Comparing and contrasting Christian belief to others

For the last two meetings of the theology reading group we discussed I believe. Help my unbelief!: Christian beliefs for a religiously pluralistic and secular world by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen

It is a 400+ page summary of the author's five-volume systematic theology series called Constructive Christian Theology for the Church in the Pluralistic World.

The book is an ambitious and admirable project. The author not only discusses all the main topics in systematic theology but also attempts to bring each topic into dialogue with science (representing the secular world) and the major religions: Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism.

I am in two minds as to how much the project has succeeded. I am glad Karkkainen tried. I learnt a lot about other religions. The compare and contrast approach was done in a respectful and honest way. I think there are two problematic extremes I have noticed in comparisons of religions. One is to force similarities that actually aren't there and to ignore or minimise real differences. The opposite extreme is to deny any similarities and demonise the religion of the "other". The author avoids both extremes.

I don't know enough about other religions to know if the author's descriptions were reasonable and accurate. I did learn a lot and found them helpful. It is interesting how in Judaism there is little emphasis on heaven and eternal life. How should that affect how Christians read the Old Testament? The discussion highlighted for me how certain Christian beliefs are distinctive, such as salvation by grace and the affirmation of the goodness of God's creation. I found it ironic that Buddhism and Hinduism are dominant in communal cultures but are highly individualistic in terms of their views of "salvation" and religious life.

I found Karkkainen's engagement with science somewhat disappointing. References on scientific topics were often popular websites such as space.com. Sometimes details were garbled, such as his description of quantum entanglement (page 90). He only mentioned a few authors on this topic, and some of the references were quite old. More recent authors such as Alister McGrath, Tom McLeish, Francis Collins, Denis Alexander, Peter Harrison, Alvin Plantinga, and Rodney Holder were not mentioned.

On theology, Karkkainen models "generous orthodoxy" in the sense of affirming central orthodox Christian beliefs while graciously acknowledging differences in how those beliefs are to be interpreted and lived out. He references authors from a range of traditions, convictions, and perspectives. Although he is Lutheran, he is comfortable criticising Martin Luther!

I looked through the index and counted page references to different theologians: Jurgen Moltmann (25), Augustine (23), Aquinas (15), Barth (14), Luther (14), and Pannenberg (7). I found this interesting, but I'm not sure what to conclude from it.

The messy complexity of facilitating reconciliation

I was asked to write an endorsement for a book written by my IFES colleague, Augustin Ahoga, and published by Langham (in French). It is based on his PhD thesis.

Vers un modèle africain de dialogue interreligieux

Le cas de Vodun Xɛbyoso et de l’Église des Assemblées de Dieu dans la région Maxi au Bénin

Here is a DeepL translation of the title, subtitle and abstract.

Towards an African model of interreligious dialogue:

The case of Vodun Xɛbyoso and the Assemblies of God Church in the Maxi region of Benin

In this study, the author has developed an African research methodology for interreligious dialogue, based on an experiment in the Maxi region of Benin. This experiment was carried out among a verbomoteur people, in a vodun context, for the resolution of conflicts involving Christian communities.

Based on the experience of conflict resolution between the Evangelical Churches of the Assemblies of God (EEAD) and the Vodun Xɛbyoso, the author has formalised a resolution approach called the 'African Model of Inter-Religious Dialogue' (MADIR). MADIR is applied when an ethnic group splits into conflicting communities due to the introduction of another religious tradition. This is why MADIR's resolution principles are based on : "ethnic identity as a basis for dialogue" and "cultural history to re-establish mutual trust".

This book is for anyone interested in inter-religious conflict resolution or empirical research among the verbomoteur people, and anyone working in development structures that reach out to the rural world or the verbomoteur people.

I wrote the endorsement below (based on reading a DeepL translation). I really hope an English translation will be published.

