I just finished reading "God Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens. I cannot testify to the accuracy of his historical points, but I didn't find much to disagree with in terms of his overall evaluation of organized religion. Hitchens makes many valid points in regard to how religion has had a detrimental effect on society. While I appreciated his overall critique of religion, I could have done without his emotionally-charged sarcasm and moral judgment. In my humble opinion, a critique of this nature would've been better delivered without any specific editorial on the part of the author.
Fortunately, I don't take offense to opinions that are generally critical of whatever faith I align myself with. However, I recognize that many do. Because of this, I suspect a great number of people will quickly gloss over the book's general message and focus on those points they feel qualified to argue with. His antagonistic writing style basically offers those who would disagree with him a magnificently large target to aim at. In the book, he often punctuates important facts and ideas with name-calling, snarkiness, and self-righteous moral outrage.
What a shame.
He could have made his case against religion in a sober, thoughtful manner without any of the antagonistic editorial. If he could've exercised a bit more maturity, he may have given the book some kind of chance to spark critical evaluation in the minds of many religious people. Instead, he basically marches right up to the church steps and calls the congregation out for a good ol' street fight.
Great...
You might think that someone so versed in the world's religions would recognize that many of the faiths he criticizes love nothing more than a good fight. It's like tossing a thick juicy steak to a den of starving hyenas. Clearly, he has no intention of facilitating an actual dialog with those who might actually change their minds based on the perspective he offers. Indeed, his book appears to be written for those who are already leaning towards his particular views. For all the time and effort that must have gone into that book, it seems a waste to craft it in such a way to ensure the message comes secondary to the messenger.
And, yes. Christopher Hitchens has managed to get everyone talking about... him. I've done a bit of Googling to see what is being said about "God Is Not Great". Many of the reviews I've read appear to be focused on the author, the tone of his writing, and the veracity of his facts. The book is predictably causing a scandal all over the place. I've read at least three blogs this morning by folks who refuse to read the book, but are happy to condemn Hitchens and anyone else he might be associated with.
It saddens me. I really wish someone would come forward to cast a bright light on religion's dark side in a calm, mature fashion. Take the discussion out of the relentlessly defensive ego and place it in the realm of cool, objective critical thought.
Overall, I agree that religion has a tendency to poison everything it touches. I believe this is the result of forcing an ever-changing reality to conform to a rigid dogma. The natural world is the very epitome of change. It would seem to me that any system of belief (be it scientific, religious or otherwise) must be dynamic enough to change.
If an idea seeks to inhibit the persistence of life, then it either fails miserably or manages to extinguish the life it seeks to enrich.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Monday, August 6, 2007
Zeitgeist: The Movie
If you can find the time, please watch Zeitgeist: The Movie.
It is available on Google in three parts.
Zeitgeist - Part 1
Zeitgeist - Part 2
Zeitgeist - Part 3
I am still wrestling with what I've learned from this film. At the moment, I'm generally speechless.
Regardless of what your religious or political views are, this is an important film that every American ought to see.
It is available on Google in three parts.
Zeitgeist - Part 1
Zeitgeist - Part 2
Zeitgeist - Part 3
I am still wrestling with what I've learned from this film. At the moment, I'm generally speechless.
Regardless of what your religious or political views are, this is an important film that every American ought to see.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Modern Christian Apologetics
I am attempting to wrap my head around modern Christian apologetics. I am certain that I've only been exposed to a small fraction of a great body of intellectual thought.
I am having a bit of difficulty expressing how I feel about what I've read thus far. On the surface, the arguments appear to be consistently petty, questionably articulated, and egregiously biased. I have to admit that much of what I've read is disturbing. It's not that there are well-meaning Christians out there who are doing their best to lend meaning to their faith. It's that they seem to be intent on invalidating other systems of belief as a way to lend credibility to their own.
This is where I find a huge disconnect. What is the real argument? Does the existence of God and the message of Christ depend on all other beliefs being wrong? If so, that's a pretty weak foundation. Personally, I don't believe this to be true at all. The strength of a given idea comes from the degree of certainty we have in it.
If I wished to communicate a different idea to someone, I would focus on outlining the benefits of that idea first. I would then invite an objective evaluation of that idea. Ultimately, we must find ideas that work for us. If an idea is really that good, it'll have impact and staying power.
There's actually a pretty decent article at Answersingenesis.org concerning effective apologetic debate for Christians. The writer encourages that presuppositions be established prior to entering into a debate. This is an awesome idea, but one I've not seen used very much. While there are a number of minor, petty statements I disagree with, I found the article actually encouraged its reader to explore an opposing view as way to develop a better argument.
