Post 179--Faith vs Reason?

Trying to catch up a bit after the long absence. So, another gem for you to ponder today, this time mostly my own.

Today’s subject is hardly new for me or, for that matter, for you. You’ve read similar stuff in earlier posts on this blog, but I return to the subject for two related reasons. One is that secular folks seem never to understand the point I am making today. Even secular friends with whom I’ve had long and deep discussions on this particular issue never seem to comprehend. I’ve been wondering whether this is simply because they cannot or because simply refuse to admit. The second and related reason for returning to the subject is that, because of what seems intransigence on the part of seculars, it has become one of my favourite subjects. I love to challenge seculars on this score, because their view on the subject is the dominant one in our secular society. Our whole society is run on basis of it. That is to say, our whole society is run on basis of a myth!

The subject?  The old saw of REASON VS RELIGION.  Now, you may not be philosophically inclined and kind of crinch at the sound of this topic. But, you know, whether you’re philosophical or not, your life is lived according to the stand you take on this subject. Your stand may be held subconsciously; you may not be aware of it, but it shapes your life.  And the fact that it most likely is subconscious, that makes it worse. In fact, it means you don’t know what you’re doing or why.

John Krakauer published a book back in 2004 by the title of Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith. It’s a book about violence within the Mormon community.  He used this story as a demonstration of his conviction about reason vs religion. In his Prologue he wrote:

Although the far territory of the extreme can exert an intoxicating pull on susceptible individuals of all bents, extremism seems to be especially prevalent among those include by temperament or upbringing towards religious pursuits.  Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a crucial component of spiritual devotion.  And when religious fanaticism supplants ratiocination, all bets are suddenly off. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything. Common sense is no match for the peace of God—as the actions of Dan Lafferty vividly attest.

There you have it: “Faith is the very antithesis of reason,” while “injudiciousness” is “a crucial component of spiritual devotion.” Well, I am a man of faith and of spiritual devotion, but none the people here in Vancouver’s West End who know me and have observed me have ever accused me of injudiciousness or of being unreasonable—except two.  And this West End, in case you don’t know area, is thoroughly secular in its culture and mentality. Secularism is the very air we breathe here.

Now I don’t know anything about Krakauer’s life, but I suspect he is pretty ignorant about the role of religion, that he has never spent much time with religious people or in religious institutions. He has never read serious religious books or listened to lectures, including dialogical ones.  If he has religious neighbours or colleagues, he avoids talking about it and, perhaps, avoids them altogether.

But, you know what the real and even more tragic problem is? It is that Krakauer does not even know himself!  He, like seculars in general, thinks that he is a person of reason and not of faith—but that is the grand myth of secularism. Who has ever proven that the philosophy that puts reason at the top is true?  Has been proven?  No one. That itself is a matter of pure faith.  A person living by reason is one living by faith in reason, believes as much and as fervently as the overtly religious person.  And indeed, with the fanaticism of secular believers in reason, all bets can indeed be off, such as the killing of the most vulnerable of all humans, namely babies. That’s the ultimate of extremes and of cruelty. Society’s having become accustomed to it does not make it less extreme or cruel.  And if extreme behavior is the product of religion, well Krakauer has just condemned his own faith in reason.

 I’ll try to get back to Krakauer and similar people over the next few days. In the meantime, ponder where you fit in this faith vs reason thing.

Well, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.   

Post 159--The Cuba Miracle

                                        

Things are a’changin’ everywhere, some for the bad and some for the good. It often seems like the bad is winning out. Many more bad things seem to be happening than good.  Well, things are seldom as they seem—not an original insight from me, of course. In fact I could sing you a line of that from Gilbert and Sullivan’s opera H. M. S> Pinafore—ta ta ta ta ta ta ta…. Okay, this is not U-tube; I’ll spare you the pain!

The fact is that good things are happening every second everywhere. If it were not so, you and I would not exist and neither would this world or, for that matter, our entire universe.  And even that doesn’t cover it all—all the universes, all of creation including all that stuff millions of light years away from us. Don’t kid yourself. If God were not operating this whole thing, it wouldn’t be there. So, lots of good things happening all over the place.

Some Christians have a very narrow view of God’s work. They define it in terms of religion or church or spirituality. They don’t see the whole picture. However, those are also areas where God does good things in and through us. So, today I want to share with you something good that God is doing in Cuba in the area of religion, church and spirituality. This story reached me only just now, a few minutes ago and was sent by the Great Commission Movement. Here goes:

The Cuba Miracle!