This wonderful book is a benchmark in excellence for research at the heart of the whole mission of God. Dr. Ahoga skilfully and critically integrates insights from theology, anthropology, and conflict studies, with his own lived experience, careful fieldwork, and loving practice of the ministry of reconciliation. He presents an African Model for Inter-Religious Dialogue (MADIR), that is concrete and practical. Ahoga developed, tested, and refined it to resolve a complex communal conflict that resisted other approaches. Despite this specificity, the book deserves careful study by a wide readership. 

While scholarly and profound, the book is fascinating and easy to read. The model presented has significant potential to be adapted and applied in other contexts and for purposes beyond understanding and resolving conflicts in a community. The model could aid the development of contextual theologies and stimulate mission initiatives that are culturally sensitive and have a lasting impact to the glory of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

Origins of the modern quest for certainty: part 3

We live in an uncertain world. Some things we can be certain of: death, taxes, gravity, the sun rising,... Furthermore, science has been successful at establishing "laws" that describe many aspects of the natural world. Yet, certainty is elusive on so many areas of life, including in our understanding of some aspects of the natural world. Certainty is an idol that is crafted and worshipped by a cast of characters, in politics, science, technology, business, church,...

The yearning for certainty may be a characteristic of humanity. But where did the idea that we could have such certainty come from?

In a previous post I quote extensively from Miroslav Volf's engagement with 

Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity by the philosopher Stephen Toulmin. He traces the quest and all its unhelpful consequences back to Rene Descartes. Here is another author from a completely different field engaging with Toulmin. Malcolm Miles, in his book Paradoxical Urbanism: Anti-Urban Currents in Modern Urbanism (pages 50-51).

the Discourse was written [by Descartes] and published during the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), a conflict between Catholic and Protestant dynasties and ideologies in which Descartes was a gentleman observer at the Emperor’s court. That is why he travelled in Germany and found himself in a stove-heated room.  ...Stephen Toulmin writes of this period that, 

‘rival militias and military forces consisting largely of mercenaries fought to and fro, again and again, over the same disputed territories … in the name of theological doctrines that no one could give any conclusive reasons for accepting.' [Toulmin, p.55] 

 Around a third of the population of the land which now constitutes Germany and the Czech Republic were killed, either directly in fighting or through famines resulting from the destruction of crops, or in the displacement following the burning of villages and towns. Both sides committed atrocities. Toulmin asks, ‘In this blood-drenched situation, what could good intellectuals do?' They could maintain Renaissance humanism, or

withdraw. Or, 

Might not philosophers discover … a new and more rational basis for establishing a framework of concepts and beliefs capable of achieving the agreed certainty that the skeptics had said was impossible? If uncertainty, ambiguity, and the acceptance of pluralism led, in practice, only to an intensification of the religious war, the time had come to discover some rational method for demonstrating the essential correctness or incorrectness of philosophical, scientific, or theological doctrines. [Toulmin, p.55]

This is the reason for the Discourse. But Toulmin identifies another

response in the idea of Cosmopolis, a fusion of two systems: that of cosmos, the natural world and natural sciences, with polis, political and social organisation. Cosmopolis unites these ideas in a single ideal as a means to resolve the separation of the natural from the social and political world. 

Toulmin argues that Cosmopolis figures in the rise of nation-states in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, replacing dynastic feudalism; and in the rise of natural science in the same period. Both seek stability, and the nation-state constructs it in the relations of states to each other while also constructing a hierarchy in their internal social structures, making modern political institutions on a seemingly non-contingent basis: 

It was important to believe that the principles of stability and hierarchy were found in all of the Divine plan, down from the astronomical cosmos to the individual family. Behind the inertness of matter, they saw in Nature, as in Society, that the actions of lower things depended on, and were subordinate to oversight and command by higher creatures … The more confident one was about subordination and authority in Nature, the less anxious one need accordingly be about social inequalities. ...

