I Think I Believe I am Jesus' little brain cell

26Feb/105

Belief in absolute truth and likeliness of listening to others

In my interactions with more fundamentalist friends, I've noticed a trend. These friends insist on the existence of absolute truth. They also insist that this absolute truth is knowable and that it's accessible through the Bible. The more they insist on speaking about absolute truth, the more they seem closed off to what others have to say about what they regard as truth.

If someone, on the other hand, thinks absolute truth is unknowable or that the question itself is irrelevant for some reason, I've noticed that they are much more likely to listen to others.

I think it's ironic, because to me the second approach, listening to the experiences and insights of others, seems like a much better way of coming to know truth. So by insisting on absolute truth a person is much more likely to be closed off from the truth they say the seek.

This leads me to conclude that talk of absolute truth is much more about knowing certainty than knowing truth. I know I'm ignoring the history of philosophy here and only focusing on psychology, but come on... We're not trying to find the absolutely truthful analysis of the situation! :)

26Feb/100

Beysus 3:16

The Daily What.

(Reference, if you don't know pop culture, to Beyoncé's "Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It)".)

Tagged as: , , No Comments
25Feb/100

Coyne: Collins should resign just because!

Jerry Coyne, somewhat militant atheist, yesterday argued that Francis Collins, "the most important scientist in the US" according to Coyne himself, should resign.

I say argued. That's pushing it. I'm not very familiar with Coyne, so I apologise if I misrepresent him, but my impression from browsing his blog now and a couple of times in the past, is that my designation of "somewhat militant atheist" is accurate. By militant I mean that he's hostile to religion and would like to see it go away. And that, I think, colours his treatment of what Collins has to say and what he represents.

In this instance Coyne is protesting a book that Collins has edited called Belief: Readings on the Reason for Faith. The book basically argues that faith and reason, including science, aren't in opposition, but are compatible. Coyne disagrees, naturally, and levels a couple of strained, uncharitable and, in my unsurprising opinion, not very convincing arguments against the publisher's description and Collins' introduction.

But the arguments aren't what's important. People disagree of these things. Coyne and Collins represent two different sides of the arguments. It's only towards the end of the blog that things get interesting. Moving away from the specific philosophical questions, Coyne turns his attention to the principle. Francis Collins is employed by the American government in one of the most public positions in all of science. And because of this foray into religion, Coyne thinks Collins should resign.

Enough is enough.  Collins is director of the NIH, and is using his office to argue publicly that scientific evidence—the Big Bang, the “Moral Law” and so forth—points to the existence of a God.  That is blurring the lines between faith and science: exactly what I hoped he would not do when he took his new job.

... He’s the chief government scientist, but he won’t stop conflating science and faith.  He had his chance, and he blew it.  He should step down.

It's a very serious thing to call for the resignation of a public figure like that, even in these Tea Party days. You better have some good arguments to back it up if you do. Does Coyne have those arguments? No, not in my humble opinion.

Coyne presents two arguments, one more explicit than the other.

First, he points to public opinion and how Christianity dominates American culture. Because of this dominance, Collins gets away with saying that science, properly understood, fits with Christianity. Coyne points out that if Collins made the same claim about atheism, Scientology or Islam, people would be outraged. That's probably true. But so what? What sort of argument is that? And coming from an atheist? From a scientist? Surely Coyne agrees that public opinion is irrelevant when it comes to assessing the merit of ideas and significance of scientific discoveries, regardless of whether that opinion is for or against that merit and significance. What Coyne is saying, really, is that, in a hypothetical situation, Collins' interpretation of scientific discoveries would create outrage. And so he should resign. I'm sorry, but that's just not reasonable.

The other, more implied argument, is that it's wrong to blur the lines between science and religion, wrong to conflate the two. And since Collins did just that by editing and writing in the book in question, he should resign. First, it is true that Collins does indeed blur the lines, in as much as he lets his science inform his faith and vice versa. I'm not sure, since I haven't read Coyne's book (which, now that you mention it, I probably should - it looks good), but something tells me that Coyne does the same, drawing atheistic implications from science. If I'm wrong correct me. But whatever the case might be, it's a very large jump from disagreeing with the way someone sees the relationship between science and religion, to calling for the resignation of that person. It's not a merited jump. As far as I know, Collins hasn't violated any contractual terms. In fact, the case can be made that he is fulfilling his role as furthering the acceptance and understanding of the sciences by making them more acceptable for religious people. I know that Coyne disagrees with this and that's his right, of course. But, again, the leap from disagreeing with the opinion of a public figure to calling for their resignation is unmerited and, I think, going way, way too far. It's hubris to do so.