When the mass media campaign in Havana officially launched on February 18^th Cuban customs released 150,000 copies of the high-impact campaign books with powerful transformation stories of Cubans and 400,000 pieces of suppporting evangelistic material needed by the almost 400 participating campaign churches.

Fast forward three weeks, and here’s a report on what has happened: 

Requests for 50,000 "Power To Change" campaign books have been logged at the campaign call center. Thousands more have submitted requests to receive the book consisting of transformation stories. 

Thousands have already made their commitment to Jesus Christ. Intense follow-up is being provided by 400 participating churches.

It appears that 150 – 250 thousand more books will be needed along with a million more campaign brochures.

“It is harvest time in Cuba. There is a spiritual hunger among the people previously not seen in such numbers.  People yearn to experience inner change. In the response we are seeing all kinds of spiritual need,” reports Dr. Hannu Haukka, Missions Director for GCMM. 

Interest has arisen in other cities of Cuba, such as Santiago de Cuba and Guantanamo.

A very popular, secular unofficial video distribution network servicing all of Cuba has been a blessing to the campaign. The same eight powerful transformation stories in the campaign book have been circulating on video everywhere on the island thanks to this system.

(complete story, photos here)

Please pray for this special time of  “Harvest in Cuba,” for multitudes who do not yet know Jesus. Please pray for the churches as they reach out to their countrymen, despite the opposition. Join us and be a part of this great harvest.

You can donate online now to this urgent need. Visit our website for secure online donations. 

More information on cutting-edge missions in our next newsletter

as well as online: www.gcmministries.com.

Please consider prayerfully your financial support with your tax-deductible gift.

Thousands of people are being reached with the saving power of the Gospel. Thank you!

Post 143—Prince Charles on Religious Freedom

It’s for almost 55 years that I have felt some sort of affinity with Britain’s Prince Charles. My wife and I are about to celebrate our 55^th wedding anniversary.

Now in most cases, the above two sentences might be found in different chapters of a book or in different articles. What could they possibly have to do with each other and be found in successive sentences like here?  Perhaps a bit far sought, but it so happens that my late father-in-law’s name was Charles Prins. It was not his birth name; that was a classic Frisian name “Tjalling,” but its closest English equivalent was considered “Charles.”  So, that’s the name he adopted upon immigration to the USA in 1948. I’m not sure anyone at the time thought about the similarity to that of the Prince. Perhaps it’s a mere sentimentality, but since I always was fond of my father-in-law, that somehow transferred to the Prince as well. 

So, I was very happy that my sentimental hero—“sentimental” referring to me, not the Prince!—gave such an interesting

speech on the BBC’s “Thought for the Day” programme. Part of it was politically correct to liberal ears, and part to conservative ears. Now, we don’t usually hear political incorrectness from the mouth of princes, but this time it was couched in a nearly politically correct framework. Leave it to British royalty to manage such a contradiction!                                      

The politically correct for the liberals was the need to protect and give freedom to all religions, but then religion as defined by them, not by the religions themselves, particularly the scope of religions. The Prince defended his position by referring to a speech by the queen back in 2012, in which she stated that the Church of England has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths. Charles himself at one time described his responsibility as “defender of faith” rather than “defender of the faith,” something that shocked traditionalists, who “were furious,” according to the writer of the article, Tim Stanley. To them this was totally politically incorrect, but it should be remembered that “a key part of British identity is religious freedom,” which is often the stated reason for Muslims to come to Britain.

I am an orthodox Christian of the type often described as “Reformational.” (If you want to know more about that, I encourage you to check out my website <  www.SocialTheology.com  >)  As a Reformational, I totally agree with a government that is neutral when it comes to religions; neutral, not secular, which is a different thing altogether. I am talking about a government that treats all religions equally, which is what Prince Charles is talking about. Correct as far as liberals are concerned; incorrect as far as most conservatives are concerned. 

But then he turns around and begins to explicate about religious persecution by Muslims of Christians and other religions, including even fellow Muslims. Now he’s politically correct for the conservatives, who are offended that such persecution gets so little public attention, but incorrect for the liberals, many of whom do not care about this or refuse to make it a special issue, as in the case of the Canadian Government.

Alas, British royals don’t seem to have much clout in the political sphere. If you keep up with British developments, you should be aware of the strong anti-Christian bias in the country’s political sector, a situation that hardly reflects the ideals of the Prince. One would almost get the impression that he is a “mere” member of the public whose only power is his voice, on BBC in his case.

