Does Africa need Christianity? Recovering Christian, Matthew Parris, argues that it does—with his heart, not his brain.
Read As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God, from TimesOnline.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Strange Holiday Lights Displays
As much as I dislike the Flying Spaghetti Monster, this one belongs at MoMA.
(From Slate Magazine's "America's Weirdest Holiday Lights Displays" slideshow.)
(From Slate Magazine's "America's Weirdest Holiday Lights Displays" slideshow.)
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
Blah, Francis Collins... (Petty Friday?)
I started to write this entry a while back but stopped short of posting it for fear of being unfair to its subject. After all he did play a monumental role in helping to unravel the humane genome, and so who am I to smear someone of such high repute. Furthermore, I still have yet to read his book The Language Of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, so really, I'm in no better position now to criticize.
But I was reminded again of Francis Collins upon listening back to an interview (the same interview that nagged me to write this post in the first place), which featured the famed geneticist, on Terry Gross' characteristically hospitable radio show, Fresh Air (NPR). The discussion was part two in a two-part series addressing the compatibility of science and religion, the first of which featured an interview with evolutionary biologist and renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins. I've provided links to the two interviews below so there's no need for me to reconstruct them here, but I would like to comment on what I perceive to be a distinct difference in attitude between the two eminent scientists; a difference that to me illustrates the lack of intellectual rigor that results in unlikely labels like "Evangelical Christian Geneticist" (not to be confused in this case with Christian Scientist).
Now it's an admittedly murky idea to try and articulate, and I wince at the thought of sounding mean—but there is something deficient in Francis Collins's reasoning. Something off, something kinda childish, something bible camp-counsiloresque about his demeanor. When compared with Richard Dawkins—and to be sure, Dawkins possesses exceptional powers of persuasion—Collins sounds naive and whimsical, much like anyone who babbles on about what God might/maybe/could embody. Like, "Gosh, would you look at all those stars... kinda makes you think, don't it... [insert token spiritual digression here]" The only nuance being that Collins thinks God's invisible fingerprints are all over our DNA (a far cry from the dust and bone accounts of Genesis.)
In this respect, Collins falls neatly in line with a dead-sea-scrolls-worth of religious faithfuls who've found new and creative ways of positing God's existence in the face of scientific discovery, which continues to neuter claims made by their sacred texts. From Copernicus to Galileo, Newton to Darwin, where religion is concerned, science is corrosive, and it's taken the craft of language to go the necessarily poetic lengths to rescue popular religion from sheer charlatanism.
Am I alleging that Francis Collins himself is a charlatan? No—I'd imagine he believes wholeheartedly in the arguments he makes for Christianity. Am I saying he's incapable of advancing science? Clearly not, as he has in a monumental way. I am however calling into question his intelectual rigor, and suggesting that the latest spin he's put on spirituality says nothing new. Science has been revealing profundities in nature for millennia, and there will always be those who take those discoveries to be proof of God's existence, when really, the reason for the splendor of the genome is no more explicable than that of the vastness of the cosmos, however much one might wish for an explanation.
As for Dawkins, maybe I'm giving him too much credit. Maybe the seductiveness in his voice—his token eloquence, are merely reflections of the grace and honesty of his arguments.
Listen to both interviews on NPR's website:
Richard Dawkins interview w/ Terry Gross
Francis Collins interview w/ Terry Gross
But I was reminded again of Francis Collins upon listening back to an interview (the same interview that nagged me to write this post in the first place), which featured the famed geneticist, on Terry Gross' characteristically hospitable radio show, Fresh Air (NPR). The discussion was part two in a two-part series addressing the compatibility of science and religion, the first of which featured an interview with evolutionary biologist and renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins. I've provided links to the two interviews below so there's no need for me to reconstruct them here, but I would like to comment on what I perceive to be a distinct difference in attitude between the two eminent scientists; a difference that to me illustrates the lack of intellectual rigor that results in unlikely labels like "Evangelical Christian Geneticist" (not to be confused in this case with Christian Scientist).
