In humanity's failings, pope sees need of God
The Pope is in a unique position in today's world. The Pope is the guardian of an ancient faith, protecting its integrity and relevancy in a world increasingly split between those who believe in God blindly, intellectually rigorous believers who can see the shortcomings in their own beloved religion, and those who do not believe in God and see no need for him or for a savior.
I've often been impressed by the depth, honesty, and rigor of the positions held by the current Pope, Benedict XVI, and his predecessor, John Paul II. However, I often find that the Pope, and Christian apologists in general, are tainted by the need to adhere to and defend the perceived dogmas of the Christian faith. No matter how honest a Christian tries to be in their intellectual life, the Christian knows that, in the end, their inquiries must leave fundamental Christian dogmas intact. Otherwise, one's beloved religion is destroyed.
The Pope specifically, and Christians generally, are very clever at providing detailed answers to life's perplexing questions, answers which are convincing mainly to other Christians. This is because most Christians start from the assumption that their basic dogmas are true, or at least providing arguments convincing to believers with doubts. Evangelical Christians are concerned about saving your soul, not about proving to you that God exists, or that Jesus returned from the dead, or that heaven exists, etc. etc.
On Christmas day, Pope Benedict XVI asked a very good question: is humanity today still in need of a savior? He answers this question in the affirmative by pointing out all of humanity's failings. Left implicit are many assumptions: that God exists, that Jesus returned from the dead, that we are sinful by nature, etc. This is because the Pope's message was intended mainly for other Christians. But what about non-Christians? What are non-Christians supposed to get out of the Pope's message? The Pope's message may resound with many nonbelievers on an emotional level, maybe even enough to convince some to look into Christianity or perhaps to convert. But what about those for whom the concept of God, or a savior, or sin, mean absolutely nothing? Christians would call such people "lost sheep" or, more pessimistically, "damned." Can the Pope's call for a savior really reach a confirmed atheist who is convinced that there is no God and that Christians are deluded?
The Pope asked another good question: "What are we to think of those who choose death in the belief that they are celebrating life?" If you are Christian, you already have your answer. If you kill yourself, you are committing suicide. Suicide is a sin, and therefore those who choose death are sinners. To drive his point home, the Pope alludes to life's "natural end," implying that people like Piergiorgio Welby, who chose to unplug his respirator, do not meet a "natural end." Christians are all about living "naturally," which to them means according to your God-given nature. But is anything around us in this modern age really "natural" anymore? Our food, our air, our shelter, our livelihood, our health, have all been tampered with by thousands of years of human intervention. Even if God created us, we created the world we live in today! We created the technology that allows us to live longer than we would live if we were still hunting game in the wild. Surely waiting to die while a respirator helps you to breathe is not a "natural" way to end one's days. What will happen if we figure out a way to keep our cells alive and young indefinitely? Will God reach down from heaven and stop us? Rather than confront the possibility of such a world, Christians are content to bury their heads in the sand and hope humanity never goes that far.
If I had to start a new religion from scratch, the first condition I would impose is that it must be useful and relevant for all human beings, everywhere and for all time. Complete intellectual honesty and rigor are prerequisites, for nothing can be useful or relevant for everyone unless its validity and applicability can be seen by anyone willing to think hard enough. This is what many people find so attractive about the scientific method. Science is useful and relevant for everyone because anyone, with the right experiments and willingness to think hard, can derive the same results. Science is relevant for all time because it is flexible enough to admit change, rather than sticking blindly with dogmas. Can't we have a religion like this as well?
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Happy (Sustainable) Holidays!
As you go about your merry-making this holiday season, don't forget to think about the planet we all share. A lot of waste is generated this time of year, and if we don't act sustainably we will lose more islands to rising water levels. Instead of polluting the environment with your holiday waste, you can celebrate sustainably by doing simple things, like using wrapping paper and greeting cards made from recycled paper and recycling your Christmas tree. Or better yet, get an artificial tree and send e-cards.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Religious wars
Congressman warns against 'Muslims elected to office'
Should all American citizens, like Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr., be concerned that "many more Muslims" will be elected to positions of power and influence in America? There are several ways to approach this question.
First, would this actually happen in America? Sure, Islam is a fast-growing religion in America, but it's not growing that fast. With almost 80% of America professing to be Christian, and only 0.6% Muslim, America will not become a Muslim nation anytime soon. Even if America does start becoming more Muslim, it's only fair that they be given proportional representation, since this is how a democratic system ought to work.
Second, is this really a cause for concern? In the current political climate, it is fashionable to treat Muslims the same way Nazis and Communists were treated not too long ago. The same kind of rhetoric is used: they are the enemy, they are a threat to our way of life, they hate democracy and freedom, etc. etc. This very well may be true of some Muslims, namely extremist terrorists and their supporters. However, it is hardly fair to say these things about all Muslims, everywhere. Nor is it fair to say that Islam, the religion, promotes violence. The practice of any religion depends on its interpretation, and any religion that gives the slightest bit of room for crazy interpretations will have crazy followers.
Third, is this really something that requires action? The way I understand representative democracy, it is the people who decide who represents them. If the people want to elect a lecherous, homosexual old man, that is their choice. If they want to elect a man who cannot speak their own language, that is their prerogative. In other words, the people get exactly the kind of representative they deserve. If we want to change this system, then we need to modify the Constitution. As it is, a single Muslim representative is not the worst thing that could happen to us. Besides, since when has one's religion played a role in whether one is eligible for office or not? Unless the American government is willing to abandon separation of church and state and declare a holy war (or at least a ban) on Islam, it shouldn't matter what religion our government officials practice.