The article in which I find this info is written by Tim Stanley, a fine article but one in which it is not clear where the Prince’s speech ends and Stanley’s report begins. Stanley describes his message as “grim.”  “Tolerance is evaporating; the wars of religion are back.”  “For millions ‘religious freedom is a daily, stark choice between life and death.’ As well as oppression of Christianity in Iraq, he referred to attacks on Yazidis, Jews, Ahmadis, Baha’is and other minority faiths in the Middle East, and the persecution in other countries that aims to wipe out religious diversity.”

Stanley adds a few more interesting comments that I am not sure whether they are his or the Prince’s. “It is religious literacy, not secularism, that will bring an increasingly diverse nation together.”  I would say there’s more than just something to be said for that!  The other, “How wonderful, what a testament to Christian civilization, that faithful Muslims now seek refuge in Britain.”  Indeed, so it is, but one seldom hears this declared as a Christian virtue. Liberals consider this as their achievement. Allegedly, they have overcome the intolerance of Christians and thus created an open door for Muslims to enter. Personally, I wager that liberalism would not even exist if it were not for the Christian soil in which it sprouted.

I encourage you to read Stanley’s article at: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=grim%2C+yes%2C+but+Charles+got+it+right.  (Vancouver Sun, Dec. 26, 2016, p. NP5)

Post 142--War on Christmas

Douglas Todd is one of my favourite Vancouver Sun columnists. You may have noticed that I quote him quite often in this blog. Well, he did it again with an interesting article on Christmas, this time about the “war on Christmas.”  

Though most of us think of opposition to Christmas, especially its public expressions, with the help of an Oxford don, Todd tells us about a war that’s been going on for centuries. It is inevitable, he writes, that there should be war of some kind against such a large global celebration with its public expressions. It is not the specialty of today’s secularists or atheists. 

To avoid copyright problems, I present you with Todd’s by means of its URL:

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-yes-virginia-there-has-always-been-a-war-on-christmas

This being “Boxing Day” in Canada or “Tweede Kerstdag” or “Second Christmas Day” in my country of birth, this will be my last post dealing with Christmas issues for this season.  However, the effect of Christmas, that is, the birth of Jesus Christ, will continue to permeate these posts. From beginning to whenever these posts are concluded, the reality of Christ will underlie every single one of future posts, though He will not be mentioned by name in most.

In distinction from secularists and liberals who want to reduce the scope of religion to the private and personal, I define religion “wholistically.”  Religion, in terms of faith and commitment, colours all I do. That, by the way, is true of everyone, including those secularists and liberals; they are just so ignorant about religion that they do not realize this about themselves and, very funny actually, deny this about themselves. Can you imagine someone being so blind to his own self?!

Well, be that as it may—and it is!—enjoy the Todd article and be enlightened about “war on Christmas.”

Post 132--Biblical Attitude towards Prostitution (1)

The Bible was written in a world where prostitution and other sexual practices were common. Prostitution is a very  ancient practice. It is not dubbed the oldest profession by some for nothing. By Genesis 38 it was already an established custom that served various purposes and vested interests. Female slaves were offering up their bodies to earn money for their masters. Free women entered it as profession, for so it was regarded. Brothels were not uncommon (I Kings 3:16).

Some decades ago, Amsterdam, the capital of my “old country,” was lauded for its progressive attitude towards prostitution, for they regulated it, derived taxes from it and sought to reduce the health problems that usually attend to its practice. Licenses were required from houses of prostitution with the government deriving revenue from it. This was sort of a win-win situation, sort of, probably better than the usual unregulated conditions. But this is nothing new, for similar arrangements have been discovered in the ancient world.

So, a whole culture had developed around the practice that is well circumscribed throughout the Old Testament (OT) especially. Prostitutes might wear special clothing, even perhaps a veil (Genesis 38:14ff; Proverbs 7:10). Of course, the price would vary depending on circumstances and social status.  We read of a loaf of bread (Proverbs 6:26); a kid (Genesis 38:17); a boy could be given away for a harlot’s wage (Joel 3:3; Matthew 4:3). Hebrew father was not to give his daughter to it (Lev 19:29).  Nor could priests marry a prostitute

So, ancient, firmly established and commonly practiced. If you want a fuller dose of it, I would refer you to volumes 1 and 2 of the International Standard Bible Enclopedia—1982 edition by Eerdmans—volume 1, pp. 815-817; volume 2, pp. 616-617.

Though when we think of prostitution, we usually think in terms of women selling their bodies to men, those we dub the “johns.”  But in the world of the OT it seems that male prostitution was as common as the female version. And besides the blatantly commercial version, there was a lot of religion involved in terms of cultic prostitution, including temples.  The cultic in this context does not refer to some extreme version but of mainstream or mainline practice. Prostitution was often closely tied to religion, the opposite of what we might expect. In fact, most of the OT passages dealing with the subject are tied to its cultic practice, though not exclusively. 