Now it's an admittedly murky idea to try and articulate, and I wince at the thought of sounding mean—but there is something deficient in Francis Collins's reasoning. Something off, something kinda childish, something bible camp-counsiloresque about his demeanor. When compared with Richard Dawkins—and to be sure, Dawkins possesses exceptional powers of persuasion—Collins sounds naive and whimsical, much like anyone who babbles on about what God might/maybe/could embody. Like, "Gosh, would you look at all those stars... kinda makes you think, don't it... [insert token spiritual digression here]" The only nuance being that Collins thinks God's invisible fingerprints are all over our DNA (a far cry from the dust and bone accounts of Genesis.) In this respect, Collins falls neatly in line with a dead-sea-scrolls-worth of religious faithfuls who've found new and creative ways of positing God's existence in the face of scientific discovery, which continues to neuter claims made by their sacred texts. From Copernicus to Galileo, Newton to Darwin, where religion is concerned, science is corrosive, and it's taken the craft of language to go the necessarily poetic lengths to rescue popular religion from sheer charlatanism.
Am I alleging that Francis Collins himself is a charlatan? No—I'd imagine he believes wholeheartedly in the arguments he makes for Christianity. Am I saying he's incapable of advancing science? Clearly not, as he has in a monumental way. I am however calling into question his intelectual rigor, and suggesting that the latest spin he's put on spirituality says nothing new. Science has been revealing profundities in nature for millennia, and there will always be those who take those discoveries to be proof of God's existence, when really, the reason for the splendor of the genome is no more explicable than that of the vastness of the cosmos, however much one might wish for an explanation.
As for Dawkins, maybe I'm giving him too much credit. Maybe the seductiveness in his voice—his token eloquence, are merely reflections of the grace and honesty of his arguments.
Listen to both interviews on NPR's website:
Richard Dawkins interview w/ Terry Gross
Francis Collins interview w/ Terry Gross
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Holy, Holy Rollers!
I recently finished an outstanding book that shed light on so many lurking suspicions I've amassed over the years regarding religion, cults, religious cults—don't ask me why I'm being redundant here, any one of these terms should suffice.
The book is called "Holy Rollers: Murder and Madness in Oregon's Love Cult" and its authors T. McCracken and Robert B. Blodgett relay (in obsessively-researched detail) the story of the rise and fall of the Holy Roller cult that emerged in Corvallis, Oregon around 1903—spawning mayhem in the decade to follow.
Led by the well-endowed, jesus-wannabe Edmund Creffield—or "Joshua" as his flock knew him—the Holy Rollers spent much of their early days rolling around on the floor of their church in a crazed state of worship. Joshua had told them that he was a prophet and that they were God's Anointed; he had "received instruction from on high" to lead them to where the restoration of all things would take place, at which point the world would be as it was when God first created it.
But in the meantime, this meant a whole lot of rolling around and begging for forgiveness. And so, exhaustive prayer services were held sometimes lasting 24 hours, 12 hours if it was a short service. God's Anointed were encouraged to shun their spiritually impure family members and burn all their "vain" possessions (which I believe included some chickens, a dog and a cat...).
Making use of the convenient device of divine revelation, Creffield would soon convince his flock that God no longer wanted them to wear clothes (though they were to continue to spend much time on the floor together) and that they were only to eat food that he himself had blessed. This way they would "know cold" and "know hunger" but also remain weak and dizzy from all that rolling.
Creffield's method of breaking down and rebuilding his subjects was an incremental process, but the key was keeping everyone convinced that he was in direct communication with God. Any dissent among his followers was fiercely rooted out, and the accused were banished from his church with the promise that God would smite them.
The particulars of these cult-leader/cult-cog dynamics were of imminent interest to me in reading this book. I've always maintained a loose sketch in my mind of how one individual, or a group of individuals, may have managed to pull off an extaordinary hoax (such as, say, Christianity) but to have the inner-workings of a failed Christian off-shoot such as the Holy Rollers, rigorously profiled and thereby exposed... well, it only served to fan the flames of my imagination and lend greater plausibility to such a senario.
More than anything though, this book contains great story telling—and in so far as it does, every effort has been made to make an already sensational story, as sensational as possible.
