Expelled: The Film Only Nazis Won't Like

I've seen the ads for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the new documentary from Ben Stein about the suppression of ideas from "Big Science", and I am intrigued. I'm so inspired by the heated religious debate that I have to blog about it. Because, as you may have already guessed, I'm very pro-religion. Atheism I find a bit lonely.

Me personally, I'm not very good with science, so I can't say that I can justify, or not justify, any belief in the idea that man evolved from apes. But I can say, that no matter what science says about the origins of the human species, it will have no effect on my belief in God. I don't subscribe to any literal interpretation of any sacred text. I believe the Bible is divinely inspired but is not the actual Word of God. The author's used their reason to the best of their ability to communicate the message of God, but naturally fall short a bit because of their limited abilities. I think it is a living document, meaning interpretation is an active ongoing process. So when it comes to things like scientific explanations of the world, I do not fault any of the authors for less than accurate descriptions, nor do I feel that any new discoveries invalidate any of the stories. In short, my faith in God does not hinge on science, so science or scientific theories pose no threat.

That being said, I reject the idea that Ben Stein puts forward that intelligent design is being supressed and/or persecuted. Everyone wants to be persecuted so that they may legitimize themselves and solidify their positions. So minus 50 points for Ben Stein.

Of course intelligent design deserves a place in academia, but not necessarily in the science department. Anything that seeks to explain divine influences needs to be put into theological or philsophical studies. Even from a religious perspective, the idea that God can be studied scientifically is near blasphemy. His creations may be studied this way, but not his nature.

So should science be atheistic? No, of course not. Atheism is the rejection of God, and scientists should have the freedom to choose what will guide their research. However, I do think science should seek to be theistic neutral. It should neither reject nor accept the acceptance of God, but leave that up to other disciplines to figure out. Science cannot explain God and therefore should not seek to.

One of the more troubling things I find in an overview of the movie, is the idea that Darwinism (old school origin of species) is linked to Nazism and other various strands of evilness. If we banned everything that was used to justify evil deeds, we'd have nothing left, so bad Mr. Stein, very bad. Both science and religion have been warped and twisted in order justify violence and oppression, and I'm not tossing either of those out the window.

By the way, why are we so obsessed with comparing things to Hitler? Anything that's slightly bad, we say "You're a Nazi!". Come on...the Nazis were pretty bad. As Jon Stewart once said, "That guy worked too hard to be that evil for every Tom, Dick and Jane to be called Hitler."

Blasphemy, blas-pher-you, blas for everybody!

This week I got to write a reaction paper to a fascinating book entitled When Religion Becomes Evil by Charles Kimball for my Religion and Peacebuilding class. I thought I'd share a little bit of that essay with you folks.

Looking at my own religious community, the American Christians, I have to say yes, religion is becoming evil. When I look at other communities, I want to say no, because I can easily point non-religious motivations that are creating conflicts but expressing themselves in religious language. It’s a bit of a double standard, but I have a tendency to harshly criticize what I am closest to. The problem isn’t within the nature of Christianity; its how societies have allowed religious expression to become so poisonous to the general public. Lucky for me, Kimball is a Baptist minister, and he applies the warning signs mainly to his own faith, as is to be expected.

Of the five warning signs that Kimball lists (1. Absolute truth Claims, 2. Blind Obedience, 3. Establishing the Ideal Time, 4. The End Justifies Any Means, and 5. Declaring Holy War), absolute truth claims are the most dangerous if only because it is the first step. In middle school and high school (such a loooong time ago, I know), I was a very active evangelical Christian, for many different reasons I won't go into.

I have since removed the evangelical label from my religious identification, not because I experienced any destructive blow to my faith in Christianity, but because I was becoming better friends with non-Christians and I felt that always looking at people as potential converts or even just believing that these people were on “the outside” was wrong and dehumanizing. Even just thinking that my non-Christian friends would not be allowed into heaven was a truly scary thought and it ceased to be my motivation to change them but rather to change myself. I even have a refrigerator magnet that sums up most of feelings towards contemporary American Christianity, “Please Jesus, save me from Your followers.”