I'm sorry Dr. Coyne, but appealing to hypothetical outrage is not good enough. Simply assuming and asserting that your conception of things is the right one and anyone disagreeing with that conception isn't fit for a public position isn't good enough either. It's your right to disagree, even vehemently, with Dr. Collins. That's fine. But calling for his resignation on that basis? I'm sorry, but that's completely unreasonable.

24Feb/101

Finally! A Darwin safe for Christians!

Haha.. This is genius! Journalist Ian Monroe has removed every word in The Origin of Species that doesn't also appear in the KJV Bible.

Now, you can see what all the controversy is about for yourself, without fear that you may accidentally damn your immortal soul to hell.

For the first time, Darwin’s dangerous ideas have been published, with every word which doesn’t occur in the King James version of the Holy Bible safely redacted. By removing more than 33,000 references to non-KJV terms, we have finally succeeded in translating this demonic work into a safe manuscript, appropriate for high school biology classes, as a text for homeschooling, and even for discussion in Bible study groups.

Seriously, this is the purpose according to Monroe.

I wanted people to reflect on the nature of language, and particularly on fundamentalism, and the notion of ‘the Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it,’ which seems to preclude most concepts in a modern worldview. I also thought it would be pretty funny to actually see what it would look like if you could visually remove all those modern concepts.

Very cool.

24Feb/107

Why I will never spank my daughter

My daughter, Lý, and I, playing outside a couple of days ago.

Just read this.

It's an article about the Pearls, Michael and Debi, who run a sizeable ministry called No Greater Joy, teaching parents how to, to quote the title of their 1,4 million copies sold most famous publication, train up a child. For the child-training they recommend a plumbing line, a sort of PVC pipe, that should leave the child in a "wounded, submissive whimper" and "without breath to complain." This to teach the child who's in control and not to be questioned. The Pearls recommend keeping a plumbing line in every room and even one around the neck to remind the child of that message. I'm not personally familiar with the message of the Pearls, but I assume that this is it at its most extreme. It can't all be that crazy. Nevertheless, only a little bit of crazy was enough: Two children are now dead. 4-year-old Sean Paddock, was wrapped in blankets until he suffocated, and 7-year-old Lydia Schatz, beat with the plumbing line to such a degree that it caused tissue breakdown so massive that her vital organs could no longer function. The article documents how these cases have created a backlash within the conservative Christian community. Secular liberals (or Christian ones, as yours truly) have been against this stuff for a long time, but conservative Christians haven't, so this is a good and welcomed development. Read it. It's a good article.

Brand new Lý

Almost a year and a half ago, I became a father. My wife Malan gave birth to a healthy, big girl just after 7 o'clock on the evening of October 28th 2008. The magnitude of the thing only dawned on me after a long while and in some ways I'm still in the process of realising just how important a change my daughter has been, is and will be for me. We decided to name her Lý, a Faroese name meaning "light". There's no person in my life as important to me as she is. She shines a whole new light on my life, completely reorienting it. I now live for her. My main goal in life is to provide the best environment for her flourishing that I can.

These aren't revelations, I know. Every parent, if sane, feels exactly like this. But I feel like telling you this, if for no other reason to establish the fact that I am not insane.

Being a parent means thinking through, with your partner if you have one, how best to raise your child. Among the questions a parent needs to answer is the question of discipline. Lý is still little and isn't defiant to any significant degree, so the question hasn't become pressing yet. But regarding spaking, I've reached a  conclusion.

I will never spank my daughter. Nor will I ever encourage people do so with their own child.

I come at this from an ambiguous place. My parents spanked me when I was little. And by my humble estimate I was not in any way damaged by it. There was no excess. Whenever it happened, I knew I had done something really wrong. My mother tells a story about me and my brother, who is a year and a half younger than me, going through a phase where we bit each other all the time. We had bite marks all over our bodies. One time, when we had one of our bite fights, she and my father took one of us each and reportedly spanked us so thoroughly that we never bit each other again. So I guess it works. Or worked. So I can't condemn spanking unequivocally. There are many, my parents among them, who successfully incorporate spanking in child-raising.

Yet, there is the shadow side, as illustrated in the above article and in countless other stories. There is, it seems, a thin line between spanking and violence. For some, at least. Spanking can be a way of teaching a child what is right and what is wrong, thus ultimately being constructive, beneficial and good. But spanking can also be very harmful. So my conclusion is this:

I cannot support, however tacitly, a practice that can harm a child.

Taken by my friend Beinta á Torkilsheyggi, summer 2009.

