Kakistocrat

This Blog began on March 17, 2007. It has survived longer than a year, and has procuded 63 posts, 2 of which were written by readers. Comments are averaging about 7 per post, and I am greatful for all those who read and comment and spread word about this blog.

Having said that, I have moved over to Wordpress. I hope you jump accross to http://mrkellywilson.wordpress.com/

Kakistocrat was taken, as was KellyWilson, so I added a ‘Mr’ which hopefully will give you a clue as to which pronoun to use when speaking of me.

K.

I will not delete this blog, partly because I want to keep the URL, but also because I might find I do not like wordpress. This might be a good chance for any feedback in general about the Blog.

In November of last year, in NOMA: Science and Religion, we outlined Stephen Jay Gould’s attempt to counter the charge that science and religion are at odds, and how he instead suggests that each oversees a domain where tools necessary for meaningful discourse and resolution are possessed. Science, Gould charges, is meant to document the factual character of the natural world, while religion possesses "the equally important, but utterly different realm of human purpose, meaning and values." 

While I appreciate Gould’s attempt (however flawed NOMA is, it is preferred to the perceived conflict between religion and science) Richard Dawkings naturally views it as a "very empty idea."

Dawkins suggests that the notion that religion holds some special expertise in the questions of morality, a notion that even many nonreligious accept, is nothing more than "a civilized bending over backwards," to concede the best point your opponent has to offer—however weak that best point might be. Dawkins states that while science cannot answer ‘What is right and what is wrong?’ and while absolute moral principles do come from elsewhere, his message differs from Gould’s in that Dawkins suggests that to believe religion is able to offer answers to such queries is a ‘forlorn hope.’  This is because the answers of the religious would come from authority, revelation, tradition, or even scripture, and that even with such aid, individuals are still quite selective in what they choose to demand application for. Because the God of the OT, for example, is seen by some as jealous, racist, sexist, bloodthirsty, and because we today believe that it is not charitable to judge the past by our present standards, Dawkins sees this as evidence that "we must have some alternative source of ultimate moral conviction which overrides scripture when it suits us." The ethical realm that Gould places under the domain of religion, Dawkins sees as not belonging there.

Thoughts?

K.

It seems that whenever I highlight a musical piece here, the particular musician in question is not one I particularly care for (example: Billy Joel). While Avril Lavigne will always naturally be an exception to this rule, Neil Diamond is not. However…from his latest album Home Before Dark (2008), I would like to highlight "Pretty Amazing Grace." Working an eight hour shift, I hear it at least twice a day, and I find the language rather moving especially when it is not interrupted by announcements highlighting cleaning requests for customers who have broken jars of pickles. Without the interruptions, here are the lyrics (you can listen to it here).

Pretty amazing grace is what you showed me
Pretty amazing grace is who you are
I was an empty vessel
You filled me up inside
And with amazing grace
Restored my pride.

You overcame my loss of hope and faith
Gave me a truth I could believe in
You led me to that higher place
Showed me that love, and truth, and hope, and grace
Were all I needed

It has been suggested that perhaps it’s a love song, and there is a personification of Grace that could lead to this interpretation (Diamond doesn’t necessarily dash this reading when he states ambiguously that the song is about the "perfection of love"), but a great deal of attention given to the song online has it’s wonderers inquiring as to whether Neil Diamond feels transformed by the love of Jesus.

Thoughts?

K.

Thirty years ago (and little has changed) Hans Kung identified the reality that when Christianity is confronted by the world religions, which also seek to reveal truth and provide a path to salvation and when Christianity is placed in a pluralistic setting, where it is only one of many attempts, the question emerges "What is there special about Christianity?"

His answer: Jesus himself.

None of the other religions, great or small, however much they may occasionally venerate him in a temple or in their holy book, would regard him as ultimately decisive, definitive, archetypal for man’s relations with God, with his fellow man, with society.

To the Christian, Jesus is not just a model for how one is to relate to one’s God, one’s fellow humans and one’s society, but rather Jesus is the model. As far as philosophies that have emerged over time (whether through evolution or revolution), philosophies aimed at restoring lost dignity in the human race, however good and beautiful certain philosophies may seem in either their theory or application,

however much they may occasionally respect him [Jesus] as man and even set him up as example, [none] would regard him as ultimately decisive, definitive, and archetypal for man in all his dimensions.

Kung argues that while it seems reasonable to suppose that Christianity will be relevant only by devoting her energy to doing first what others will do later (by taking the lead in issues of social justice for example…), in fact the primary goals of the Christian is to "speak of what is [his/her] own, bring it home, make it effective." What is ours, is Jesus. Christianity only becomes relevant "by activating the memory of Jesus as ultimately archetypal" and this activation process no doubt leads to a doing first what others will only do later.

Consequently Christianity cannot be reduced to any kind of "eternal ideas, abstract principles [or] human attitudes," but rather exists only where the "memory of Jesus Christ is activated in theory and practice." However commercialized the slogan ‘what would Jesus do?’ may have become, it is central in the activation of the Christian message, while a knowledge of the real Jesus allows us to attempt to better reflect his example.

Thoughts?

K.