So, when the Bible speaks of prostitution, it is not talking about some exotic realm practiced in the shadows. No, much of it was in the open and official, both recognized and approved by the dominant cultures around Israel; in the centre of things instead of in the shadows, not on skidrow as in Vancouver’s Down Town East Side, but on Georgia and Robson Streets and in the churches lining West End streets.

But one of the first things you will notice when you begin searching for the topic in the Bible is its strongly negative attitude towards prostitution. It does not have a single good word to say about it. There are various reasons for that attitude; it’s not just a matter of “kill joy.”  In fact, the very opposite; it’s more a matter of “enable joy,” real joy.  It led—and still leads—to so many ugly problems in society that God wanted to protect His people from this “kill joy.”  Probably the first reason was of a religious nature, since religion is always at the heart of every society—the cult prostitution. "None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute (Deuteronomy 23:17).   The next verse: "You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.…”  “There were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD dispossessed before the sons of Israel (1 Kings 14:24). The cultic practice was an abomination to God because it was a common Pagan practice among the nations around Israel that constantly tempted the people to follow their example, have their “fun” and gradually transfer their loyalty from the God who delivered them from slavery in Egypt to the numerous idols of their neighbours. These were false “gods” that the OT frequently pokes fun of as powerless and of being made of mere wood or stone. These so-called “gods” deceived them, brought them false hope and distorted their values. They represented a culture rejected by God because of all its corruption, cruelties and oppressions.  It was hard for God to protect them when the people themselves were so open to and tempted by these cultural and religious travesties. And so God tried to put a stop to it altogether by simply condemning it in no uncertain language. 

There was another but related reason for the negative attitude towards prostitution. It can lead to social and cultural breakdown, even apart from the religious angle, but time is up and the word limit has been crossed. So, that will mean another post on the subject. See you in 133.   

Post 121--Bieber the Believer

I’ve had the following document on my blog waiting list for a long time, since December 15, 2015.  There have always been reasons, usually good and valid reasons, I pushed it out of the way to make space for other concerns. I decided today to share it with you, old as it is, simply because I think it such an interesting document. I know next to nothing about this Bieber while you probably do. This issue here may be an old one for you, something like “been there, done that” kind of thing. Nevertheless, here it is, straight from the Denision Forum of the above date:

BIEBER THE BELIEVER: THE FAITH OF JUSTIN BIEBER

·                                    Written by Nick Pitts

In Shakespeare's Measure for Measure, a young Lucio observed that "our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we often might win by fearing to attempt." These doubts, Lucio describes, are often silently underscored by the axiom that appearances are deceiving, what you see is not what you get. So it is necessary to proceed with caution—if at all. However, could doubts be more of a hindrance than a help?

In the October/November issue of Complex Magazine, Justin Bieber was an incubator for doubts when he boldly came out with his faith. One person expressed a common sentiment, writing that it was a "publicity stunt, shameless little twerp." The ladies of The View, a daytime television talk show, expressed hesitation over his overt and bold comments. Fox News commentator Juan Williams even skeptically weighed in, saying: "Do you really believe… that he's studying the Bible; that he cares about the Bible; that he cares about anything but Justin Bieber?" 

Williams and company were not alone, joined unexpectedly by Justin himself. "I think that people, as soon as they start hearing me say I'm a Christian, they're like, 'Whoa Justin, back up, take a step back.'" 

Why the doubts and hesitation? Justin has a long history and a longer list of fans affectionately known as 'beliebers' who have followed him through his antics. Who can forget how Bieber first came on to the scene, informing audiences that his end goal would be to make "One Less Lonely Girl"? His primary subject matter interest would be the "Baby," some girl he met "One Time." Singer and rapper Usher joined him for a time as he tried to find "Somebody to Love." He wanted to be that "Boyfriend" that could make her "Smile." However, this litany of chart topping hits may have created reasons to celebrate, but they also caused some problems.

Such problems include those with the police. He has been arrested twice, once for DUI while allegedly drag-racing the streets of Miami and another time for assaulting a limo driver. Then there was the video of a sleeping Bieber, filmed by an alleged prostitute.  But that video was overshadowed to a certain degree by another video in which Justin was heard making racist comments and jokes. 

So how does Justin respond to these individuals and their comparison of his past life with his present direction? "I do not want to shove this down anyone's throat. I just wanna honestly live like Jesus." 

Bieber, like the Apostle Paul to the church at Galatia (1:13-15), is not running away from his past, he is embracing it. In Bieber's words:

"If we can understand that we're all imperfect, let's come to God and come for his help. You're not weak by doing that. I think that's a common misperception of Christians, that you're being weak because you can't handle it. None of us can handle this world, dude! It's eating us alive. But, man, I don't wanna have to do it on my own." 