Rep. Goode later clarified his statements: "I have nothing against Representative Ellison and his ability to practice whatever religion he likes behind closed doors, but I cannot stand by idly and watch as a symbolic gesture emboldens terrorists and puts America in danger."
Perhaps allowing Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, our first Muslim elected to Congress, to be sworn in using the Koran would be seen by Muslims around the world as a tolerant, embracing act. Extremists have a foothold in the minds of their supporters only if their chosen enemy is antagonizing them. When we rape Arab countries for their oil and kill innocent people, this only fuels the fires for extremists. What really puts America in danger is when we act unjustly, whether it be in Iraq when we kill innocent civilians or on our own soil when we deny an elected representative to be sworn in using the sacred text of his own choice.
Should all American citizens, like Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr., be concerned that "many more Muslims" will be elected to positions of power and influence in America? There are several ways to approach this question.
First, would this actually happen in America? Sure, Islam is a fast-growing religion in America, but it's not growing that fast. With almost 80% of America professing to be Christian, and only 0.6% Muslim, America will not become a Muslim nation anytime soon. Even if America does start becoming more Muslim, it's only fair that they be given proportional representation, since this is how a democratic system ought to work.
Second, is this really a cause for concern? In the current political climate, it is fashionable to treat Muslims the same way Nazis and Communists were treated not too long ago. The same kind of rhetoric is used: they are the enemy, they are a threat to our way of life, they hate democracy and freedom, etc. etc. This very well may be true of some Muslims, namely extremist terrorists and their supporters. However, it is hardly fair to say these things about all Muslims, everywhere. Nor is it fair to say that Islam, the religion, promotes violence. The practice of any religion depends on its interpretation, and any religion that gives the slightest bit of room for crazy interpretations will have crazy followers.
Third, is this really something that requires action? The way I understand representative democracy, it is the people who decide who represents them. If the people want to elect a lecherous, homosexual old man, that is their choice. If they want to elect a man who cannot speak their own language, that is their prerogative. In other words, the people get exactly the kind of representative they deserve. If we want to change this system, then we need to modify the Constitution. As it is, a single Muslim representative is not the worst thing that could happen to us. Besides, since when has one's religion played a role in whether one is eligible for office or not? Unless the American government is willing to abandon separation of church and state and declare a holy war (or at least a ban) on Islam, it shouldn't matter what religion our government officials practice.
Rep. Goode later clarified his statements: "I have nothing against Representative Ellison and his ability to practice whatever religion he likes behind closed doors, but I cannot stand by idly and watch as a symbolic gesture emboldens terrorists and puts America in danger."
Perhaps allowing Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, our first Muslim elected to Congress, to be sworn in using the Koran would be seen by Muslims around the world as a tolerant, embracing act. Extremists have a foothold in the minds of their supporters only if their chosen enemy is antagonizing them. When we rape Arab countries for their oil and kill innocent people, this only fuels the fires for extremists. What really puts America in danger is when we act unjustly, whether it be in Iraq when we kill innocent civilians or on our own soil when we deny an elected representative to be sworn in using the sacred text of his own choice.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Olfactory adventures
Star-nosed mole can sniff underwater, videos reveal
I wonder what it feels like to sniff underwater. Does any water go back up into your nose? I'll bet some application could be made for humans. Say, bubble air through water, then siphon it into our nose. Not that it would do us much good. Our sense of smell is terrible compared to many other animals. And why not? A good sense of smell is an expensive investment. Humans are clever enough to survive without the aid of too much olfactory guidance. It's the same reason we have less hair and are less burly than our Neanderthal ancestors.
Unleash your inner bloodhound – start sniffing
It's hardly surprising that humans can follow a scent trail, especially when the scent is as strong as chocolate. I would be impressed if humans could smell scents in such minute amounts as, say, dogs. This makes me think of one of my daydreams: genetically modifying humans to give them more advanced powers. Why not modify ourselves so we produce the antifreeze protein? This would prevent needless deaths and injuries from freezing. Why not eradicate the genes that cause nearsightedness so that a third of the population can lead normal lives without worrying about glasses, contacts, or laser surgery? How about making everyone lactose tolerant so we can all enjoy dairy products? While we're at it, can't we get rid of the "itch" sense?
I wonder what it feels like to sniff underwater. Does any water go back up into your nose? I'll bet some application could be made for humans. Say, bubble air through water, then siphon it into our nose. Not that it would do us much good. Our sense of smell is terrible compared to many other animals. And why not? A good sense of smell is an expensive investment. Humans are clever enough to survive without the aid of too much olfactory guidance. It's the same reason we have less hair and are less burly than our Neanderthal ancestors.
Unleash your inner bloodhound – start sniffing
It's hardly surprising that humans can follow a scent trail, especially when the scent is as strong as chocolate. I would be impressed if humans could smell scents in such minute amounts as, say, dogs. This makes me think of one of my daydreams: genetically modifying humans to give them more advanced powers. Why not modify ourselves so we produce the antifreeze protein? This would prevent needless deaths and injuries from freezing. Why not eradicate the genes that cause nearsightedness so that a third of the population can lead normal lives without worrying about glasses, contacts, or laser surgery? How about making everyone lactose tolerant so we can all enjoy dairy products? While we're at it, can't we get rid of the "itch" sense?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)