Sunday, November 08, 2009
The atheist convention
...offered by JamesoftheNorthwest, a sinner and extremist from Dar Al-Harb at 8:33 AM [+]
Hundreds flock to Seattle atheists' convention Wow, hundreds! And 16,000 nationwide...well heck even we minuscule Orthodox outnumber them, so there's some comfort in that. Angry "Origin of Species" thumping atheists are as intolerable as those who thump Bibles...perhaps worse - I can say that because to some degree I've been both, especially the former. But here's the line that really cracked me up:
Freedom from Religion wants to "keep religion out of law-making." Haha! Good luck with that, for as long as religious people VOTE, religion will be involved in lawmaking! How many do you suppose presently support the health care reform on religious grounds?
And then this: With less religion, less God, less belief, there's more opportunity for morality, more opportunity for knowledge, more opportunity for true human value.
Now I have no idea what he means by "true human value", but I have my suspicions. And therein lies the problem, it's up to personal interpretation. The very fabric of the atheist moral construct is held together by subjective personal opinion. Whereas "true human value" in the Christian world view is incalculable. It is not something you can quantify, because if you could then "true human value" implies that it varies from person to person just as surely as math equations do. A child with down syndrome as compared to a child prodigy?
Human value is derived NOT from personal interpretation, but by the very nature of the fact than humans are created in the Image and Likeness of God and are loved by Him. Everyone of them.
"more opportunity for morality" really means (for the secular person) that you have greater ability to add variable to morality. It isn't set in stone, it's written on a chalkboard and YOU wrote it and YOU have the eraser. I have my moral values and Ted Bundy has his own. I cannot say mine are "right" and his are "wrong" because morality is FULLY subjective. This moral bankruptcy and disconnect caused for me - as an atheist - a profound worldview crisis that eventually led me to consider that I could not fathom a world in which Darwinism was the only moral foundation. That moral code (the very thing that brought us humans into being and into dominance) is quite simply competition and victory at the expense of others. Dominate and subjugate is the rule it teaches.
I ended up having to ask: Could there be more? Because if there isn't, then who am I to criticize an Adolf Hitler as anything other than someone doing what his evolutionary inclinations led him to do. He died and lost in the end...end of story. No morality tale here, except to say one ought to consider being more discreet with their hedonism if they wish to be truly successful. That's just plain common Darwinian sense.
But if there is more to life. Something transcendent. A greater good. A a Creator and "Lover of mankind." It changes everything. Everything suddenly has a real objective value.
So, I suppose I can agree with the atheists' idea that without God that have "more opportunity" for morality and human value. Indeed, the are thereby freed to have opportunity to believe whatever they may choose about them. Say hello to the cattle cars, those of you with less human value.
+++
0 comments
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
FacadeBook
...offered by JamesoftheNorthwest, a sinner and extremist from Dar Al-Harb at 9:08 PM [+]
Look, don't get me wrong on this point, while I rather like and regularly participate at “Face”book, I recognize that it is just one more very particular way of bolstering the great facade of life. In fact I would argue that the internet in general from a social standpoint is the WORSE for allowing us to deceive one another.
Yes, we deceive one another. We do it all the time, though it isn't necessarily (for the vast majority of us) some grand overt effort to lie. It may be as subtle and even appropriate as making your house immaculate before guests arrive, or as potentially dangerous as hiding a truth about ourselves from our spouse. But no matter what, I think – at least in my personal experience – it stems in part from wishing to project an image of who we wish we were to others. I think if we are honest with ourselves we'd see this...or maybe I'm just crazy. But wouldn't we LOVE it if we were so on top of our lives that the house was always immaculate, that needed repairs were immediately accomplished, that projects were tackled and completed in a timely manner? Or that we are good people, perpetually full of love and compassion. Or that we are good parents who are devoted and hardworking, raising PERFECT kids. On and on it goes...in the end we just want people to think the best of us and for many of us it is very painful to learn that someone has seen through the facade and perhaps knows us better than we like. Sometimes they are right in what they see, and sometimes they are wrong and simply replace our facade with a different one of their own making...but when our facade is broken (either way) we must deal with reality. In some ways we are like politicians in that we seek to control or “spin” the news to our benefit – limiting or even eliminating the bad and proclaiming from the rooftops the glories and triumphs of our lives.