Highly Recommended » Holy Rollers: Murder and Madness in Oregon's Love Cult
What about you, oh loyal readership. Does anybody have any arm-chair ideas on how any of the world religions came about? Half-baked? Quarter-baked? Purely to satasfy my curiousity...
The book is called "Holy Rollers: Murder and Madness in Oregon's Love Cult" and its authors T. McCracken and Robert B. Blodgett relay (in obsessively-researched detail) the story of the rise and fall of the Holy Roller cult that emerged in Corvallis, Oregon around 1903—spawning mayhem in the decade to follow.
Led by the well-endowed, jesus-wannabe Edmund Creffield—or "Joshua" as his flock knew him—the Holy Rollers spent much of their early days rolling around on the floor of their church in a crazed state of worship. Joshua had told them that he was a prophet and that they were God's Anointed; he had "received instruction from on high" to lead them to where the restoration of all things would take place, at which point the world would be as it was when God first created it.
But in the meantime, this meant a whole lot of rolling around and begging for forgiveness. And so, exhaustive prayer services were held sometimes lasting 24 hours, 12 hours if it was a short service. God's Anointed were encouraged to shun their spiritually impure family members and burn all their "vain" possessions (which I believe included some chickens, a dog and a cat...).
Making use of the convenient device of divine revelation, Creffield would soon convince his flock that God no longer wanted them to wear clothes (though they were to continue to spend much time on the floor together) and that they were only to eat food that he himself had blessed. This way they would "know cold" and "know hunger" but also remain weak and dizzy from all that rolling.
Creffield's method of breaking down and rebuilding his subjects was an incremental process, but the key was keeping everyone convinced that he was in direct communication with God. Any dissent among his followers was fiercely rooted out, and the accused were banished from his church with the promise that God would smite them.
The particulars of these cult-leader/cult-cog dynamics were of imminent interest to me in reading this book. I've always maintained a loose sketch in my mind of how one individual, or a group of individuals, may have managed to pull off an extaordinary hoax (such as, say, Christianity) but to have the inner-workings of a failed Christian off-shoot such as the Holy Rollers, rigorously profiled and thereby exposed... well, it only served to fan the flames of my imagination and lend greater plausibility to such a senario.
More than anything though, this book contains great story telling—and in so far as it does, every effort has been made to make an already sensational story, as sensational as possible.
Highly Recommended » Holy Rollers: Murder and Madness in Oregon's Love Cult
What about you, oh loyal readership. Does anybody have any arm-chair ideas on how any of the world religions came about? Half-baked? Quarter-baked? Purely to satasfy my curiousity...
Friday, May 30, 2008
Petty Friday
Comic by Brad Neeley. Visit creasedcomics.com for some amazing bite-sized humor. Seriously, like Butterfinger BB's...
Thursday, May 1, 2008
In Atheism We Trust?
According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, godlessness is on the rise. Most notably, the percentage of young people (18 to 29-year-olds) who claim to have no religious affiliation has reached 25%, up 11% from a similar survey conducted in 1986. (See pewforum.org for the full report [and for interesting statistical tidbits like the "Percentage of Each State's Population that affiliates with Unaffiliated."])
But with Unbelievers on the rise, and Atheism receiving new branding from people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and others now emerging to disrupt the absurd placidity between Believers and Non-Believers, a certain portion of the "Unaffiliated" are getting anxious. It's an anxiety and excitement that I relate to readily; one born of the natural and healthy question "Okay, what's next?" That is to say, if you understand and accept the unlikelihood of the existence of a god that cares about you, hears your prayers and will—when comes the unique time and place of your demise—hold you accountable for the choices you made in your life in accordance with the instructions he left for you on the proverbial kitchen-countertop-of-life, before he went out on vacation (which seems like an eternity to us, but is really just a weekend to him)—if you regard that as being a little far-fetched and unworthy of your lifelong commitment and devotion, then—what next?
