So would that be *unt with a Big 'C' or a little 'c'?

So I was dining with my beautiful daughters tonight at some west-side chain restaurant. The place was virtually deserted, but the host inexplicably sat us next to a family of five (Mom, Dad, three tots) eating with an elderly gentleman (probably about as old as the Dad's dad, still able to get around, not decrepit, but retired). All is well and good, until eventually they started talking about someone working at Edgewood College. "It's a very liberal college, it may be a Christian school, but we're talking about a very small 'c.'"

I know this is nothing new, but this is one of those communication practices that gets me all pissy (as you may recall). So what my dear elderly friend was saying was that a good christian (notice the type case) couldn't possibly be a liberal, and a liberal has no place within Christianity (again, type case). This is no doubt the kind of guy that is going to go out and vote for McPalin (certainly his right, but I would guess he probably had his doubts before Palin was brought on board), because of his incompatible world-view. But what about his world-view? Does his narrow scope extend beyond Christianity? For instance, what about Hindus? Are the only good Hindus conservative? What about fundamentalist Muslims (using one definition from a conservative source yields us a person that adheres to strict cultural traditions with very limited Government oversight. Sounds a lot like the the theocracies of the Middle East to me), are they God's favored children because of their Conservative world view?

I know this sounds bitter, and I understand that this does nothing for discourse. But I just can't understand how these exclusionary principles help anybody. I know how it is when we get in our groups of friends, sometimes there's talk about the archetypal religious redneck that will refuse to vote for Barack Obama, but we understand that's not the majority of the people voting for McCain. Just as I hope this gentleman understands that not everyone that is voting for Barack is a gay atheist (or gaytheist).

Just a thought.

The Deacon

Morality and Belief

I had the great fortune of seeing one of America's funniest comedians on Saturday night. Emo Phillips put on a great show,despite attempts from idiots who don't know how to turn off cell phones and drunken bachelorettes to ruin the evening for everyone.

Emo told a great joke (actually he told it twice as he appeared to be a little befuddled by all the distracting idiots in the crowd). "I used to pray to God everynight for a bicycle, then I realized that God doesn't work in that way. So I stole one and prayed for forgiveness." This actually ties in rather well with the topic of this post.

I was listening to Christian hate radio the other day on the way to Baraboo (the FM transmitter wasn't working all that well, and I needed something to drown out the shit that goes on in my head). But before I tell you what I heard, I'd like to describe Christian hate radio (CHR). CHR is the type of good, Christian broadcast that exists not to celebrate God, but to destroy the thousands of other established religions in the world so that their church (invariably some small minded baptist church from middle Tennessee), stands alone as the paradigm of virtue in a world run by Satan.

On this particular broadcast, I heard the good reverend say the same tried and true line rationalists, agnostics, and atheists have heard countless times. "Atheists have no morals, science has no morals, they use their Atheism -- their belief that God doesn't exist as an excuse to unleash terrible acts on the world in the name of progress." Now I'm not going to get into whether theists or atheist are more moral than the other, that's ridiculous, obviously people of faith and people that have no faith live great virtuous lives and faith has little to do with it.

We can all agree that this line of thought is not the way all theists think, and I don't want people to assume that I'm picking on believers, that is most certainly not the case, and I also want to make it clear that I don't have a bone to pick with religion. I've made it clear that I have a deep reverence for those with faith.

But what does it say of someone that will claim Atheists will partake in all kinds of evil acts because they don't believe in God, and then turn right around and tell of a God that will forgive all sins if one just prays hard enough? What if Eva Braun killed Hitler just after he repented with all his heart and soul? Would then the murderer of 6 million Jews be instantly redeemed in the eyes of the Lord because he was no longer amoral? There is something inherently wrong with the line of logic pursued by the good Reverend quoted above, just as there is something inherently wrong with saying: what's to stop atheists from killing and raping kids (a question you'll come across if you engage in internet message boards about the question of God)? Well I don't know about them, but I don't kill and rape children because I have absolutely no desire to kill or rape children. I think it's wrong, deplorable, and I have absolutely no desire to engage in that sort of action.

All these stupid lines of thought that are spewed by either side do nothing to open up honest religious dialog, it only keeps people from wanting to engage in honest discourse, and if your goal is to get people to see the majesty of God, you are doing more harm than good to your cause.

