Although I do not always agree with him, I admire Christopher Hitchens' intellect and persuasive power. When he wades into religion however, like many of his fellow "new atheists" such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, he is out of his depth -- except of course, when beating up the most simple of fundamentalists.
Peter Berkowitz has written a fine piece for the Wall Street Journal on this "new atheism" and its lucrative books sales. He also takes particular issue with his friend Hitchens' "God is Not Great." Good reading.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Can One Laugh (Be Angry) at God?
Okay, so after watching God, Inc. and Mr. Deity, the old Catholic guilt kicked in, along with my stand-up comedian's sense that comedy is often rooted in anger. So, I decided to check in with my tradition, more specifically the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Here's what it says about blasphemy:
"2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. St. James condemns those 'who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called.' The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God's name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.
Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin."
Aside from a swear here or there, I think these shows are off the hook on any blasphemy rap.
What this made me think of, immediately, was Osama bin Laden and much of the Middle Ages. (I'm still waiting to learn if there is a manifesto from scientists declaring totalitarian killing in the name of science, progress or freedom from religion to be a serious evil.)
Secondarily, but more importantly, it made me wonder about those of us who wonder about God's plan, and get a little peeved, in thought or word, about the whole thing. I have not found to date a lot of discussion about this issue, but I will be researching it more. Perhaps you have something to offer from your own tradition or experience.
Here's what it says about blasphemy:
"2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. St. James condemns those 'who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called.' The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God's name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.
Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin."
Aside from a swear here or there, I think these shows are off the hook on any blasphemy rap.
What this made me think of, immediately, was Osama bin Laden and much of the Middle Ages. (I'm still waiting to learn if there is a manifesto from scientists declaring totalitarian killing in the name of science, progress or freedom from religion to be a serious evil.)
Secondarily, but more importantly, it made me wonder about those of us who wonder about God's plan, and get a little peeved, in thought or word, about the whole thing. I have not found to date a lot of discussion about this issue, but I will be researching it more. Perhaps you have something to offer from your own tradition or experience.
Friday, August 3, 2007
One Christian's Take on Dawkins' Militant Atheism
Interesting interview with Alister McGrath, former atheist, now a Christian, about debating atheist media superstar Richard Dawkins. His take: Dawkins dismays his fellow atheist intellectuals because of his sloppiness and acidity, but appeals to those atheists around the world who are concerned about an apparent resurgence of (often fundamentalist) religion.
Also part of this conversation: does the atheist Dawkins help balance out religious fundamentalism because he forces people to think seriously about religion? Personally, I think that such attacks do cause people to think more about the relationship between religion, myth and science. But the rhetoric of those attacks can cause serious misunderstandings on both sides.
Also part of this conversation: does the atheist Dawkins help balance out religious fundamentalism because he forces people to think seriously about religion? Personally, I think that such attacks do cause people to think more about the relationship between religion, myth and science. But the rhetoric of those attacks can cause serious misunderstandings on both sides.
Stay on Top of Tech Trends
Subscribe to the e-newsletter of the MIT Technology Review. Between their own reporting and their sifting from other news sources, you can get a daily update on some of the most amazing, hopeful developments in human endeavor.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
My Favorite (Internet) Radio Station
Okay, I'm one of those people who grew up listening to Three Dog Night on a transistor A.M. radio, and thinking it was the coolest thing ever.
My love of music and ability to have control over the dial is probably why it seemed so cool. So, you can only imagine the heaven that I am in now that we have glorious Internet radio, on platforms such as Live365.com, Pandora.com, Yahoo! Launchcast and more. Not to mention tons of archived music video on YouTube et al.
My absolute favorite Internet radio station is called modernera.fm. Someone in San Francisco has exquisite musical taste, and programs the songs all day long on the Live365 platform for a nominal fee. In return, they cover all his permissions, royalties etc. What a great time to be alive.
Modernera.fm features classical, jazz and ambient music from the 20th and 21st centuries. It's truly been an horizon-expanding experience for me, as I have enjoyed great artists such as Brian Eno, William Orbit, The Aqua Velvets, Blue Man Group and more. I've even bought some of the tracks I've heard via download or CD.
Modernera.fm is just one of millions of burgeoning new stations on these exciting Internet platforms. Long live Internet Radio!
My love of music and ability to have control over the dial is probably why it seemed so cool. So, you can only imagine the heaven that I am in now that we have glorious Internet radio, on platforms such as Live365.com, Pandora.com, Yahoo! Launchcast and more. Not to mention tons of archived music video on YouTube et al.
My absolute favorite Internet radio station is called modernera.fm. Someone in San Francisco has exquisite musical taste, and programs the songs all day long on the Live365 platform for a nominal fee. In return, they cover all his permissions, royalties etc. What a great time to be alive.
Modernera.fm features classical, jazz and ambient music from the 20th and 21st centuries. It's truly been an horizon-expanding experience for me, as I have enjoyed great artists such as Brian Eno, William Orbit, The Aqua Velvets, Blue Man Group and more. I've even bought some of the tracks I've heard via download or CD.
