the christian paradox

Americans, if taken at their word, are the most religious people in all the industrialized world, but what does that really mean? Bill McKibben has some thoughts in the new issue of Harpers. Here’s a clip:

Only 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments, and a scant half can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels. Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. This failure to recall the specifics of our Christian heritage may be further evidence of our nation’s educational decline, but it probably doesn’t matter all that much in spiritual or political terms. Here is a statistic that does matter: Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves.” That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture. The thing is, not only is Franklin’s wisdom not biblical; it’s counter-biblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor. On this essential matter, most Americans–most American Christians–are simply wrong, as if 75 percent of American scientists believed that Newton proved gravity causes apples to fly up.

Asking Christians what Christ taught isn’t a trick. When we say we are a Christian nation–and, overwhelmingly, we do–it means something. People who go to church absorb lessons there and make real decisions based on those lessons; increasingly, these lessons inform their politics. (One poll found that 11 percent of U.S. churchgoers were urged by their clergy to vote in a particular way in the 2004 election, up from 6 percent in 2000.) When George Bush says that Jesus Christ is his favorite philosopher, he may or may not be sincere, but he is reflecting the sincere beliefs of the vast majority of Americans.

I’ve discussed it here before, but when I went and visited my local mega-church a few weeks ago, I was struck not only by the feel-good, motivational vibe of the sermon (set to music by the accompanying rock band), but by the fact that there was little to no discussion of Jesus and his teachings. There were no Bibles in the pews… There were no pews… There were just big, theater-style seats with super-sized, built-in cup holders. And, the only time that Jesus was mentioned it was to remind us that he was full of wrath and that we – at least those of us who’d marked the “saved” box on the form that had been handed around – would be able to avoid it.

There was no discussion of good works, of clothing the poor, of feeding the hungry. There was, however, talk of “us” being chosen, and the threat we all faced from the wicked, wicked world outside, but nothing about compassion. It was, to use the terminology of Bruce Bawer, all about evangelical “law”, with no mention of Christian “love.”

Having sat through this well-choreographed hour of mega-church religitainment, what McKibben says doesn’t surprise me at all. The people in that church, at least based on my experience, probably didn’t know the gospels. What they did know, however, was that Jesus was angry, that they deserved what they had, and that when Jesus returned, they’d be saved, while the rest of us burned in lakes of fire.

If I understand McKibben, he’s suggesting that believing in this self-validating religion of superiority, exclusion and privilege isn’t in actuality religious at all, and I wholeheartedly agree. It’s self-help infomercial wrapped in the cloak of religion, and nothing more.

Posted in Church and State | 23 Comments

no more pardons

I just got the following letter from Michigan Congressman John Conyers and felt that it was worth passing on:

Did you know that Elliot Abrams, pardoned by the first President Bush for the Iran-Contra crimes he committed under the Reagan Administration, now works for the Bush White House? And has been implicated in the leak of Valerie Plame’s covert identity?

I have sent a letter to President Bush asking him to say right now that he will not pardon anyone found guilty of criminal offenses related to the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s CIA cover. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald may indict senior White House officials in this case. Join me in demanding that the President not pardon anyone found guilty in his administration who compromises our national security! To send your own copy of this letter to President Bush by email, click here. Our goal is to get at least 10,000 people to email the White House and we will post our tally updates daily on the JohnConyers.com website.

Nine of my Judiciary Committee colleagues also joined me yesterday in sending a letter to the Inspector General seeking an investigation into the 12-hour delay taken by Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez before notifying White House staff of the need to preserve documents relating to the Department of Justice’s Valerie Plame leak investigation. Even more troubling is that the Department of Justice only began its investigation 67 days after the CIA first requested it, and only after the Agency asked DoJ four times.

Please sign it… and spread the word.

Posted in Politics | 2 Comments

a roving eye for the ladies

I hate to spread rumors like this, but word on the street is that Karl Rove’s not only been outing CIA operatives and lying to investigators,but porking one of his groupies behind his wife’s back!

Posted in Politics | 8 Comments

discussing intelligent design on the galapagos islands

The following is an excerpt from Michael Shermer’s article in Scientific American, entitled “The Woodstock of Evolution,” concerning the World Summit on Evolution which was held recently in the Galapagos Islands. (Thanks to Gretchen for the link.)

