discuss the mistakes she believes atheists often make in this "war."

The great mistake the atheists made is to claim that religion started out as a clumsy stab at science – trying to explain how the world worked – and is now clearly redundant. That misses the point entirely: religion is not about explaining how an earthquake or flood happens; rather it offers meanings for such events. When someone is killed in a car accident, western rationality is good at analysing how the brakes failed and the road curved, but has nothing to say about why, on that particular day, the brakes failed when it was you in the car: the sequence of random events that kill. This search for meaning is part of what drives the religious spirit.

It's true that we don't now (and maybe never will) have a perfect explanation for the emergence of religion in human culture. I'm having a hard time deciphering where exactly she feels the mistake is being made - on the "battlefield" (ie. as a weak point of argument against religion) or within the philosophy (ie. a flawed idea within atheism). Either way, she seems to be assuming that there IS "meaning" behind events such as your brakes failing beyond a physical explanation. To an atheist, the world is primarily explained by physics, science, etc., and any meaning is self-ascribed. If she is saying that atheism offers no "alternative" extra meaning to believers, I'm not sure that we're missing the point - it's simply non-existent in atheist philosophy. I imagine giving up faith also requires giving up that search for any supernatural meaning. Sorry, I have no atheist Splenda to offer the believers as they begin their diet.

The second mistake made by the atheists is the assumption that faith and belief are mental processes akin to opinion. Armstrong runs through the etymology to uncover original meanings: belief is a commitment not a proposition; faith, as in "I have faith in you", is an expression of confidence, not an assertion of the existence of something. Dogma is "a truth which cannot easily be put into words and which can only be fully understood through long experience" – rather like the love of a parent for their child growing into adulthood.

Here, again, I see what she is trying to get at (the distinction between belief and faith), but I'm not sure that atheists actually make that assumption. If atheists were to simply accept that faithful confidence is beyond challenge or question, there would be no point in discussing beliefs at all. I think enough people have established valid arguments for debating faith and religion that I don't have to list them here. Ms. Bunting also seems to be implying that faith is VOID of mental process, which is also not true. The bible contains a number of contradictions, and even the most pious of Christians must use their own mental process to decide how to deal with these sticky situations. Also, following her logic, people would RARELY question or change religions or religious opinions, and this is clearly not true. I can see that Armstrong is attempting to defend faith with some etymological research, but I think that despite the interesting history, he also needs to consider the reality of how people believe today and what the words "belief" and "faith" mean to people living now. After all, these are not historical atheists debating historical religious people - it's a current issue.

I am critical of some points of the New Atheism, but these points are not ones I would challenge. I'll save those points for another day. But I'm not sure I that could have let her critique fly by without, at least, a little discussion.

S.A.M.

Classes announced! History Debunked??

I registered for next semester's classes on Friday - and I can't wait for September.  I am taking a class on the history of Christianity.  This is a straight-up anthropology course so no theology.  That will be a first for me.  I spent the first 13 years of my education in private Catholic schools, so I can't wait to finally have a "religion" class without the spin.  I hope we cover EVERYTHING - rejected books of the bible, the Crusades, the politics of the early popes.  I'm hoping this class WON'T be a breeze for me, though, because it could be an excellent opportunity to toughen up my organized religion debates.

Speaking of things like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Easter was a great day for the History Channel.  I had a hard time tearing myself away for the family dinner.  I was happy to watch some educational stuff about the actual history of the bible or cathedrals instead of just "Was Jesus Real??" features. 

One show I am NOT excited about watching on the History Channel: The Real Face of Jesus.  Um... hasn't the scientific community pretty much dismissed the shroud as a medieval fraud?  I could have sworn I actually saw the story of the debunking on the History Channel.  So why would a fake shroud reveal a real face?  I'm sure the technology is cool, but why not apply it to mummies or something?  This is definetely a step backward for the History Channel in my mind.  Next step - find another ark.  :(

S.A.M.

Getting Ready for "Eostre"!!

(Art courtesy of www.thaliatook.com)

The pope is criticizing the New York Times for their coverage of the sex abuse scandal - which they are calling an Easter Week attack. (Check out some of the news coverage here.) Supposedly, the pope was personally involved in the initial decision to NOT punish the abusive priests. This seems to be the most fallible a pope has appeared to be in my lifetime, and I wonder if he WILL be pulled into a legal investigation. It poses some interesting questions that may not have been asked for hundreds of years - Can the pope go to jail? Can he testify in court? Can he be removed from office once appointed? I'll be anxious to see.

Speaking of Easter, here's a little Easter history from ReligiousTolerance.org:

The name "Easter" originated with the names of an ancient Goddess and God. The Venerable Bede, (672-735 CE.) a Christian scholar, first asserted in his book De Ratione Temporum that Easter was named after Eostre (a.k.a. Eastre). She was the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxon people in Northern Europe. Similarly, the "Teutonic dawn goddess of fertility [was] known variously as Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostre, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron and Ausos." Her name was derived from the ancient word for spring: "eastre." Similar Goddesses were known by other names in ancient cultures around the Mediterranean, and were celebrated in the springtime. Some were:

~Aphrodite from ancient Cyprus

~Ashtoreth from ancient Israel

~Astarte from ancient Greece

~Demeter from Mycenae

~Hathor from ancient Egypt

~Ishtar from Assyria

~Kali, from India

~Ostara a Norse Goddess of fertility.

An alternative explanation has been suggested. The name given by the Frankish church to Jesus' resurrection festival included the Latin word "alba" which means "white." (This was a reference to the white robes that were worn during the festival.) "Alba" also has a second meaning: "sunrise." When the name of the festival was translated into German, the "sunrise" meaning was selected in error. This became "ostern" in German. Ostern has been proposed as the origin of the word "Easter".

Knowing that many Christian holidays are pillaged from prior religions, I was still surprised to learn how directly Easter was related to goddess worship - even in name! So, maybe as I celebrate spring in my new white dress and shoes, I can join my family in actually saying that I'm celebrating Easter... or rather "Eostre" (Goddess of Spring).  Just a little spelling difference.  :)

S.A.M.