Hrm.
You know... I've willingly identified myself as being a Christian in many respects. However, I am loathe to be associated with any faith foolish enough to insist that its holy book has all the answers. Worse still, I'm not sure I am ready to read the Bible as cold, hard fact. I know a metaphor when I see it. I just can't voluntarily regress my intellect to the point where the statement that reads, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." actually means that rich men cannot go to Heaven.
In my opinion, it is better to focus on espousing the best of what the Bible has to offer so that these ideas can immediately take root and start working in someone's life. I believe it to be a better use of the limited time we have in this planet to get acquainted with spirituality.
I am having a bit of difficulty expressing how I feel about what I've read thus far. On the surface, the arguments appear to be consistently petty, questionably articulated, and egregiously biased. I have to admit that much of what I've read is disturbing. It's not that there are well-meaning Christians out there who are doing their best to lend meaning to their faith. It's that they seem to be intent on invalidating other systems of belief as a way to lend credibility to their own.
This is where I find a huge disconnect. What is the real argument? Does the existence of God and the message of Christ depend on all other beliefs being wrong? If so, that's a pretty weak foundation. Personally, I don't believe this to be true at all. The strength of a given idea comes from the degree of certainty we have in it.
If I wished to communicate a different idea to someone, I would focus on outlining the benefits of that idea first. I would then invite an objective evaluation of that idea. Ultimately, we must find ideas that work for us. If an idea is really that good, it'll have impact and staying power.
There's actually a pretty decent article at Answersingenesis.org concerning effective apologetic debate for Christians. The writer encourages that presuppositions be established prior to entering into a debate. This is an awesome idea, but one I've not seen used very much. While there are a number of minor, petty statements I disagree with, I found the article actually encouraged its reader to explore an opposing view as way to develop a better argument.
Hrm.
You know... I've willingly identified myself as being a Christian in many respects. However, I am loathe to be associated with any faith foolish enough to insist that its holy book has all the answers. Worse still, I'm not sure I am ready to read the Bible as cold, hard fact. I know a metaphor when I see it. I just can't voluntarily regress my intellect to the point where the statement that reads, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." actually means that rich men cannot go to Heaven.
In my opinion, it is better to focus on espousing the best of what the Bible has to offer so that these ideas can immediately take root and start working in someone's life. I believe it to be a better use of the limited time we have in this planet to get acquainted with spirituality.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Creation vs. Evolution?
At first, I was entertained by much of the content I found on GodTube. Some of the videos that attempt to disapprove Evolution and Darwinism are hilarious. Notable videos include "The Atheist", "Argument Against Evolution", "Four Problems With Evolution", "Evolution Cartoon", and my personal favorite, "Peanut Butter - Atheist's Nightmare". Taken out of context, some of these videos might appear to be the work of comedians or pranksters. Unfortunately, most (if not all those I've reviewed to date) are not jokes at all.
Certainly, there ought to be room for a healthy debate between Creationism and Evolution. It is a shame that much of the supporting arguments I've seen in favor of Creationism appear to be based an incomplete understanding of the available scientific evidence in support of Evolutionary Theory. I'm not a scientist, but I do understand the difference between biogenesis and abiogenesis. I also understand that there is a huge difference between what happens over the period of 6,000 years and 6 billion years.
Frankly, I'm not terribly concerned with whatever the actual "truth" is. I'm human. I lean towards subjective reasoning. Looking for an "absolute truth" as to the origins of something I was not around to personally witness would seem an invitation to certain insanity. I'd rather embrace a flexible perspective that provides me with the greatest opportunity to appreciate the reality I am currently experiencing.
Creationism points to an Intelligent Design. I like this idea as it is representative of my perceptual experience as a human being. When I sit back and appreciate the world around me, I am delighted by the artistic complexity I see. There is a lot more than meets the eye. I like the idea that the Universe, in all its chaotic beauty, was created by a higher intelligence.
I like the idea of evolution as it is representative of my physical experience of being a human with a limited lifespan. I've witnessed evolution in my own life. I've grown and adapted along the way in many senses of the word. My body is certainly much different than it was when I was a child. The aging process reminds me that my body is like the world in small - it changes and adapts and evolves and improves.
The Bible does not offer a date as to when God created the Heavens. However, there are many suppositions as to when Creation supposedly happened. My intuition tells me that the Earth has been around for a very long time. It is possible that the Universe has been around a lot longer. Who is to say for sure?