Charles Darwin famously described the origin of species as the “mystery of mysteries,” a phrase he cribbed from the astronomer John Herschel, whom Darwin visited in Capetown, South Africa during the five-year round-the-world voyage of the H.M.S. Beagle. The meeting happened a few months after Darwin departed the Galapagos islands, at which point he had not yet solved the “grand mystery,” despite the myth that Darwin first understood the mechanism of evolution in this magnificent archipelago. Darwin was, in fact, a creationist throughout the voyage, and did not accept evolution until he discovered natural selection a full 10 months after leaving the Galapagos, when he was home working intensely on his collections. The Galapagos were an after-the-fact inspiration, and he could have kicked himself for not taking better notes while he was there….

I was slated as the keynote entertainment for Saturday night, and gave a lecture on Intelligent Design creationism. Since I certainly did not need to explain evolution to this eminent group, I focused instead on the IDers own works, beginning with their intellectual leader (these are slides from my Powerpoint presentation):

“Intelligent design is a strictly scientific theory devoid of religious commitments. Whereas the creator underlying scientific creationism conforms to a strict, literalist interpretation of the Bible, the designer underlying intelligent design need not even be a deity.” –William Dembski, The Design Revolution, 2003

Baloney. (I used a stronger descriptor this evening.) The fact is that virtually all Intelligent Design creationists are Evangelical Christians who privately believe that ID and God are one and the same. There is nothing wrong with that, but if they would at least be honest about it I would respect them more. In point of fact, this is just a public facade constructed for public school consumption. In other venues they are forthright. For example:

“Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.” –William Dembski, “Intelligent Design’s Contribution to the Debate over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris,” 2005

“The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to ‘the truth’ of the Bible and then ‘the question of sin’ and finally ‘introduced to Jesus.'” –Phillip Johnson, “Missionary Man.” Church & State magazine, 1999

As I also demonstrated in my talk, IDers are disingenuous about their “science.” They are not doing science and they know it. To wit:

“Because of ID’s outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind.” –William Dembski, “Research and Progress in Intelligent Design,” 2002 conference on Intelligent Design

“We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’–but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.” –Dr. Paul Nelson. “The Measure of Design.” Touchstone magazine, 2004.

To drive home the point, I show that even Christian biologists have no use for ID, as in this observation from Dr. Lee Anne Chaney, Professor of Biology at the Christian-based Whitworth College, from their house publication Whitworth Today, 1995:

“As a Christian, part of my belief system is that God is ultimately responsible. But as a biologist, I need to look at the evidence. Scientifically speaking, I don’t think intelligent design is very helpful because it does not provide things that are refutable–there is no way in the world you can show it’s not true. Drawing inferences about the deity does not seem to me to be the function of science because it’s very subjective.”

I then summarized the cognitive style of ID thusly:
1. X looks designed
2. I can’t think of how X was designed naturally
3. Therefore X was designed supernaturally

This is the old “God of the Gaps” argument: wherever there is a gap in scientific knowledge, God is invoked as the causal agent. This is comparable to the “Plane problem” of Isaac Newton’s time: the planets all lie in a plane (the plane of the ecliptic). Newton found this arrangement to be so improbable that he invoked God as an explanation in Principia Mathematica: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Why don’t IDers use this argument any more? Because astronomers have filled that gap with a natural explanation.

I also summarized ID in practice thusly:
1. Scientists do not accept ID as science
2. Therefore ID is not taught in public school science classes
3. I think ID is science
4. Therefore I will lobby the government to force teachers to teach ID as science

This is what I call the “God of the Government” argument: if you can’t convince teachers to teach your idea based on its own merits, ask the government to force teachers to teach it. By analogy, in the early 1990s, I published a series of articles applying chaos and complexity theory to history. It is, of sorts, a theory of history, and I had high hopes that historians would adopt my theory, put it to practice, and perhaps even teach it to their students. They haven’t. Maybe I didn’t communicate my theory very clearly. Maybe my theory is wrong. Should I go to my congressman to complain? Should I lobby school board members to force history teachers to teach my theory of history? See how absurd this sounds? I particularly like this approach to ID because most IDers are Christians, most Christians are politically conservative, and most conservatives are in favor of small government. In fact, I close my lecture with an analogy between natural selection in nature and the invisible hand in the economy, where both produce design complexity without a top-down designer. Since most conservatives understand and support the workings of free markets, they should intuitively embrace the analogy.

Posted in Church and State | 51 Comments

when the taints go marchin’ in

It wasn’t a big quote or anything, like last time, but the BBC mentioned the site again, and, as a result, we’ve been getting a lots of traffic from across the pond… And, no, it wasn’t my “face taint” revelation that got their attention — it was something that I said about the fellow who got shot five times in the head by police the other day in London for wearing too bulk of a coat and having skin a few shades too dark.

Posted in Mark's Life | Leave a comment

Connect

BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Cherewick 2