19 June 2007
Off to Wordpress
Well I've heard enough critique of my medieval blogger look so I've decided to switch over to Wordpress. You can now find me here. Those of you who are kind enough to link to me may want to update your links. Thanks.
18 June 2007
What I Wish Dawkins Would Have Said
Richard Lewontin, a Harvard-based evolutionary biologist, Marxist, atheist:
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
15 June 2007
The Image of God
"Against any materialist reductionism, Christians claim that God has seen fit to make room in the universe for creatures who bear some of the glory of their Maker, and who, even on the rainiest Monday morning of their lives, look something like God. We image God in our personhood, communion, responsibility, dignity, virtue, suffering and freedom."
14 June 2007
A Dark Day
Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse: this. I may be making that move to the Senators bandwagon permanent.12 June 2007
Volf Revisited
I've just come across a print version of Miroslav Volf's paper, "A Voice of One's Own: Public Faith in a Pluralistic World". This is a portion of last October's Laing Lectures, delivered at Regent College in Vancouver and was the subject of a number of posts here last year. One quote to give a bit of the flavour:
"The pluralist account of relations among religions is incoherent. I don’t mean here that it never ends up making good on its promise of including everyone on equal terms, although this is true, too. Some religious group always ends up excluded, mainly because the teachings and practices of concrete religions are not only different but sometimes outright contradictory and stubbornly refuse to let themselves be interpreted as instances of an underlying sameness. We can expand the circle of the included, but we cannot avoid excluding—unless we declare every religion to be acceptable in advance. From my perspective, this is as it ought to be; otherwise we would end up having to indiscriminately affirm anything and everything. Pluralists shouldn’t pretend, however, to have overcome religious exclusivism."
"The pluralist account of relations among religions is incoherent. I don’t mean here that it never ends up making good on its promise of including everyone on equal terms, although this is true, too. Some religious group always ends up excluded, mainly because the teachings and practices of concrete religions are not only different but sometimes outright contradictory and stubbornly refuse to let themselves be interpreted as instances of an underlying sameness. We can expand the circle of the included, but we cannot avoid excluding—unless we declare every religion to be acceptable in advance. From my perspective, this is as it ought to be; otherwise we would end up having to indiscriminately affirm anything and everything. Pluralists shouldn’t pretend, however, to have overcome religious exclusivism."
11 June 2007
Why the Stanley Cup Belongs in Canada
Watch this and lament. Arnold Schwarzenegger is unforgettable. Watch him as he excitedly anticipates the punchline of his inspiring summary of the Ducks' cup run. Anaheim as the new Hockeytown... somehow I doubt it.
10 June 2007
In Their Own Words
For those who are interested, Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath chatted last week at the Oxford Literary Festival. You can listen here.
On the question of morality, McGrath properly pushes Dawkins to describe the ultimate ground for morality in a world without an ultimate purpose. Dawkins admits that science can't proscribe moral behaviour but predictably goes on to describe that even if science isn't up for the task, neither is religion. He makes a curious reference, however, to the New Testament ethical perspective being more "agreeable" than the Old Testament, judging based on some kind of basic moral consensus that apparently exists simply by virtue of the fact that we're 21st century 'progressive' people.
As to the origins of this 'moral consensus' Dawkins says he "doesn't have time" to go into it" but he's quite certain it's not religion (I'm guessing some version of meme theory). He decries "cherry-picking" from the Bible or the Qur'an, keeping the "good bits" throwing out the "bad bits" but he never discusses the reference point for the terms "good" and "bad". All we can guess is that the simple fact that we happen to live in the 21st century means that we understand morality better than any who have gone before us. Quite a leap of faith, I'd say.
This is the last time either of these names will come up on this blog. I promise. Maybe.
via: be thinking
On the question of morality, McGrath properly pushes Dawkins to describe the ultimate ground for morality in a world without an ultimate purpose. Dawkins admits that science can't proscribe moral behaviour but predictably goes on to describe that even if science isn't up for the task, neither is religion. He makes a curious reference, however, to the New Testament ethical perspective being more "agreeable" than the Old Testament, judging based on some kind of basic moral consensus that apparently exists simply by virtue of the fact that we're 21st century 'progressive' people.
As to the origins of this 'moral consensus' Dawkins says he "doesn't have time" to go into it" but he's quite certain it's not religion (I'm guessing some version of meme theory). He decries "cherry-picking" from the Bible or the Qur'an, keeping the "good bits" throwing out the "bad bits" but he never discusses the reference point for the terms "good" and "bad". All we can guess is that the simple fact that we happen to live in the 21st century means that we understand morality better than any who have gone before us. Quite a leap of faith, I'd say.
This is the last time either of these names will come up on this blog. I promise. Maybe.
via: be thinking
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