And by harm, I'm not only referring to physical harm, the extreme of which the article above talks of. I'm also referring to psychological and emotional harm. If a parent crosses the line while spanking, he or she violates the trust and love the child has towards its parents. Suddenly, the parent is not a source of nurture, but of harm. The confusion and pain that such a situation creates can scar a child for life. I'm not saying that this will inevitably happen. But some parents are weak and lack self-control, especially in situations of stress, situations where discipline typically is relevant. They might not know it, but they are capable of crossing the line. Even if they cross it only one percent of the time, the ninety nine percent are not worth it. Rather not spank at all, than to spank harmfully one percent of the time.

Then there's the spiritual damage crossing the line can bring about. Those of us that are raising our children in the faith have a special responsibility. We are, in effect, modelling God in the life of our child. This resonates especially with me as a father. How do I, as a father, reflect the heavenly Father in my parenting? God is not violent and I don't want to damage my daughter's understanding of him by portraying him as such. To do that would be to directly contradict Jesus when he says, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." (Luke 19:14)

Again, it would be dishonest of me, based on my personal experience, to say that all spanking is harmful or that spanking inevitably leads to violence. But is and does so in many cases. And, I think, by supporting the practice, even hypothetically, not to mention practically, one is supporting indirectly that harmful violence towards children. It may do and does good, yes, but I think for a manner of reasons that the violence it sometimes leads to is, because it's against a child, so horrendous, that the good is simply not worth it.

23Feb/100

Biblical literalism has a way of biting you on the ass

Friendly Atheist.

Tagged as: No Comments
19Feb/102

Benny Hinn fails yet again

Benny Hinn and his wife, Suzanne, are getting a divorce.

Benny blames his wife for the failure of their 30 year marriage, claiming in a statement yesterday,

"Although Pastor Hinn has faithfully endeavored to bring healing to their relationship, those efforts failed and were met with the petition for divorce that was filed without notice."

Divorce is a painful thing and it's not my place to judge the man and his wife. I hope they can resolve this in a Christian way. And I hope she gets a fair share of his money. But I have to be honest. That statement worries me slightly. What does "bring healing to their relationship" mean? Did he yell "Touch", slay her in the Spirit and hope everything would be all right?

I guess I am judging here somewhat. Maybe the Hinns have a very robust notion of what "healing" means in the context of marriage and maybe they have been undergoing intensive relationship therapy. But the one sided nature of the statement above doesn't suggest that this is the case. It sounds as though Benny tried to heal his marriage like he tries to heal the people who come to his crusades. And like the healing at his crusades, this one failed too.

I wish the Hinns well. As I said, I hope they resolve this well. But the Lord doesn't work through magic. Just like he doesn't heal people just like that, he doesn't heal marriages just like that. A marriage is something you work and work hard on. It's a process, not a state. It takes a whole lot of effort not to let it slip into apathy, conflict and ultimately unlove. Bad comparison, I know, but like living with a disease, marriage is tough and requires perseverance. Yet through this lifelong struggle we enter into deeper fellowship and communion with one another and with the Lord. Paul compared the love between husband and wife with the love between Christ and church. It's sacrificial love. It's painful. It's not magic. I would suggest that while there certainly is a place for talk about healing of marriage, ideally marriage itself is the healing. Marriage heals us as we through it understand better our relationship to Christ, or rather, his relationship to us.

I hope that the Hinns, on the other side of this tunnel, will understand.

19Feb/105

Intelligent design: A psychological interpretation

I have a confession to make: I used to be an intelligent design supporter. This was a few years back. For about six months to a year, I was convinced by Michael Behe and William Dembski. I found the notion of irreducible complexity persuasive. I considered the molecular level, the flagellum, blood clotting, the cell, and saw the fingerprints of God.

But I came to my senses. I am now, as any regular reader of this blog knows, a trinitarian evolutionist.

Saying that I felt ashamed is to put it too strongly, but I was slightly embarrassed by my intelligent design phase for a long time. I started out as a straight up 6-days, 6000-years creationist. But that wasn't my fault. My dad was and is a fan and subscriber of Institute for Creation Research publications. Acts and Facts issues are still lying around my parent's house. I grew up in this environment and, as any child will do, accepted what I was being told. My intelligent design phase occurred in my teens and came about completely from my own efforts.

These efforts were partly the result of a natural growing up of my personal faith. You reach a certain age, 12-14 or so, when you want to start owning your faith, so to speak. It's been handed to you, but as you grow up you start appropriating the faith for yourself. Completely natural. So I started reading my dad's books and magazines for myself.