The comprehensive system of ideas about nature and humanity that formed the scaffolding of Modernity was thus a social and political, as well as a scientific, device: it was seen as conferring Divine legitimacy on the political order of the sovereign nation-state. In this respect, the world view of modern science … won public support around 1700 for the legitimacy it apparently gave to the political system of nation-states as much as for its power to explain the motions of planets, or the rise and fall of tides. 

[Toulmin, p. 128]

One could be certain about the motion of planets. They followed laws, ordained by God. Similarly one could be certain about social and political structures. 

As I argued before, there are significant problems with Descartes' ideas about universal truth and method. Humans are not cannonballs falling to earth or planets orbiting the sun. We are much more complex. The methods and certainties associated with mechanical motion do not necessarily translate to other systems: human, social, economic, and political.,

Contrasting ways that Asians and Westerner's think about theology

 In the theology reading group over two months we discussed Asian Christian Theology: Evangelical Perspectives, published by Langham. It is an edited volume with 16 different authors and is divided into two equal parts, covering doctrinal themes and contemporary concerns. Asia is defined in geographic terms and the authors come from more than ten different countries, including Hong Kong, Israel, and Sri Lanka. Although their contexts are very diverse there are some common features, such as gross economic inequality, Christians being a religious minority, societies are largely religious, globalisation, and limited religious and political freedoms.

Previously, I have written some about the challenges of contextual theology.

According to the Ph.D. program in contextual theology at the Asian Theological Seminary in Manila.

Contextual theology does not mean elevating the local to the detriment of the global. It simply challenges other local theologies that have been elevated to classical status. Thus, contextual theology, while oriented towards a particular society or culture or cultural sub-group, is still in conversation with other theologies in a global discourse since it recognizes that the church is both local and universal. This implies that issues tackled in research will be rooted in the local context but will have global resonance or implications.

The first part of the book aims to give some Asian perspectives on the following doctrinal themes: revelation, scripture, the Trinity, Christology, creation, the Holy Spirit, ecclesiology, and eschatology. I felt that these chapters were a little disappointing as they seemed too "Western" to me. Perhaps this is because almost all the authors did Ph.D.'s in the West!

I felt the second part of the book was better and here focus on just a few chapters.

On page 248 there is a fascinating footnote about Asian modes of thinking. 

In his book, Mangoes or Bananas: The Quest for an Authentic Christian Theology, Hwa Yung suggests that Easterners have a relational approach in contrast to the rational approach of Westerners. Melba Maggay suggests that Asians focus on synthesis and seek to harmonise contradictions. In contrast, Westerners have a "mental habit of logical negation and either-or-thinking."

In all Asian countries, except the Philippines, Christianity is a minority religion. This means that daily life for Christians in Asia involves interactions with people from different religions. Ivan Satyovatra and Kang-San Tan each present chapters on this topic.

The discussion of any topic, not just in theology, is framed and even determined by what questions one asks and what framework is used to answer those questions. With regard to non-Christian religions, questions commonly posed are "Can a non-Christian be saved?" and "Is the Christian God present in non-Christian religions?" Furthermore, addressing this topic, one should be clear about how a particular "religion" is defined and evaluated. Is it in terms of beliefs, practices, texts, or culture? And who gets to define these things: local practitioners, Western academics, or religious authorities?

There is a common typology used to classify the perspective of Christian writers on other religions: exclusivist, inclusivist, or pluralist. Tan reviews three main criticisms of this typology (p. 280-1). First, it oversimplifies the diversity of religions and the diversity within them. Second, it restricts the diversity of possible Christian responses. "Third, the focus of the typology has been mostly on doctrinal comparison between religious systems rather than on people and relationships between faith practitioners. In particular, the typology does not allow a sufficient role for the process of encounter between people from different religions." In different words, it represents a false trichotomy. I find this last criticism fascinating because it reflects an Asian inclination to focus on relationships rather than rationality, as noted in the comments from Yung and Maggay that I mentioned above.

Tan then proposes an alternative typology that is built around Hans Frei's Five Types of Theology, as recounted by David Ford in Theology: A Very Short Introduction. Although I think this is an interesting discussion and it surpasses the three-fold typology, I did not find it more illuminating.