The F.D.

Pat Condell is S-M-R-T...

You can use the little arrows underneath the video player to turn off the captions...sorry it's so big (that's what she said).

Two posts in one day, I'm spoiling you.

I've seen some of Pat's videos on the Internets before but this one really spoke to me (I know I sound like a stupid Yankee asshole, but I really want him to say "a nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat"). This video makes a great point on the difference between Spirituality and Religion, a point I think is important and profound (a point I tried to make here).

Pat calls his work "Godless Comedy;" The first few videos I saw I thought to myself 'okay we get it you don't believe in God,' but the more I see of his work, the more I realize that he is an atheist that has great respect for faith (really he calls it spirituality, and I'll stick to my verbiage). What he doesn't like (as is made clear in the video) is Religion (the established pillar that preaches without Dogma there is nothing). Instead of seeing the church as a threat, he sees it as a hurdle that mankind must overcome in order to reach a higher plain.

Good stuff.

The Big Bang!

This great article about the big bang talks about physics, time, and the elements of universe formation.

I post this here because it is a good concise view of some leading physicists, but also because it bring up an important point.

People that have an unending faith in science as the end all and be all, can't agree on some of the fundamental foundations of the universe. This shouldn't surprise anyone, all we can do is observe from the crust of the Earth and make educated guesses about what these observations mean for the universe. Scientists come up with baffling theory after baffling theory, and it continues to blow away the layman.

This does have a point.

When I think of a possible intelligent hand that guided or introduced life to earth, I think that hand would not only be invisible to the eye, but would be so baffling that our minds couldn't comprehend that such a life form could exist. But I have a hard time believing that such a being is watching over us at all times counting how many times I lie, or think about sex. This "God" doesn't care if someone I love is a homosexual. This "God" doesn't oversee an ultra exclusive night-club in the sky while sending those that don't belong to a Sea of Fire.

But that's just me I guess.

Reason and Belief: Thoughts on communication practices

I am notoriously agnostic. Actually I am able to identify better with the atheist movement than anything else, but I do not call myself an atheist. As fellow Deacon and co-music director of the Church of What's Happening Now, Ian has noted: we share a natural disposition to be frustrated by wishy-washy people, but when it comes to the question of God we (at least I) find it almost noble. Now I suppose that raises the point of that making us wishy-washy, but that's another question better left for another post.

But one thing I notice by the fundamentalists of the atheist and the theist camps is that there is a tendency to use reason (or science) as a term that is the opposite of belief (or religion, or God). It's natural to think this way when we are confronted by it at all turns. Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life is my favorite example. Do you think that those that identify themselves as "Pro-Life" are constantly living their lives as though life is paramount to all things? Of course they don't all believe that. I point to the tired example of pro-life proponents that are advocates for the death penalty. This is one example of people using polarizing language and thought patterns but don't think about the consequences of the language they use.

Richard Dawkins, Bill O'Reilly, Ben Stein (stay-the fuck-tuned), Sam Hitchens, all of these men use this same communication habit, and when people attempt to engage in honest dialog about religion, they fall into the same trap. This isn't to say that faith or reason aren't real things with real qualities on both sides, just that they don't seem to be antonyms in my mind.

Do reason and faith intersect? I think it's clear that there are important people in each field that are being ignored to make way for the fundamentalists. There is no reason that these two fields cannot be related, or that one can have utter faith in one over the other. But the habit of saying faith vs. reason, or science vs. God, as though these two things are mutually exclusive is pathetic and unreasonable.

Look, I'm not trying to say that I have a better answer than anyone else, but living as though science doesn't exist is ignorant and wrong. And as Trey Parker (creator of South Park) put it (through Stan Marsh) "Couldn't evolution be the answer to how and not the answer to why?" I'm not convinced, and I've read some of Dawkins' stuff
and haven't found anything that suggests the existence of God is completely out of the question. But again this is probably left for a different post.

Here's my point: these terms are not used to benefit either movement, they are just meant to tear the other one down. That is no way to construct positive communication, but that should surprise no one. Neither side seems to want to convince anyone that they are right, just that another side is wrong.