But as I started looking in to things myself, a suspicion formed and lingered. A silently nagging doubt that wouldn't go away.  Why are the majority of scientists evolutionists? If creationism really has science on its side, why aren't more scientists convinced? At first, the massive Satanic conspiracy explanation. But no. Then a weaker and nicer form of the same explanation: Secular scientists don't have the eyes to see, devoted as they are to materialism. But no, neither. And so on.

Looking back, this was the beginning of the slippery slope in to full blown acceptance of evolution. It was somewhat difficult. I was treading ground forbidden and forbidden by my father, my hero (still is, by the way!). My acceptance of evolution first started as thought experiments. "What if God did it this way and not that?" But I grew bolder as I matured and my knowledge and insight deepened. In the end, evolution it was.

But first, there had to be intelligent design.

With the benefit of hindsight, I think my intelligent design phase was a psychological state necessary for me to gradually let go of the anxiety I had in regards to evolution. Intelligent design allowed me to accept some evolution, while still retaining the creationist conception of divine creative action. I could accept the general evolutionary picture with its billion of years, common descent, random mutation, natural selection and so on, while still making room for the good old tinkering finger of God. But with time I grew comfortable with the whole of the natural, empirical and evolved world as being, somehow, God's handiwork. I'm still fleshing out the details, but I'm confident that the path I'm on now is the right one.

Maybe this is hubris, but I suspect that my path is similar to the one that many other Evangelical Christians go through. I also suspect that it's the path that Evangelical Christianity as a whole will go through. It might be ironic to project like this in a blog post about psychology, but I can't see how people can go on much longer denying the facts of science. There's an honourable, though sometimes (grossly) overstated commitment to truth in Evangelical Christianity. And there is, though misguided for many, a love of science too. I think the suspicions and doubt nag many. Is this story really plausible? There's a desire to know truth and to take science seriously and the old interpretations are growing more and more uncomfortable. One day, I think, they will finally be thrown off. It's a psychological process we must go through, and it's a difficult one. There are many voices and bodies in the way. But truth, I am confident, will triumph in the end.

10Feb/105

Fighting the Anti Christ in Virginia

Washington Post reports,

RICHMOND, FEB. 9 -- The House of Delegates is scheduled to vote Wednesday on a bill that would protect Virginians from attempts by employers or insurance companies to implant microchips in their bodies against their will.

It might also save humanity from the antichrist, some supporters think.

Del. Mark L. Cole (R-Fredericksburg), the bill's sponsor, said that privacy issues are the chief concern behind his attempt to criminalize the involuntary implantation of microchips. But he also said he shared concerns that the devices could someday be used as the "mark of the beast" described in the Book of Revelation.

"My understanding -- I'm not a theologian -- but there's a prophecy in the Bible that says you'll have to receive a mark, or you can neither buy nor sell things in end times," Cole said. "Some people think these computer chips might be that mark."

Ok, let me get this straight.

There are people in Virginia who are afraid of microchip technology because they think it's the mark of the beast. That is, they think it will be part of the system of monetary enslavement of an world dictator individual who will basically be Satan in disguise. This figure is not here yet, but will take over the world right after the rapture of all Christians has happened. These events are part of the prophetic scenario of what can be called Left Behind-eschatology, a belief way too popular in this fragile world of Israel and Palestine, Islamic extremism and the West's war on terror.

Seeing the microchip as part of this scenario, these Virginians are fighting. But I have some questions.

Isn't fighting the microchip going against God's eschatological plan, laid down before the foundation of the earth? I assume that these events are somehow contingent on one another, part of a series of events that have "come to pass", one after another. So, if Virginians manage to legally stop the implementation of the microchip, the mark of the beast, can't it be thought that they might prevent Jesus from returning and thus the whole series of eschatological events - tribulation, Armageddon, death of most Jews, all that - of ever coming to pass.

So the Virginians are preventing God's eschatological plan from ever happening because by fighting this microchip. But if they're undermining God's plan by fighting it, why even believe in it in the first place? Why be afraid of the microchip at all?

Dear Virginians, you make no sense!

4Feb/101

Eschatological dance music

I went to Glasgow on Tuesday to see David Bazan. Amazing show. Post coming.

While on the bus on my way there, I listened to Danish DJ Trentemøller. While listening to "Rykketid" this thought occurred to me.

The narrative directionality of dance music makes it the perfect vessel for the retelling of the eschatological story of the Gospel.

The drama. The dynamics. The build-up. The ultimately satisfied anticipation. The Gospel.

Listen to it. You can feel it.