In chapter 11, "Jesus and Other Faiths," Ivan Satyavratra first gives a detailed critique of the pluralist position. He concludes that its most serious weakness is "the huge logical inconsistency inherent in its attempt to deny the right of other worldviews to make any privileged claims, even as pluralism itself employs tradition-specific criteria in evaluating religious beliefs." It "makes exclusive truth claims about the nature of reality just like any other religious belief system." (page 229).

He then presents an alternative proposal in his own context, a "fulfillment" approach. Jesus is the ultimate fulfilment of other religions, in some ways similar to how Jesus was the fulfilment of Judaism. Paul's addresses to Gentile audiences that are recorded in Acts 14 and 17 reflect a similar perspective as Paul argues Jesus is the fulfillment of the god found in the local religion. There is then a nice overview of Indians with Hindu backgrounds who have embraced this approach over the last two hundred years. A similar approach has been advocated by John Mbiti with respect to African traditional religions.

Questions and answers about Mindfulness

For most of my adult life, I have struggled on and off with mental health issues, particularly anxiety and depression. About 15 years ago a psychologist introduced me to a set of mindfulness exercises. They were developed by Jon Kabat-Zinn for the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program that he founded at the University of Massachusetts Hospital in Boston in 1979. Although originally developed for patients with chronic illnesses, such exercises are now used in a much wider range of contexts. I have found these exercises incredibly helpful. They have helped me to learn to control my thoughts, particularly when I cannot ``turn off my brain.’’  Here are some answers to questions about mindfulness I am often asked.

 How would you describe mindfulness? 
I see it as a discipline or set of exercises that enable me to train my brain to slow down and to engage with the present (both in time and space), rather than letting my brain race out of control and fixate on past events or future imagined events.

As a Christian are you not concerned that mindfulness has its origins in Eastern Religions? 
Yes. If mindfulness means emptying your mind, losing your personal identity, merging with the universe, or thinking that life is an illusion. However, there are many versions of mindfulness, both religious and non-religious. I believe in common grace: ``God sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous’’. People of different religions, or none, all have the ability to discover (partial) truths about medicine, write great literature, and change the world for good.

Are there Christian versions of mindfulness exercises?
Yes. See, for example, The Mindful Christian on YouTube.
Here there is a fascinating theological dimension to the focus of Mindfulness on breathing. In Genesis 2 we learn how God ``breathes life’’ into humans. YHWH is the name of God that is revealed to Moses. This is the name that must never be spoken, in many Jewish traditions. There are suggestions that in Hebrew, this name is silently ``breathed.’’ 
Psalm 46:10 says ``Be still and know that I am God.’’

What do you think about the fact that your university has recently been promoting mindfulness?
 Superficially, I am happy that the university is attempting to put mental health on the agenda and making people aware of mindfulness. However, I am concerned that many initiatives seem to be more about marketing gimmicks, rather than serious engagement. This has been described as corporate well-washing. An article in the Financial Times and the Australian Financial Review points out that Mindfulness won't fix bad management. Furthermore, the university is not asking hard questions such as: why are so many students and staff have mental health problems? Is the university culture and policies contributing to these problems? If so, what does the institution need to change?

What mindfulness exercises would you recommend to start out? 
The one that I have found most helpful is the body scan. At a particularly low time 15 years ago I would do most of this every morning. If I wake up in the middle of the night and my mind is racing, I put on my headphones and do this exercise. I can usually go back to sleep.

COSAC talk: science in ancient religious texts

Today I am giving a talk, ``Do Ancient Religious Texts Contain Modern Scientific Knowledge?" at COSAC. Here are the slides.

The video clip in the talk is from here.

A video of the talk is below.