Instead of dwelling on the past, Bieber is in love in the present and wants to tell everyone about it. Describing his relationship with God like that of a girlfriend, Bieber told Complex: 

"If I have an awesome, bomb girlfriend, I'm gonna wanna show her off and go around and tell people my girl is the sh** [editorial censorship]. I'm not gonna cheat on her because she's the best. It's like with God: The whole thing with religion is you present yourself holy and bring your offerings so that God can bless you, when the whole point of the relationship [should be], 'No, I'm gonna do this because he loves me. I'm gonna do this because he's amazing and not because [I] have to, because [I] want to.'" 

Unconventional in his approach and candid in his appeal, Bieber is raising eyebrows and causing heads to turn. He is offering the world another, albeit unusual, example of Christ. "I think that with Christians, they've left such a bad taste in people's mouths. Just like, overly pushy with the subject, overly churchy and religious." Instead, he is offering a different approach, one in which he is "sharing what I'm going through and what I'm feeling."

What Justin is feeling is something intensely personal and less transactional. Bieber finds, "That's the whole thing with religion that's been throwing off the people. It's not a 'have to.' It should be just like a personal relationship. Like, 'Hey, I love you because you first loved me.'

Post 94 Trudeau: Due Diligence? (1)

Religion and Politics

"Religion and politics" is such a huge subject that it will never be exhausted, no matter how many tomes or conferences are devoted to it. Though it is the subject for a couple of initial paragraphs in this post, it is not our main subject today.

Post 93 deals with what might be considered a “purely” religious and spiritual topic:  Ash Wednesday.  And now, immediately, right after it a dive into politics?  Federal politics even?  That will seem like an awfully wide leap to some, from the sublime to the shady.

Actually, it’s not as big a leap as you may think.  “Purely” religious or spiritual topics are meant to improve your relations with God and man—your neighbor, as per the name of this blog. And it is with this improved or strengthened relationship with both God and your neighbor that you then go forth into the world of culture, including politics. Anyone with poor or absent relations with God or neighbor is likely to pursue unhealthy politics, being guided by all sorts of shady motives and unhelpful worldviews.

So, here I am, unabashed and unapologetic for this move from high spirituality to high politics—that of our Prime Minister (PM).  That’s as high as you can go in our country—but perhaps at the same time as low!  You can go either way. The lowest motives may be the most dominant at the highest or vice versa.

I should hasten to indicate my awareness that the PM of Canada is not the Head of State and that, officially, his is not the highest status, which is reserved for the Governor General, who is appointed by his “inferior,” the PM.  True, but the PM certainly is the highest in terms of political power, influence and responsibility.

PM Trudeau and Due Diligence

My question is whether our new PM is doing due diligence.This question arose first arose during his campaign before Trudeau was “enthroned.” I’ve had no reason to put my mind at ease on this score and note that I am by no means the only one to have a suspicion here. From before his installment to the end of his hundred honeymoon days, I have detected a consistent pattern that keeps the question at the forefront.

Before proceeding, though, I want to praise the PM for some of his earliest actions that delighted my soul. The first one was the composition of his Cabinet. His 50-50 gender cabinet appointments. The second was his racial or ethnic inclusiveness, also in the context of the Cabinet. That was just such a refreshing change from history.  There was his “march” to the Governor General’s mansion in the company of his cabinet, all on foot instead of an ostentatious automobile entourage. And then there was his unfeigned and spontaneous reaction to the unexpected meeting with his daughter who ran into her parents arms during that march. It was all so delightful and different. I initially accepted it all in pure delight. This was going to be a different PM, no doubt about it. The MacLean’s cover photo of the surprised look of the Prime Ministerial couple upon seeing their young daughter run into their arms is pinned to a wall in our apartment. It’s bound to become a classic.

Spontaneity vs Due Diligence

That pattern of seeming spontaneity continued on. With the tremendous pressure of Syrian refugees dominating the news towards the end of the PM’s campaign, he bravely announced that Canada would welcome 25,000 refugees by the end of 2015, a period of just a couple of months. How spontaneous was that?  Or was it?  You may remember previous posts on this blog on the subject of refugees. I pointed out that even under more normal circumstances, those responsible for vetting refugees admitted that it is virtually impossible to do it thoroughly according to established protocol, let alone under the pressure of the moment.  25,000 within the space of a couple of months? I loved the sentiment behind it. But was it feasible to do it within the protocol?  I judged “no.”  Not possible. Only if various steps were ignored or omitted, even if those chosen would already have been vetted by the UN.  Canadian officials sent to the Middle East to sort them out would hardly be capable of reading between the lines of the oral and written claims of Third World refugees, whose logic, culture, religion and, not to forget, their interests are so radically different from their own. 