There is a rather gruesome TV series called Dexter, which I never...NEVER watch because a part of my facade is that I do not pollute my mind with trashy television. But if I had ever seen an episode of Dexter I would tell you it is about a serial killer (who via an ongoing policy of self-discipline, only kills bad people) and who then struggles to blend in with humanity and hide the truth about his inner self, The intriguing portion of the show, to me, is that we are all like Dexter in our efforts to hide our true selves. Dexter is forced to try and maintain his facade at ALL times, and thus struggles terribly, as you might imagine, with intimacy. (If Dexter could live his life entirely on Facadebook he'd have it easy!)
Intimacy I believe, to some degree is a term we may use to describe a place where we can begin to let the rigorous efforts of maintaining our facade rest. At least it should be. And I think we should struggle to build more intimate relationships...and I don't anticipate that happening on Facadebook. The internet is like a foundation which invites or even beckons us to build our facades upon it. Nobody posts pictures of themselves losing their temper and yelling at their kids. No one posts a blurb about how they are seriously struggling with anger. Instead we all present our facades...again, not like a deliberate deception...but just showing as much of our lives as we are comfortable showing, knowing that nobody really WANTS to hear that we had a crappy day and that worse yet it was of our own doing. (Sure we'll sometimes note having a rough go of it, or having a bad day...but I don't think it's the same as SEEING someone having a bad day, free from the filters we will naturally strain the news as it finds its way into Facadebook.)
At Facadebook we present the immaculate house: smart quotes, wise insights, pictures demonstrating our idyllic life, and other things that generally demonstrate that we are not nearly the damaged goods that reality might reveal. This isn't wrong and it isn't bad...but we must remember it isn't reality. How often have we looked at others' Facadebook accounts and thought: “Wow, how is that they have their crap so together! They are perfect! My life is so dysfunctional in comparison.” And will we make these determinations from Facadebook postings? Yes, many of us will...knowing full well it's absurd. That said, I won't even mention the insanity that may exist amongst people who really believe they have their crap together, are perfect, and have no failings. To them I would simply say: Please write a book and let the rest of us know how to do it! (It, being, the unfathomable depths of self-deception.)
I'm not going to settle now on being a curmudgeon who will sit in judgment on Facadebook and refuse to use it any longer. Nor will I shake my head at postings of idyllic pictures (or even stop posting them myself – even if I manage to find some). Facadebook may maximize our ability to maintain our facades, but our facades won't go away simply because we stop using the internet...facades are a very long human tradition that began when Cain told God he had no idea where to find Able. But I do want to pause more often and consider reality, which is much harder than most of us realize.
The serial killer Dexter may be like us in many ways, but one thing never occurs to Dexter: to share who he really is and then to seek to CHANGE it. This is the ultimate danger of our facades, in that we live them so well (Or God forbid we live on Facadebook so much) that we begin to ignore who we are as real people. We neglect intimacy (as I defined it above) and in so doing we neglect the glorious opportunity to change.
Let our “facade” be that of the image we see in the Icon of Christ...and let us pursue it believing that through Him we can in fact make our facade real. Let us do it in real community and intimacy, sharing our failings, leaning on, and loving one another with all our many faults not seen on Facadebook.
+++
10 comments
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Sad, but not unexpected
...offered by JamesoftheNorthwest, a sinner and extremist from Dar Al-Harb at 11:20 AM [+]
I've heard many times the pro-life folks who like to condemn both sides of the political aisle saying that they are morally equally in their practical ability to do anything with regard to abortions. I do not buy the argument. While obviously Roe v. Wade has not been overturned (and let's face the fact that it likely never will), there are innumerable other life issues for which the sides DO differ. Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell research is a biggie.
Lawsuit dismissed.
