Man, the origins issue sure is heating up in the public square — as if it weren’t red-hot already. On the one hand, you have the God-defying materialist crowd whose de facto leader is most certainly Richard Dawkins (though of course he has many allies). On the other hand, you have the anti-materialist, Intelligent Design crowd which seems centered around the Discovery Institute along with a few notables such as William Dembski and Michael Behe. Unfortunately for the ID crowd, Dawkins’ loyal followers have done a very good job of infiltrating popular Web 2.0 hangouts like YouTube and Digg. When’s the last time you saw a high-quality, pro-ID article prominently displayed on the Digg home page? Yeah, me neither.
The amusing thing about all this is that Dawkins is fighting a loosing battle. Not only does he have to convince a vast majority of the planet that the supernatural is something people invented out of ignorance, lust for power, or both, but he has to convince many of his fellow atheists that choosing not to attack supernatural beliefs is in itself morally weak and harmful to society.
The real concern I have isn’t what materialists are up to, but rather what Christians are up to. We have a real problem with materialism here in our own midst. When the parents are shopping for the latest designer outfits at Nordstrom and the kids are buying the latest XBOX game, one wonders if the question of goo-to-you evolution vs. God-to-you creation even matters.
It certainly does to me.
Subscribe to blog feed
11 Comments
Argument by boldfacing!
Magic stuff - keep waving that hand.
Yeah, I picked up the boldfacing technique from Mark Batterson’s blog. Seems to make posts easier to skim through.
Hey there, Jared. Found your blog and am happy to be here right from the start.
I run a blog about how technology affects us, our society and our future. I personally take great interest in philosophizing about such topics like the supernatural.
You see, I myself am a Hindu. And as a Hindu, it is my duty to embrace other religions and I personally see a lot of parallels in any faith. But what really beats me are people claiming not to have any faith whatsoever. I don’t say that in a missionary tone, I say it because I don’t believe it’s possible not to believe anything or not feel the urge to believe something.
I’m eager to see how this blog develops, and would love to indulge in more of your questions. Do check out my blog too, it went live just a few days before youres. Cheers.
Some blogs use facts and rational discourse. But Boldfacing is a good plan B!
@Arjun: I had seen your new blog and hope it does well! I’ll be sure to bookmark it. I don’t know a whole lot about Hinduism, so I’m interested in which points we might agree or disagree on.
@Rich: now you’re just being snarky. I only just started the blog yesterday…give me a chance!
Hehe. No worries. Happy blogging.
Type your comment here.
Had to respond to Arjun - - my best friend passed away about a year and a half ago. She was Mormon ~ I am an American Baptist. We talked about our faiths a lot, but only in regards to the commonalities. I miss that so much ~ I learned so much from her, about both her faith and mine. The biggest thing? Those two faiths weren’t so different. I think our friendship made God really, really proud.
Yes Dawkins is a bit of an extremist, science should not be in the bussiness of attacking religion. Of course religion also should not be in the bussiness of attacking science or immitating science. Religion and science are two completely different things, it is like comparing apples to parsnips. Yes evolution is a perfectly valid and fully substantiated theory, but it says nothing about a deity or the lack thereof. Also one reason for the lack of “quality” ID articles on many sites is the lack of quality to ID itself. ID is a belief, it is not testable, nor is it actually supported by evidence. Now if Behe can properly formulate a testable hypothesis to even give ID a start at looking scientific then it might start to deserve some further exposure, but for now it is just another way of saying “Goddidit” only without actually saying “God”.
Hey Wakim, could you tell me what kind of testable hypothesis would be a reliable indicator of the validity of ID?
@Barbara: I have a friend in my class at school who’s Jewish. As you might guess, Jews and Hindus haven’t ever really had much to do with each other. But - again, as you might guess - we had so much in common. It was scary at times. Rituals, certain values that are so deeply rooted in our religions.
Hinduism states that other Religions have to be embraced.
God is one, the paths are a many. Also, Hinduism teaches no rules, only guides. It is up to you to decide what is good for your way of life. Since Hinduism never had to battle against another religion for survival (as Christianity did with the Roman Empire or Judaism with Islam) until late into medieval times, Hinduism never defined itself. It was just the way of living. Why, even the word itself isn’t a Sanskrit (the language of the scripture) word at all.
A side note on Sanskrit: It literally means “holy writing”.
I am a Latin scholar, and in Latin, “San(ctus) Scriptus” means the same. Startling, isn’t it? See you soon for more.
@Arjun: I like what you say about Hinduism simply being a way of life. You know, the first followers of Jesus just called themselves disciples of Jesus or followers of the Way. The term “Christian” was actually imposed from the outside by non-believers.
I’d like to comment on one point. You say: Hinduism states that other Religions have to be embraced. God is one, the paths are a many. If this is true, then Jesus must have been wrong, because He claimed that He was exclusively the only path available to us to be reconciled and embraced by our Maker. If there are many paths to God, and God can take many forms in many different traditions, than any faith in a particular concept of God that claims other concepts are incorrect is itself wrong.
So I’m just not convinced it’s possible to embrace other religions. Yes, there is truth to be found in many places, and even an atheist can help a homeless man find shelter which is a good deed. But I think unless we can find and obey the ultimate Source of Truth, we are missing the mark.