To some—particularly those who were raised religious I would imagine—the answer is something like "well, I see the value of Church, particularly in its ability to foster community, so why can't something like that still exist, only we won't worship God, we'll just get together?" This is an uplifting notion and an idea that excites me personally as a person who values community; but when it comes to uniting the words "Atheism" and "Church" I think it's important to bear in mind what the word "Atheism" is meant to describe, which is simply "a lack of belief in God." Let's not confuse it with anything more than that. You may be able to wed yourself to religion in unhealthy ways, but atheism can do nothing for you—it's kind of implicit in the definition I think. It's not an object of worship but a decision one arrives at, from where, one must decide where to go. In that way it's no sort of destination, it's a starting point, a clean slate, free from the nonsense snuck into to enclaves of our collective history. The last thing we "Unbelievers" need in the uphill battle to see that "Atheisism" does not become some sort of slur, is for it to be easily parodied (see: South Park, Richard Dawkins).
Then again, do I really care if the word takes on an even more pungent stigma, no, not really. We'll call it something else if need be, something more neutral. But I happen to like the word "Atheism". It's pleasing to me. And besides, it'll come up first in the phone book (an obvious bonus!).
So, my hope is that the word "Atheism" can be reserved to describe the negation of a "belief in God(s)", rather than one incorporated into some arched moniker (auster, and sans sarif most likely) denoting the new entrance to the former Church of Christ, now called—what—"Church of Modern Day Atheism?"
Maybe what we're really looking for is this.
Or this.
Read If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House? by Sean McManus, nymag.com, for more on burgeoning Atheism.
But with Unbelievers on the rise, and Atheism receiving new branding from people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and others now emerging to disrupt the absurd placidity between Believers and Non-Believers, a certain portion of the "Unaffiliated" are getting anxious. It's an anxiety and excitement that I relate to readily; one born of the natural and healthy question "Okay, what's next?" That is to say, if you understand and accept the unlikelihood of the existence of a god that cares about you, hears your prayers and will—when comes the unique time and place of your demise—hold you accountable for the choices you made in your life in accordance with the instructions he left for you on the proverbial kitchen-countertop-of-life, before he went out on vacation (which seems like an eternity to us, but is really just a weekend to him)—if you regard that as being a little far-fetched and unworthy of your lifelong commitment and devotion, then—what next?
To some—particularly those who were raised religious I would imagine—the answer is something like "well, I see the value of Church, particularly in its ability to foster community, so why can't something like that still exist, only we won't worship God, we'll just get together?" This is an uplifting notion and an idea that excites me personally as a person who values community; but when it comes to uniting the words "Atheism" and "Church" I think it's important to bear in mind what the word "Atheism" is meant to describe, which is simply "a lack of belief in God." Let's not confuse it with anything more than that. You may be able to wed yourself to religion in unhealthy ways, but atheism can do nothing for you—it's kind of implicit in the definition I think. It's not an object of worship but a decision one arrives at, from where, one must decide where to go. In that way it's no sort of destination, it's a starting point, a clean slate, free from the nonsense snuck into to enclaves of our collective history. The last thing we "Unbelievers" need in the uphill battle to see that "Atheisism" does not become some sort of slur, is for it to be easily parodied (see: South Park, Richard Dawkins).
Then again, do I really care if the word takes on an even more pungent stigma, no, not really. We'll call it something else if need be, something more neutral. But I happen to like the word "Atheism". It's pleasing to me. And besides, it'll come up first in the phone book (an obvious bonus!).
So, my hope is that the word "Atheism" can be reserved to describe the negation of a "belief in God(s)", rather than one incorporated into some arched moniker (auster, and sans sarif most likely) denoting the new entrance to the former Church of Christ, now called—what—"Church of Modern Day Atheism?"
Maybe what we're really looking for is this.
Or this.
Read If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House? by Sean McManus, nymag.com, for more on burgeoning Atheism.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
What's good about religion?
Recently, I've seen the muscle behind my atheism wither. This guy—Pat Condell, English stand-up comedian/writer/playwrite—had it surging with blood and vitality. He spits venom, which some find upsettig—but if you think about where Condell would fall on a scale of Non-Religious vs. Religious extremism, it would probably look something like this:
That is to say, humoristic jabs and thinly-veiled contempt can be seen as quite moderate when compared with blood-soaked fists and outright intolerance. Besides, it takes outspoken individuals to rattle people from complacency and promote dialogue.
Enjoy (or disavow) other Pat Condell entries on YouTube where he is currently the second most-subscribed-to-user of all time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