Sadly not surprising. This part is difficult to hear officially pronounced by a US court: “embryos lack standing because they are not persons under the law,” and continued to say that the unborn have no right to life as protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution
How long did we (meaning HUMANITY) justify slavery and genocide with the exact same reasoning? Of course this isn't new...this is the focus of the debate...but for us on the side of human life, it is tragic to hear it so pronounced. So, with the new administration we have our tax dollars at work and if you've followed my blog then you know that I've closely followed the issues surrounding stem cells and I have blogged about HUGE advances in ADULT stem cell research that embryonic stem cell proponents said could not be done.
And as if this weren't bad enough, could this possibly be true? It astonishing that I should even have to ask, how far back in time would we have to go for pretty much every American to be aghast at the idea of something like this?
Maybe someday...maybe...a future society will look back at us and marvel at our self indulgent lifestyle that led us to kill our most vulnerable to appease our ills or even our frivolous aesthetic failings.
+++
0 comments
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Sometimes I'm right...but only sometimes
...offered by JamesoftheNorthwest, a sinner and extremist from Dar Al-Harb at 10:15 PM [+]
Back in May, THIS story came out. I'd SWEAR that back in May there was no "?" in the title. Anyway, I sent this link to the LOG and offered the following comment:
"It's making many news rounds...but far too much noise and not much science. Fact is...for all we know these little critter were an evolutionary dead end. We have NO way of knowing if it was the early simian equivalent of the Do Do bird or our ancestor."
And now this today:
"Fossil hailed as Man's ancestor is 'not even close relative'"
My favorite part: "Far from being an ancestor to humans, the lemur-like creature from 47 million years ago belongs to an entirely different branch of the primate family tree that has left no known descendants, research has indicated."
Doah!
+++
1 comments
"Bone Collectors"
...offered by JamesoftheNorthwest, a sinner and extremist from Dar Al-Harb at 12:46 PM [+]
H/T: Mike W
A bit of a lunchtime babble here.
A curiously written article about Relics in the context of the Roman Catholic Tradition. I say "curiously" because it seems the author at once REALLY likes Relics - decrying their falling out of the spotlight in the RCC - and yet he seems to treat them with some degree of levity and what I hope is skewed popular perceptions regarding the practice. I cannot help but a few words.
First, the notion that the "cult of relics" began with Polycarp is simply not true. It is one of the first extant and definitive examples of the early Church ascribing great care for the body of a martyr, but that by no means implies that we are here witnessing its birth. Also, the impression I got from these few lines in the article just don't seem to do justice to the actual account. Compare and contrast:
"Polycarp's followers scurried over and scooped up his remains and ran off with them. With that, the cult of relics was born."
From Martyrdom of Polycarp:
"And so we afterwards took up his bones which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place; where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to celebrate the birth-day of his martyrdom for the commemoration of those that have already fought in the contest, and for the training and preparation of those that shall do so hereafter."
I see a difference of perspective here. This is NOT a "macabre culture" that "yearned to see bones and other pieces of sanctified stiffs encased in glass." This is a holistic and an o(O)rthodox Christian honoring of God's Image in our flesh. There's a world of difference between honor and veneration and an odd interest in the macabre.
The Church has ALWAYS revered the body as a "temple" and unlike some Christians today, we do not dabble in gnosticism! We, like the most ancient Church, believe the body is sacred and is not merely a shell to be freed from upon death. We preach the Resurrection...our Lord's and our own!
I really did like this line from the article though:
"...the faithful are hungering for a less sterile form of religion."
This, I believe is absolutely true...it reminded me (somewhat) of this old post of mine. But let's face it, most Christians who are unfamiliar with the idea of relics are extremely put off by it. I cannot tell you how many people I meet these days who intend to be cremated and additionally cannot stand the notion of seeing a "corpse" (I just don't like this word...sounds too...well...too clinical) at an open casket funeral. So the honor given to relics is profoundly foreign to most Americans (at least). And, well, I wouldn't exactly offer this article as a means of encouraging anyone to start looking positively upon the venerable custom. You might start with some lengthy excerpts Clifton collected some four years ago.
We Orthodox (and I suspect the RCC as well) are a faith that believes in STUFF. By "stuff" I mean that our faith is not simply in our hearts or spirits or mental constructs...we believe it is in our hands, our feet, our lips, our ears, our noses, our EVERYTHING. AND, it's in this world too! A sacramental faith believes that our interactions with God need not only take place in a mental encounter alone.