Populism vs Due Diligence 

The question of due diligence bubbled to the surface. Was this true spontaneity, genuine spontaneity?  Does spontaneity exclude or bypass due diligence?  Of course, the PM himself recognized his decision for what it was and moved the deadline for the 25,000 forward several times. Or was this populism?  That is, playing on the emotions of the public that was exposed regularly to the pitiful scenes of hordes of refugees, women, children and the elderly, making their way across seas and land borders in their search for safety. Playing on their emotions without doing due diligence?  And let the chips fall where they may?  Like spontaneity, populism, that is, listening to the hearts of the people is good democracy, but not without due diligence.  It is the duty of our politicians to listen to the people and to practice due diligence at the same time.

(To be continued in Post 95)

Post 88—Den Tandt’s Ecumenical Remedy (continued)

This is a continuation of yesterday's discussion of Michael Den Tandt's remedy for religious fundamentalism.

Den Tandt’s remedy, you may recall, is to recognize and act upon “the commonality of the religious experience,” something that is acknowledged by a wide range of scholars. He regards this “remarkable.” I similarly recognize certain commonalities all religions share in some way.  Den Tandt attributes this commonality or ecumenicity to “something in the human condition that gravitates to spiritual experience.” I agree with that assertion. We Christians attribute this to creation: We were created with a wired-in predisposition towards religious experience, in fact, towards God Himself. That, in fact, is the very reason for our creation or existence. In spite of my love for philosophical speculation, I am not much of a philosopher. Nevertheless, I kind of like Den Tandt’s reference to Dean Hamer, an American geneticist, who theorizes that this human gravitation towards the spiritual has a “biological source” residing in our DNA that he calls the “God gene.” I have not read Hamer’s writings and so do not know the details of his theory. If I had read his stuff and knew the details, I might reject his all of his assertions. However, without knowing those details, I am favourably inclined towards this alleged “God gene.”  Why not? 

Now to many people, giving spirituality a biological or physical base may seem unorthodox and even highly heretical. Spirituality with a physical base?  Most of us Westerners especially walk around with a dualism between spirituality and the physical. We place a distance between them and never the twain shall meet. That is of the essence of Secularism. It is part of our Western world view that we simply assume without ever examining it. But if God has created us for the specific purpose of serving and worshiping Him, if that’s what we were made to do, then why dismiss a physical side to our spirituality deep down in our psyche or our mind?  Spirituality and the physical are simply two sides of the one coin of reality. They always go together. North American Aboriginals, Traditional Africans and all other Animists reject this Western secular bifurcation or separation. So does the Bible. The Bible is more on the side of Aboriginals, Traditionalists and Animists in this regard than on the side of Secularists and the majority of Christians who are influenced by Secularism. So, yes, there may well be such a thing as a physical “God gene.”  The notion of creation seems to allow it not only but may even demand it. However, I stand to be corrected, especially by Christian thinkers who have not bought into this Western secular bifurcation.

So, we affirm with Den Tandt a level of commonality among the various religions and world views. Many of them, including “explicitly non-religious traditions,” hold to a “cluster of beliefs that insists on exclusivity.”  They will argue that Jesus or Muhammad or Buddah is the only way to salvation.  Even the (in)famous atheist biologist Richard Dawkins insists that “every way of understanding reality but his own is wrong.” In other words, such exclusivity is, in Den Tandt’s own words, part of that commonality, is embedded in it. On what basis then does Den Tandt separate them, accept the positive but reject the negative that is just as much part of the equation?  Why grudgingly “respect cultural differences but celebrate commonality” when they both together constitute that commonality?  This stance seems similar to many African governments that, in their quest for national unity, want to excise tribal consciousness by pretending that tribes do not exist. You try to create unity by disregarding or even denying one of the most important components in the equation. Den Tandt seems to want to create an ecumenical culture of commonality by simply excising, denying or negating the part of it he dislikes, without giving a reason.

He clinches his argument by proposing we “accept that religious systems exist and evolve,” but without claiming to “owning exclusive rights to the truth, which is to say none.”  But how does this apply to Den Tandt’s own position? If no one has “exclusive rights,” on what basis does he?  I am reminded of one of his colleagues at the Vancouver Sun who some years ago declared pompously that there is no absolute truth. I sent her a quick note challenging the inconsistency of this statement. Denial of absolute truth is itself an absolute declaration! She responded with a mere “Oops,” as if she merely had made a logical slip. I responded to her that hers was no mere logical slip; it was a  total inconsistency inherent in her world view. Since she did not continue the discussion, it stopped right there. Well, it seems to me that Den Tandt is doing something similar. By denying everyone the exclusive right to the truth, he is denying his own as well!