Not the greatest movie of the 21st century

Normally I only post about movies that I enjoy and recommend. My son and I recently watched There will be blood.  We were motivated partly by the recommendation of the New York Times that it is the greatest movie of the 21st century (so far). The lead actor Daniel Day-Lewis won an Oscar for his performance and it has been widely acclaimed by many. Although there are dissenting voices such as Peter Walker in the Guardian who picked it as the most-overrated film.

Why don't I like it? It is slow, very long, tries too hard to be arty, and there is a complete absence of any characters with redeeming qualities.



Why does it have so much appeal to some?
Some of the scenery and cinematography is creative and engaging. It does show the emptiness of the main character as he seeks wealth and power and avoids any emotional engagement and self-reflection. There are somewhat interesting contrasts and similarity of his juxtaposition with a charlatan Pentecostal preacher. But this is only worthwhile if you like to spend almost three hours hammering home the point emotionally that the life of such people is shallow, forlorn, empty, and in the end, they come unstuck.

There are two other "great" "classic" movies that I have never been able to understand their critical acclaim: Citizen Kane and Gone with the Wind.

Lecture on Science and Religion

Last week I was honoured to give a lecture on "Science and Religion" at St. Stephen's College, Delhi University. Here are the slides.
The question time after the lecture (both formal and informal) was particularly interesting.

Religion is confusing

My wife and I enjoyed watching the movie PK. It highlights the complexity of religion, particularly in India. It illustrates how religion can be hypocritical and divisive, particularly when mixed with money and power. I particularly liked this scene in a church.

A moving personal account from a former Muslim

I highly recommend the book Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity by Nabeel Qureshi. In particular, I would recommend this book not just to people with Muslim and Christian backgrounds but also secularists and atheists. It may rattle your cage a little. It did mine.

The book is extremely well written and easy to read. It tells a fascinating and moving story. I read the whole book within two days because I just could not put it down. Besides the great story, the book has two significant strengths. First, it is quite educational. As he tells his story he gradually explains key aspects of Islam and Muslim practise and beliefs. I learnt an incredible amount. I was unsettled by my ignorance, but also challenged to learn more. Moreover, Qureshi does not just present facts but helps the reader see the world from the viewpoint of a Muslim, including what it feels like to be a Muslim, particularly living in the West. You are invited to walk in his shoes. The second strength is that Qureshi is warm and respectful of Muslims as people, while being (eventually) critical of the Qu'ran and Mohammed. Reading the book should be quite unsettling to Westerners who have a harsh and hostile attitude to Muslims. It also explains the diversity of Muslims and how many are greatly distressed by terrorist acts being committed in the name of Islam.

Qureshi grew up as a "third culture kid". His parents immigrated to the USA from Pakistan and are Ahmadiyya Muslims. His father served in the US Navy, including several years at a nuclear submarine base in Scotland. The family life centred around the local mosque and extended family. The family was warm, close knit, highly protective, and devout. Yet they were very isolated from the surrounding community. Although Qureshi attended secular schools, he had virtually non-Muslim friends, until he went to college. There he had a close Christian friend, who played a significant role in his life. This led to a long and painful re-examination of his religious beliefs. This should stimulate all of us to critically evaluate what we believe and why we believe it.

Qureshi highlights the incredible and tragic personal cost of leaving Islam, even for those living in the West. Some of the discussion of violence in the Qur'an and the life of Muhammad is unsettling.  The book makes clear following Jesus and following Muhammad are not the same thing. Also, a Muslim and a secular Westerner do not see the world in the same way.

Certain practices of Muslims were described that one could be easily critical of: weak apologetic arguments, appeal to authority, not going to source documents, social pressure to conform (role of shame), partisan factions, self righteousness, uncritical faith, special pleading to explain difficult verses in a holy text, double standards of reasoning, not really listening to others, ....
Yet, as a Christian I found this somewhat unsettling because I have sometimes seen somewhat similar practises in the Christian community!

So read the book and be unsettled.

What is a religion?