A few more things to say:
"For the faithful, praying to a saint's relic..."
Blech! We do not pray TO a saint's relics. Nonsense.
"Prince Albrecht of Brandenburg had a stock of saintly remains so huge that a tireless pilgrim could have accrued a remission from purgatory of 39,245,120 years."
Funny...but the teaching represented in the joke is NOT. We've never believed it and I think the Catholics are no longer doing purgatory math, are they?
I do, however, appreciate the author's interest in seeing relics be revived in RC parish life. We should all be well aware of whose Holy Relics call our various parishes home.
+++
1 comments
Friday, October 09, 2009
The NIH problem
...offered by JamesoftheNorthwest, a sinner and extremist from Dar Al-Harb at 3:04 PM [+]
Dr. Francis Collins was President Obama's appointee to be director of the NIH. He's a scientist who also happens to have a religious side. Not necessarily a big news maker, except that he's not a sort of episcopalian who attends his local parish on Sunday mornings and little else, no, he's a full blown evangelical who even dares to write and talk openly about his faith. Believe me, if Bush had appointed this guy he would have been rubbed in fish chum and tossed into the waiting media waters filled with great whites. The fact that Obama has appointed him, I think, has left some who'd normally be vehement in their criticisms to pause...think of a deer staring dumbfounded into approaching headlights. Huh? There is a popular internet three word vernacular abbreviation that would fit the context here, but I'll refrain.
But of course even being an Obama appointee will not completely insulate you. The magisterium of the scientific world is unforgiving and Dr. Collins has heretical tendencies. This NYT article notes the problem thus:
First, there is the God issue. Dr. Collins believes in him. Passionately. And he preaches about his belief in churches and a best-selling book. For some presidential appointees, that might not be a problem, but many scientists view such outspoken religious commitment as a sign of mild dementia.
That's funny because I am beginning to view outspoken political commitment as a sign ofmilddementia. I would perhaps argue that ANY politician these days who holds to a traditional religious faith and is remotely outspoken about it will indeed have problems. There is little doubt that this attitude (religion=dementia) is not uncommon amidst the scientific magesterium. We, the demented, just keep largely quiet.
The result of the article and the visceral condemnations heaped on the traditionally religious is typical of strict religious materialists. (e.g. Dr. Park's criticism of Dr. Collins' emotional religious experience claiming it was obviously nothing more than "hormones" and that any good scientists should know this...SHEESH...how'd you like to be that guy's wife when he offers a Valentine's Day greeting: "the chemical interactions in my body tell me I wish to mate with you!")
But most concerning for me is the criticism of Dr. Weissman who worries about Dr. Collins allowing his moral formation to get in the way of his science. Why is this concerning? Well my regular readers will know, because I have made it an ongoing point to note how science is more and more developing it's own sense of morality founded upon principals derived from a strict materialistic and darwinian worldview. This sort of moral formation is apparently fine (though skewed because a strict materialistic and Darwinian worldview rather insists upon absolute hedonism), but any other moral formation is heretical and violates the sacred teachings of the scientific magesterium.
People, we WANT our scientists to be informed by their religions in areas of morality and it deeply concerns me that we seem to be moving away from what had been a fundamental principle. There has been in the past a huge genre of books, art, and films which wrung its hand about the fears we should have if science were to develop and operate outside of the bounds of more fundamental (i.e. religious) principles. I still hear some scientifically oriented people give lip service to the notion that science does not tell us anything about morality, but at the same time one need only pick up a copy of "SciAm" or "Discover" to read about a whole litany of moral issues they refuse to be lectured about by the non-scientific. This should be very concerning.
I don't envy Dr. Collins. He's brave. The president is a big shield for him right now, but I don't think it will last. There's already an official website bent on seeing that he is fired...because, as an evangelical, he's clearly nuts.
Wonder what they'd say about me if they knew I was heading over to Vashon Island in order to pray before an ancient and wonderworking icon? Dementia.
+++
2 comments