In any event, I have no problem believing the research of so many reputable scientists. Their facts and theories are only as meaningful to me as they are useful in appreciating this mortal experience. At the same time, I have no problem believing that God created this Universe as a magnificent paradox for mortals to entertain themselves with.
I'm sure that many Christians would argue that my beliefs are contradictory. How can anyone believe in God and believe in evolution at the same time? Well, I don't see these ideas as being mutually exclusive. The Bible doesn't mention a great many things. It would be insanity to limit my understanding of the Universe to the Bible's limited explanation of the natural world. I doubt that God is threatened in the least by our collective theories regarding how it all came together.
The thing is... I wonder how much of any of this really matters. If the Bible didn't exist, I'd still believe in God. My faith requires no proof. In fact, I'd argue that searching for "proof" that God exists implies a powerful belief that God doesn't exist.
At the end of the day, it's about faith. I believe Jesus was extending an invitation to mankind to transcend this "I believe it when I see it" attitude. He was encouraging us to think outside the box.
Certainly, there ought to be room for a healthy debate between Creationism and Evolution. It is a shame that much of the supporting arguments I've seen in favor of Creationism appear to be based an incomplete understanding of the available scientific evidence in support of Evolutionary Theory. I'm not a scientist, but I do understand the difference between biogenesis and abiogenesis. I also understand that there is a huge difference between what happens over the period of 6,000 years and 6 billion years.
Frankly, I'm not terribly concerned with whatever the actual "truth" is. I'm human. I lean towards subjective reasoning. Looking for an "absolute truth" as to the origins of something I was not around to personally witness would seem an invitation to certain insanity. I'd rather embrace a flexible perspective that provides me with the greatest opportunity to appreciate the reality I am currently experiencing.
Creationism points to an Intelligent Design. I like this idea as it is representative of my perceptual experience as a human being. When I sit back and appreciate the world around me, I am delighted by the artistic complexity I see. There is a lot more than meets the eye. I like the idea that the Universe, in all its chaotic beauty, was created by a higher intelligence.
I like the idea of evolution as it is representative of my physical experience of being a human with a limited lifespan. I've witnessed evolution in my own life. I've grown and adapted along the way in many senses of the word. My body is certainly much different than it was when I was a child. The aging process reminds me that my body is like the world in small - it changes and adapts and evolves and improves.
The Bible does not offer a date as to when God created the Heavens. However, there are many suppositions as to when Creation supposedly happened. My intuition tells me that the Earth has been around for a very long time. It is possible that the Universe has been around a lot longer. Who is to say for sure?
In any event, I have no problem believing the research of so many reputable scientists. Their facts and theories are only as meaningful to me as they are useful in appreciating this mortal experience. At the same time, I have no problem believing that God created this Universe as a magnificent paradox for mortals to entertain themselves with.
I'm sure that many Christians would argue that my beliefs are contradictory. How can anyone believe in God and believe in evolution at the same time? Well, I don't see these ideas as being mutually exclusive. The Bible doesn't mention a great many things. It would be insanity to limit my understanding of the Universe to the Bible's limited explanation of the natural world. I doubt that God is threatened in the least by our collective theories regarding how it all came together.
The thing is... I wonder how much of any of this really matters. If the Bible didn't exist, I'd still believe in God. My faith requires no proof. In fact, I'd argue that searching for "proof" that God exists implies a powerful belief that God doesn't exist.
At the end of the day, it's about faith. I believe Jesus was extending an invitation to mankind to transcend this "I believe it when I see it" attitude. He was encouraging us to think outside the box.
GodTube
About a week ago, I found GodTube.com. This is a Christian faith website that allows for the sharing and discussion of primarily Christian based video content. This is a terrific idea and I applaud the site's creators for providing this resource to the Christian community.
As one might expect, the content on this site skews heavily towards Christianity. While the aim of the site is to spread the Gospel according to the Bible, there is a great deal of content focused on comparing Christianity to other faiths. As one might also suspect, these comparisons are largely biased in favor of Christianity.
I'd love to see the same type of website developed for other faiths and traditions. I would be very interested in seeing video content that focused on Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, and other popular religions. I've not done the adequate research to find such sites, but would be delighted to discover something like that out there on the Internet.
As one might expect, the content on this site skews heavily towards Christianity. While the aim of the site is to spread the Gospel according to the Bible, there is a great deal of content focused on comparing Christianity to other faiths. As one might also suspect, these comparisons are largely biased in favor of Christianity.
I'd love to see the same type of website developed for other faiths and traditions. I would be very interested in seeing video content that focused on Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, and other popular religions. I've not done the adequate research to find such sites, but would be delighted to discover something like that out there on the Internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)