Traditionally, religions are defined as major historical "institutions" such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, ... that have a common concern with the transcendent [spirituality and God], ritual, revelation, prayer, holy books, morality, worship, ....

Secularists will then claim that "religion" has no role in politics and the "public square" since the religion is not a common value and excludes rationality, tolerance, inclusivity, evidence...

However, an alternative definition of "religion" is a sociological one that highlights communities with shared uncontested assumptions and values [doctrine], revered leaders and books, marginalisation of alternative views [heresy],  defined morality [righteousness], a vision for the future [eschatology], ....

With the latter definition movements and "world views" such as the New Atheism, secularism, Marxism, neoliberalism,  fanatical sports team loyality, Big History [a "secular creation myth"],... are actually religions. Then the "public square" becomes a plethora of competing voices, all of which might be heard and respected.

In this light, there is a fascinating essay, Australian Universities in Transition:Moral, Pragmatic or Religious Drivers? by Paul Tyson. He makes a compelling case that the "neoliberalism" beloved/assumed by many university "managers" is actually a "religion" that defines what is rational, just, and moral.

The challenge of globalisation and injustice to Christian theology and living

I just finished reading Globalisation, Spirituality, and Justice by Daniel Groody, for the theological book club I just joined.

I really enjoyed it and found it quite stimulating and challenging. The book represents an ambitious project because of its wide scope [globalisation, poverty, politics, injustice, racism, theology, history, personal devotional life, community building, church sacraments, ...], the wide range of sources and authors it draws from to address these issues [Bible, church fathers, Catholic church teaching, many Protestant writers, liberation theology, personal experiences,... ] and then it attempts to synthesise and draw it all together in a common vision. I particularly appreciated getting a Catholic perspective from a Catholic rather than some caricature from a Protestant critic. It was impressive the extent to which Groody engaged with Protestant writers ranging from Charles Colson to Jim Wallis to John Calvin! As I gravitate toward activism rather than private contemplation I found the call to a balance and integration of the two challenging. I also got a much better understanding of liberation theology, whereas in the past I have been mostly exposed to caricatures of it.

There were a few parts of the book that I thought were weak due an overruling desire to be positive, affirming, and inclusive. This led to glossing over significant differences and challenges. Although critical of the injustices and inequalities of globalisation at the end he seemed to take the affirming "Christ in culture" route trying to assign it an almost mystical cosmic value. I found the positive discussion of justice in other religions [Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism] superficial. For example, it glossed over the issue of caste in Hinduism and women in Islam. At the end of the chapter Groody says "learning to live together as a common family does not mean watering down one's beliefs into a bland commonality". I agree but I feel that is what happens in that chapter. I prefer the treatment of the
Prophecy sometimes means "calling a spade a spade". Tolerance does not mean forced agreement but civil agreement to disagree and respect one another. Here I much prefer the treatment in Vinoth Ramachandra's Faiths in Conflict: Christian integrity in a multi-cultural world.

Groody quotes positively from Teilhard de Chardin, a mystical French Catholic priest who was a palaeontologist. Unfortunately, I think he has little to offer. To me he is a good example of how not to combine science and theology. I feel he tries to give a pseudo-scientific justification of a mysticism that has little connection to real Christian theology, which is ultimately rooted in the person of Jesus Christ.

An unfortunate consequence of some of the above weaknesses is that some may dismiss the book rather than engaging with the challenging message of the bulk of it.

The legacy of Ian Barbour

Ian Barbour died this past Christmas Eve. He is arguably the person most responsible for the study and teaching of "science and religion" becoming significant in universities. His 1966 book Issues in Science and Religion laid the groundwork. It gave a comprehensive survey of the major issues and different perspectives on them. Barbour was better equipped to do this because he had both a Ph.D in physics and a B.Div. and then taught both physics and religion subjects at Carleton College, one of the leading 4-year undergraduate colleges in the USA.