Kimball uses a familiar phrase to highlight the problems of absolute truth claims: “Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship”. I've heard that one a lot, and even used it quite a few times. I don’t really agree with that statement anymore in so much as I believe Christianity is a religion and a relationship, as are most other faiths. However, I’ve always thought it was a clever way to exempt Christianity from the debates over secularism and the general evils of religion that were usually posed by ardent atheists.

I agree with Kimball that the phrase also hints at a much deeper issue, the complete nullification of any other religion’s right to assert its own validity. In particular, I liked his quote, “I am convinced that it is possible to be a person of faith with integrity—a Christian, a Hindu, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist—and at the same time recognize that one’s own experience of God does not exhaust all possibilities” (9). I think it is fair for a religion to assert it has the best understanding of truth, as any company would describe their product as the best version of its kind in the market, but not the only way of understanding truth.

Be aware that I am not claiming the a belief in the existence of an absolute truth is dangerous, it is just the way people have chosen to express their exclusive access to this truth.

What do you guys think about absolute truth claims? Do you think you have it right and everyone else has got it wrong? Or is everyone wrong, and that's okay?

The title of this post is inspired by Eddie Izzard's bit about Pope-Man. Could be a whole series...with a lot of complaints. I swear I quote that man almost as much as Dr. Ahmed. Almost.

Religion and Saturated Fats

I apologize to all (four) of my readers for being a little lax on posting lately. I just returned from my Christmas vacay in Miami, and like an astronaut coming back to earth, I needed time to adjust to re-entry.

While I was on the plane, I had ample time to peruse the holiday edition of The Economist, and I came across a nice little article about the "battle of the books", the Bible vs. The Koran, which is more widely read, distributed, known, etc? The conclusion was the Bible, but mainly because of economic advantage given the religious patronage of a very wealthy and enterprising country, the US. In other words, the Bible has commercialized where the Koran has not.

And that is not at all a bad thing, to me anyways. When my faith becomes commercialized, it suddenly doesn't feel sacred anymore. People have every right to set up faith based companies, but still. Its like potato chips made of lard fried in oil and then covered in artificially colored artificially flavored cheese. It has the right to be made, but that doesn't make it good.

Examples of the ridiculous, from the article:

There are prayer books in everyday vernacular or even street slang (“And even though I walk through/The Hood of death/I don't back down/for you have my back”). Or consider innovation. In 2003 Thomas Nelson dreamt up the idea of Bible-zines—crosses between Bibles and teenage magazines. The pioneer was Revolve, which intercuts the New Testament with beauty tips and relationship advice (“are you dating a Godly guy?”). This was quickly followed by Refuel, for boys, and Blossom and Explore, for tweens.

There are toddler-friendly versions of the most famous Bible stories. The “Boy's Bible” promises “gross and gory Bible stuff”. The “Picture Bible” looks like a super-hero comic. “God's Little Princess Devotional Bible” is pink and sparkly.

Seriously, that inspires me to laugh, not think about my finite existence in the context of an infinite creator.

Here's an interesting quote about a capitalist attitude toward religion:

Open competition is a boon to religion: American Evangelism has flourished precisely because America has no official church. And theocracy is ultimately a source of sloth and conservatism.

True, true. And yet sometimes I fear that evangelicalism is a threat to religious freedom. I don't see how the race to get the most people in line with a particular faith appreciates any kind of human dignity.

I fully recognize every religion's right to try and gain converts. I even recognize my own faith asks me to do so. So why don't I? I used to. I went on missions trips in high school. I went to Jesus camp. I was vice president of the Bible club. Did I stop trying to "witness" to others and tell others that Jesus is the only way to heaven because I stopped being a Christian?

Like the good agnostic-ish Protestant I've become, I can't answer that with any certainty. All I know is that it feels wrong to always be thinking about how to change this person or that person's beliefs, like they're an object. Missionary work seems like a form of oppression to me now. Its de-humanizing.

So who do I think wins the battle of the books? If there must be a battle between the two books, then I say no one wins. And now I can't stop thinking about potato chips.