Faith: Does Only Christ Ask for It?
October 03, 2006
A couple of days ago, I touched on the question of whether Christ has asked followers to believe based on “blind faith.” Today, let’s stop and think about a related issue: whether faith is an essential component of all belief systems, including philosophical naturalism.
The consensus among contemporary scientists is that the universe originated with the Big Bang. Just today, two American scientists won the Nobel Prize in physics for their work in developing a NASA satellite that produced “dramatic evidence” supporting the Big Bang theory. Per Carlson, chairman of the Nobel committee for physics, described this evidence as “one of the greatest discoveries of the century; I would call it the greatest. . . . It increases our knowledge of our place in the universe.” I’m no scientist. Nor am I particularly interested in mastering the details of the “dramatic evidence” supporting the Big Bang theory. What does interest me is the question of what caused the Big Bang. Accordingly, I’ve read a little about several multiverse theories. These theories concern the origins of the universe, and either contemplate or require the existence of many different universes. As a layperson, what strikes me about these theories of the Big Bang’s cause is that not a single one is testable. Not one is scientifically verifiable.
[W]hat caused [the Big Bang] is untestable. Whether it was by a fluctuation in the quantum potential or by the command of God, either is a scientifically untestable thesis. As a consequence, all belief systems are based on a faith statement. The only issue we have to decide is which requires the most faith. (Regis Nicoll, Putting on a “Bright” Face)
The next time you hear someone assert, “Science is about facts, and religion is about faith,” ask them: (1) what they believe caused the origin of the universe; and (2) whether that belief is based on fact or faith.
What’s So “Human” About Rights Based on Mere Pragmatism?
September 21, 2006
This week, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation released its 2006 Corporate Equality Index, “a tool to rate American businesses on how they are treating gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees, consumers and investors.” Corporate America’s increasing sensitivity to GLBT diversity concerns, of course, makes some people happy and others not so happy.
For me the report summons memories of graduate business school, in particular my corporate strategy professor and his approach to diversity issues. As he put it, there is one defensible reason for a corporate executive to foster diversity and discourage discrimination: to maximize profitability, you need to sell your products to an increasingly diverse population; without a diverse workforce, you cannot hope to understand and surmount the cultural barriers to making those sales.
My professor’s message was not unique. It fit neatly within the university’s and the business school’s shared worldview. As compared to his peers, he was just a bit more plain-spoken, less diplomatic in his delivery. In fact, this pragmatic approach to diversity and discrimination has a strong presence in the Human Rights Campaign report. The clearest example can be found in the highlighted quote on page 9 of the report. When asked why Hewlett-Packard Co. supports GLBT inclusiveness at the workplace, John Hassell, director for government affairs, said, “One word: competitiveness. It’s not just a nice-to-do thing. It’s a requirement to be successful in the private sector.” I suspect that this pragmatic approach has been the driving force behind Corporate America’s embrace of diversity. What will happen if – no, not if but when – circumstances change? What will happen when businesses are able to institutionalize the information needed to surpass cultural barriers to sales? Will executives remain sensitive to diversity concerns? Not likely. Not if they remain pragmatic. The GLBT lobby should be careful what they celebrate.
A Godless Life: Dismal or Bright?
September 09, 2006
What is life like deep inside the hearts of those who believe the universe is empty of God and meaning? Is misery central and enduring, happiness peripheral and fleeting? Or do the godless have good reason to cling to a bright outlook on life?
Given the diversity of human experience, it is no surprise that there are many perspectives on these questions.
Continue reading "A Godless Life: Dismal or Bright?" »
What We Can't Not Know
September 03, 2006
This past week, I finished reading What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide, by J. Budziszewski, professor of government and philosophy at the University of Texas. In entertaining and accessible fashion, Budziszewksi argues the case for the natural law, asserting that:
there are some moral truths that we all really know – truths which a normal human being is unable not to know. They are a universal possession, an emblem of rational mind, an heirloom of the family of man. (p.19)
Budziszewski’s effort is a bold one in an era when the prevailing wisdom is that there is no absolute, universal truth – let alone any moral truth – and that all truth is relative and subjective, nothing more than a contrivance of the ruling class designed to entrench its interests.
Continue reading "What We Can't Not Know" »
The Virus of Faith
August 30, 2006
“For many people, part of growing up is killing off the virus of faith with a good strong dose of rational thinking. But if an individual doesn’t succeed in shaking it off, his mind is stuck in a permanent state of infancy, and there is a real danger that he will infect the next generation." ─ Richard Dawkins
According to Richard Dawkins, Oxford professor, provocateur and evolution apologist, I’m infected by a virus called faith. Until recently, I would have become angry upon hearing such an allegation – angry with the lies, the arrogance and, most of all, the person making the allegation.
Continue reading "The Virus of Faith" »
The Meaning of Life (courtesy Woody Allen)
July 22, 2006
Movie critics tend to agree that Woody Allen’s Match Point is his best film in years. It is a tale of rotten characters, striving to satisfy their greed and lust, all the while fearing that they may be so unlucky as to lose both. Their universe is random, ruled by luck. It is beyond comprehension that there might be a just and moral order guiding human life. Seems like a box-office winner, right?
Rather than focus on Match Point, I’d like to turn back the clock to 1989, when Allen gave us another great film, Crimes and Misdemeanors. In it, Allen forthrightly grapples with the question of whether this is a just and moral universe. He seems to conclude that you can’t have meaning in life without God, but you can’t have God without guilt. So, which do you choose: God and meaning, or a universe empty of meaning and guilt?
Read Crimes, Misdemeanors & Injustice
The Evolution of Truth
January 31, 2006
In a leading news item this past Christmas season, a federal district court judge in Pennsylvania held that the Dover Area School Board violated students’ Constitutional and civil rights by requiring teachers to inform their science classes that there are gaps or problems in Charles Darwin’s theory and other theories of evolution. The 139-page opinion has been hailed as a “strategic defense of Darwinian theory” that “will be extremely useful . . . to science teachers and others who are struggling against . . . tremendous pressure to bring religion into the classroom.” Darwin’s detractors, it is said, have been left “wounded” and in “dismay.”
Read full essay
The Hours: a Belated Review
January 31, 2006
“I chose life.”
In this critically-acclaimed film filled with darkness and misery, no line disturbed me more. Decades after abandoning her family, Laura Brown (Julianne Moore), sums up her defense: “I chose life.” If she had not run away from her husband, her two small children − from her life − Brown reasons, she would have taken her own life. Equally disturbing is the apparent reaction of Clarissa Vaughn (Meryl Streep), the recipient of Brown’s unsolicited confession. Vaughn, haunted by the fear that her own life has been meaningless, seems to draw comfort, some sense of peace from Brown’s view of life: any life lived − no matter how it is lived − is satisfactory, meaningful, and a victory over death.
Read full essay