Of particular note was Barbour's four-fold typology for relating science and religion:

• Conflict 
• Independence
• Dialogue
• Integration

Wikipedia mistakenly claims that Barbour "coined the term `critical realism'". The term and the associated philosophical perspective actually arose before Barbour was born! The 1920 book Essays in critical realism: a co-operative study of the theory of knowledge was co-authored by a group of prominent American philosophers. This history is nicely recounted in the wonderful book Barth and Rationality: Critical Realism in Theology by D. Paul La Montagne.

Over the years I have found many who are enamoured by Barbour and his contributions. I am not. He considered that the scientific issues [and particularly evolution] forced one to embrace process theology. It have never been able to understand his arguments. In his book Science and Religion: An Introduction, Alister McGrath gives a helpful summary of Barbour's views [pp. 208-9, first edition]

The key aspect of process theology which Barbour appropriates is the rejection of the classic doctrine of God's omnipotence: God is one agent among many, not the Sovereign Lord of all. ... process affirms "a God of persuasion rather than compulsion .. who influences the world without determining it". Process theology thus locates the origins of suffering and evil within the world to a radical limitation upon the power of God. God has set aside (or simply does not possess) the ability to coerce, really only the ability to persuade. Persuasion is seen as a means of exercising power in such a manner that the rights and freedom of others are respected.... process theology thus calls into question "the traditional expectation of an absolute victory over evil."....... 

Barbour argues that the evolutionary process is influenced by - but not directed by - God. This allows him to deal with the fact that the evolutionary process appears to have been long, complex and wasteful.....

To me this rejection of the sovereignty of God is just plain old heresy.

As McGrath points out Barbour himself acknowledges some inadequacy of process thought, particularly with the way it treats the inanimate world. Barbour claims "A vanishingly small novelty and self-determination in atoms is postulated only for the sake of metaphysical consistency and continuity." To me this just shows the silliness of aspects of process thought. I see no reason, either scientific or theological to entertain the idea that atoms have a "self" or "will".

An Indian scientist on science and religion

E.C.G. Sudarshan is a distinguished theoretical physicist, with an Indian background. Over the years he has written several articles about the relationship between science and religion. In 1988 he gave a talk Is modern science closer to religion? which has the intriguing conclusion below.

The end is an allusion to John 4 where Jesus meets the Samaritan woman at the well. It is a little puzzling that Sudarshan quotes Jesus as saying "the Lord should be worshipped in heart and in spirit." Most translations have Jesus saying, God should be worshipped in "spirit and truth".

What is real tolerance?

I am starting to read Faiths in Conflict: Christian Integrity in a Multicultural World by Vinoth Ramachandra. It is interesting to see how he defines tolerance (p. 121):

To tolerate a belief or practice surely implies
(a) we recognize that belief or practice to be genuinely different from our own
(b) we disagree with the belief (or disapprove of the practice)
(c) we do not coerce or absorb the others into ourselves, but give social or legal space for the other to flourish.

I find it interesting because it acknowledges differences and does not aim to minimise them. Compare, for example, the platitude, "All religions are really about the same thing." Furthermore, it allows public disagreement and debate, while respecting others and their views.

This seems very different from postmodern sensibilities which seem to equate "tolerance" with a demand for the public acknowledgement of the validity of other views.

The criminal arrogance of religion

Perhaps Karl Barth is the only theologian who could come up with such a stunning phrase.
In his commentary on "salvation" in Romans 1:16, Barth says

...our desire to comprehend the world in its relation to God, must proceed either from the criminal arrogance of religion or from that final apprehension of truth which lies beyond birth and death - the perception in other words, which proceeds from God outwards. When the problem is formulated thus, it is evident that, just as genuine coins are open to suspicion so long as false coins are in circulation, so the perception which proceeds outwards from God cannot have free course until the arrogance of religion be done away. 

Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 6th Edition, page 37

Religion is man seeking to find God and earn favour with God through his own efforts and wisdom. The Gospel is God reaching out to wretched humans who have nothing to be proud of.