Michael, I appreciate the courage you display in proposing a remedy for religious fundamentalism. We need it badly and any attempt at it should be taken seriously and with appreciation--but also weighed seriously.  You need to rethink your commonality. Thanks for trying and for challenging me. You readers, this is an important issue. I invite, nay urge, you to weigh in with your comments.

Post 87 –Remedy for Religious Fundamentalism?

Remedy for religious fundamentalism?  Who would have the nerve to make such a proposal? Seeking a remedy for such a wild societal phenomenon?  You’re in for a bit of lay philosophizing. Hope you’re up to it?

Some behind-the-scene stuff here. Originally I made a typographical error in the above paragraph. Instead of “seeking,” I wrote “seeding”  so that the sentence read “Seeding a remedy….”  Now wouldn’t that be wonderful? We just go out, buy a bag of seed, put it in the spreader and there it goes throughout the society, slowly germinating and sprouting the “remedy” flower till it has taken over the entire field.  Wouldn’t that be nice? Alas, only a typo!  Not even a dream, though it almost germinated one in me!

One of my favourite columnists in the Vancouver Sun, Michael Den Tandt, had the courage—or should I say “nerve?”-- to suggest a remedy, using the title of this post I borrowed from him, but without the extension “…is clear.”  His full title: “The remedy for religious fundamentalism is clear” (Boxing Day, Dec. 26, 2015).  Wow!  This is something we’ve all been waiting for: a clear remedy for this scourge of fundamentalism. I could hardly think of a more appropriate Christmas gift, even now that we are into January 2016 with Christmas long behind us.

For those of us who are writers, there is enough in Den Tandt’s column to fill a good-sized volume with comments, reactions and alternatives. I will have to be very selective to keep this down to an acceptable blog post length. It’s possible that I will have to use two posts even to say the minimum, but that would not be the end of the world, at least, not of my world. So, Michael, I’m going to think along with you a little and make some suggestions as well as ask some questions. I do this in the framework of appreciation for your courage to even dream of a remedy of so intractable a global scourge.

Den Tandt’s remedy? In his words, “It is, simply, ecumenism.” That term means, again in his own words, “the notion that people of faith, and indeed agnostics and atheists, have far more in common than they sometimes wish to believe.”  My association with Humanist Atheists has taught me that this is a typical perspective of that group of people. In fact, based on my association with them, I consider that part of the core of Humanism and Atheism. Taking that away from them would be similar to taking Jesus away from Christians or Muhammad from Muslims. You end up with an empty shell. 

Jesus observed that a tree shall by known by its fruit. We know that there are many kinds of trees, each with its own fruit. Now trees have certain basic things in common that mark them as trees. They have roots, stems, branches and, often, leaves and, usually, fruit, though not necessarily edible. Without those they are not considered trees. Though they share certain structural features, their root structures vary, bark is different so that we can identify them as this or that kind of tree. Their leaves look and behave differently as does their fruit. Trees, yes, all of them, but still they are very different from each other, used for different purposes ranging from shade, decoration,  construction, canoes, nesting, food all the way to burning. All trees, yes, but how different from each other.  By their fruit, including their various uses, you will know that it is this tree or that tree. Anyone who can’t tell the difference between a Western apple tree and an African baobab would be looked at askance.                           

Every society is undergirded by a worldview that gives it shape and values. Most members of a given society are hardly aware of that worldview; they just assume it as their “common sense,” but it affects both their thought patterns as well as behavior.  In fact, it creates their culture. Part of that worldview is the dominant religion of the culture. Yes, behind every culture lies a religion of some sort. That is to say, a more or less coherent set of values and ideas by which the  people guide their lives and form their social structures and to which the people have given their hearts. All of this means that you can learn something about a people’s religion by analyzing their culture.

It may be that the above was more true in the past when most cultures tended to be cohesive mono-cultures and mono-religions.  This situation may be breaking down into groupings within a given culture so that today one finds more worldviews next to each other in any society. Nevertheless, the dominant cultures of the world have religions behind them, religions that have taken on a large variety of shapes, values and beliefs that undergird the societies.