Modernera.fm is just one of millions of burgeoning new stations on these exciting Internet platforms. Long live Internet Radio!
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Mr. Deity
Okay, I am laughing with a great sense of guilt, but laughing all the same at Mr. Deity, another hilarious new web series looking at God's plan as seen through the eyes of man.
Or is it man's plan, as seen through the eyes of God? I'm not sure.
Similar in spirit to God, Inc. which I described in a previous post, Mr. Deity portrays the workings of universe as organized by a trinity of all-too-human individuals resembling the staff of a showbiz startup. (Which is what they really are!)
Mr. Deity is an aging, absent-minded hipster, "Jesse" (a.k.a. "Jesus") is a dim-witted metrosexual, and Larry a nebbishy administrative type.
And then there is Lucy, Mr. Deity's bitchy ex.
How am I, a critical-minded believer, supposed to feel about this? Is this show truly a guilty pleasure?
Surely some religious people will be swearing a fatwa out on Mr. Deity. And some atheist/skeptic types, such as Michael Shermer, are already happily endorsing the series for their own reasons.
But if you read the FAQs on the series from its producer and director Brian Keith Dalton, you will see it is decidedly middle-of-the-road, and humor-focused:
"I am a formerly religious person (non-bitter), and as such, have great sympathies for the beliefs and feelings of religious people. I love the fact that they are concerned with the big issues like Good and Evil, Existence, Creation, etc... I don't always agree with the answers they provide to these questions, but I deeply respect their concern. Our goal here is not to mock religion, but to use it as a foundation for the humor. I'm thrilled that so many religious people have written to tell me that they love the episodes. In future episodes, I intend to turn the tables a bit and poke fun at what I call the "angry atheists" (of whom I am not fond). We'll see if they take it so well."
What better way to get some perspective on the silliness of life than to pretend you are divine. It makes perfect sense.
My own feeling about this, and I might be wrong, is that you really can't get offended by too many jokes using a limited view of the deity unless your own view of the deity is rather limited. What do you think?
Or is it man's plan, as seen through the eyes of God? I'm not sure.
Similar in spirit to God, Inc. which I described in a previous post, Mr. Deity portrays the workings of universe as organized by a trinity of all-too-human individuals resembling the staff of a showbiz startup. (Which is what they really are!)
Mr. Deity is an aging, absent-minded hipster, "Jesse" (a.k.a. "Jesus") is a dim-witted metrosexual, and Larry a nebbishy administrative type.
And then there is Lucy, Mr. Deity's bitchy ex.
How am I, a critical-minded believer, supposed to feel about this? Is this show truly a guilty pleasure?
Surely some religious people will be swearing a fatwa out on Mr. Deity. And some atheist/skeptic types, such as Michael Shermer, are already happily endorsing the series for their own reasons.
But if you read the FAQs on the series from its producer and director Brian Keith Dalton, you will see it is decidedly middle-of-the-road, and humor-focused:
"I am a formerly religious person (non-bitter), and as such, have great sympathies for the beliefs and feelings of religious people. I love the fact that they are concerned with the big issues like Good and Evil, Existence, Creation, etc... I don't always agree with the answers they provide to these questions, but I deeply respect their concern. Our goal here is not to mock religion, but to use it as a foundation for the humor. I'm thrilled that so many religious people have written to tell me that they love the episodes. In future episodes, I intend to turn the tables a bit and poke fun at what I call the "angry atheists" (of whom I am not fond). We'll see if they take it so well."
What better way to get some perspective on the silliness of life than to pretend you are divine. It makes perfect sense.
My own feeling about this, and I might be wrong, is that you really can't get offended by too many jokes using a limited view of the deity unless your own view of the deity is rather limited. What do you think?
From Crackle:
Monday, July 9, 2007
Darwin, God and Evil
If you look through the content of this blog, you might say that I am "vexed" by the question of God and evil. Funny then, that I happened to stumble across Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil by Cornelius G. Hunter.
It's a fascinating read, about non-scientific influences upon the theory of evolution - particularly, the theological assumptions about what God would and would not do in the often violent, bloody world of nature.
These assumptions, Hunter argues, stand behind the science of Darwinism, which Hunter also argues, is quite "speculative" in the areas of phylogeny, homology, molecular clocks, etc.
Although "Darwin's God" is accessible, it's not exactly light summer reading. That's okay -- except for my brief Tom Clancy jag back in college and grad school, I've never been much for that anyway.
I'll have more to say about this book once I've finished it off.
It's a fascinating read, about non-scientific influences upon the theory of evolution - particularly, the theological assumptions about what God would and would not do in the often violent, bloody world of nature.
These assumptions, Hunter argues, stand behind the science of Darwinism, which Hunter also argues, is quite "speculative" in the areas of phylogeny, homology, molecular clocks, etc.
Although "Darwin's God" is accessible, it's not exactly light summer reading. That's okay -- except for my brief Tom Clancy jag back in college and grad school, I've never been much for that anyway.
I'll have more to say about this book once I've finished it off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)