Artistic idolatry in the U.S. Capitol

I finished reading The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown. Given so much of his material is of dubious scientific and historical accuracy I was curious to verify his claims about The Apotheosis of Washington, the giant mural on the dome of the U.S. Capitol building. In this case he is correct, it does depict George Washington becoming a god!

Maureen Dowd's scathing review of the book in The New York Times is also worth reading. Here is some of the beginning

 the terrifying thing about “The Lost Symbol” is that Brown — who did not flinch when the Vatican both condemned the “The Da Vinci Code” and curtailed the filming of “Angels & Demons” in Rome — clearly got spooked by that other powerful, secretive ancient sect, the Masons.
His book is a desperate attempt to ingratiate himself with the Masons, rather than to interpret the bizarre Masonic rites and symbols that illuminate — as in Illuminati! — how the ultimate elite private boys’ club has conspired to shape the nation’s capital and Western civilization ever since George Washington laid the cornerstone for the Capitol building in a Masonic ritual wearing full Masonic regalia, including a darling little fringed satin apron. If the Masons are more intimidating than the Vatican, if Brown has now become part of their semiotic smoke screen, then all I can say is, God help us all.

The Lost Saviour

As I have confessed before, I love Dan Brown novels. They are a great read. But, the science (usually presented as "fact") is ridiculous and the history is dubious.
I have just started reading Brown's latest, The Lost Symbol. Again there is comical science. In this case it is "Noetic Science" which is a mish-mash (a synthesis!) of modern physics with ancient mysticism. The frontpiece of the book has a page entitled "Fact" which states that the Institute of Noetic Sciences exists. This is indeed correct. I found the Institute web page fascinating and disturbing reading. This is probably best summarised by The Double Slit Experiment: Experimental Tests of the Role of Consciousness in the Physical World. None of anything I could see had any signs of real science: i.e., experiments that were or could be reproduced by other scientists and published in traditional scientific journals.

Like The DaVinci Code the novel is rich on symbols, puzzles, secrets, and "The Ancient Mystery." The Freemasons are central and portrayed in a sympathetic manner. What is most striking to me is how the world of some of the characters seems to resonate with aspects of the world of both the Old and the New Testament. The preoccupation with images and symbols aligns with idolatry or ritualistic religion. The preoccupation with mysteries and secret knowledge sounds very gnostic. [Paul's Letter to the Colossians addresses these issues]. The responsibility of man [and particularly select men (n.b. not women)] is to use his cleverness to find and discover the secret knowledge. Through ritual he is to find the strength to act in a moral manner.

In contrast, the person of Jesus Christ is not a symbol, an artefact, or a puzzle that man decodes, but rather a real person who reveals the mystery of God to all humanity.

Einstein on religion

What did he really believe? He is widely quoted as saying:

science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind

However, it is interesting to read the complete article in which this statement appears. In 1940 Nature published a short article, ``Science and Religion'' written by Einstein. [It also appears as Section II in this longer article] Here are a few significant quotations which clearly showed that Einstein's notion of religion was purely a humanistic one.

If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions [Einstein's] then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described. 

 of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors... 

The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God... 

In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task. After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge.

A much more detailed discussion is in Einstein and religion: physics and theology by Max Jammer.

The unique History of the Bible

 A Hindu scholar of the world's religions once said to Lesslie Newbigin:

I can't understand why you missionaries present the Bible to us in India as a book of religion. It is not a book of religion-and anyway we have plenty of books of religion in India. We don't need any more! I find in your Bible a unique interpretation of universal history, the history of the whole of creation and the history of the human race. And therefore a unique interpretation of the human person as a responsible actor in history. That is unique. There is nothing else in the whole religious literature of the world to put alongside it. 

Newbigin, 1999, A Walk Through the Bible, Louisville, KY: John Knox Westminster Press, 4. See also Lesslie Newbigin, 1989, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 89. 

Taken from an essay Reading the Bible as one Story by Michael Goheen.