Now, can you possibly believe that with, say, Chinese or Indian cultures being so different from Western cultures, the roots of these greatly different cultures are one and the same? If the fruits of two or more trees are widely different, can you argue that the trees are one and the same?  If you did, people would not take you seriously. These cultures are different because the underlying religions are different from each other. The fruits from all these different cultures are different because the religions are different.

Dogmatic insistence that these religions are basically the same is just that: dogma, ideology, in this case modern Humanistic , Secular or Atheistic ideology or religion. Adherents of these movements will ward off any argumentation countering that dogma as much as any Christian will resist arguments against Christ or a Muslim against Mohammad. We all defend the values, philosophies and beliefs that constitute the core of our hearts and minds. Den Tandt is really expressing a major core value of one of these three close buddies, Humanism, Secularism or Atheism—or all three.

I am tired of having to mention all three of this triad all the time. I am going to refer to the whole gamut simply as “Humanism,” realizing full well not all adherents are Atheists. This will also hold for the next post.

Now, I’m all for the tolerance and peace Den Tandt is really after and I honour him for trying to help us solve a major problem of our time.  Absolutely. However, that should not be based on the faith of one of the many religions, in this case, Secular religion or worldview. He is really interpreting the entire range of religions from his particular secular dogmatic view point. And that's alright, as long as he recognizes the legitimacy of others as well. His remedy is undergirded by another core component of his worldview or religion, namely that his is the only rational or scientific one. And if I may be politically incorrect, most adherents of his Humanism, deep down, have contempt for all the other religions except their own and basically think of them as nonsense. I would hope this is not true of Den Tandt, but there is a sign in his column that would make us think that this might be the case, but that we’ll examine in the next post.

As a closing aside, there is one other religion that thinks of all religions as being the same, namely Baha’i. Baha’i members I know tend to be very sweet and amicable people; most of them have none of the hard pride that tends to mark Humanists—or condemnation. I suspect the reason for the difference between these two perspectives to be that the Baha’i come out of a non-Enlightenment context, a context they share with all non-Humanist religions, whereas Humanists have faith in reason which has harder edges and less room for emotion or affection.  

Post 70--Born Again

You’ve come to expect a mix of religious and so-called “secular” topics from me. I’ve explained the reasons for that more than once. It is simply that they are not two separate areas or regions so much as that religion underlies all subjects; it serves as their substratum.  They do not exist as separate entities so much as the religious infusing and shaping everything else. 

And so, today we jump from the topic of water consumption to that of being born again. The reason for my concern for the economics and ecology of water consumption is precisely because I am born again. Of course, reason, observation, experience, etc., all play a part as well, but the direction in which they lead you is ultimately decided by your value system, your worldview, your beliefs and, finally, your religion, i.e., your ultimates. If you are truly born again, then water issues must concern you, for they are so basic to the life of your neighbor throughout the world.

Born again. In the minds of the average writer in the Vancouver Sun (VS) this is about the most vicious pejorative you can use to describe Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, especially their American versions.  Once you have described Evangelical or Fundamentalist action as the result of being born again, you no longer have to take it seriously; it is guaranteed to be wrong, damaging, anti-social, ridiculous even. Nothing further needs to be said.

But what is this thing called “born again?”   Let’s go back to the original reference to it in the Bible:

Jesus Teaches Nicodemus

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. ² He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

³ Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.^[a]”

⁴ “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

⁵ Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. ⁶ Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit^[b] gives birth to spirit. ⁷ You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You^[c]must be born again.’ ⁸ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit” (John 3).

It must be admitted that Jesus’ explanation is not too clear to our modern way of thinking, but one thing is clear: It is necessary if we wish to see the Kingdom of God.  It is not just something nice, not just icing on the cake of salvation; It is a necessary condition.  Without it you cannot see the Kingdom of God; without it, you cannot be a Christian. That’s pretty drastic. 

Since the early history of Christian theology, scholars have widely discussed the meaning of being born again. I hope to take you through some of that in the next post.  However, it is no wonder that it is unpopular with the secular crowd. The need for it is the human condition, which, according to both the Bible and Christian theology, is totally distorted.  May I say the word?  Sinful!  Stronger still, dead in sin!  There, I’ve said it. Phew! Now that ain’t pretty and it’s not going to raise my popularity with my favourite VS writers, most of whom I appreciate and read regularly. 

No wonder that proud mankind is offended by this evaluation of human nature. And no wonder most folk try to evade its truth by poking fun of it and castigating it for its association in our minds with extreme fundies in the southern USA. In terms of the West, it has been rejected in principle ever since the Renaissance centuries ago and by the subsequent philosophical developments through rationalism, secularism and post-modernism.  It is offensive, humiliating, demeaning. It is one of the reasons the dominant worldview in the West rejects it outright and pokes fun of it.