Extremism In Defense Of. . .

Barry Goldwater once said, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

Certain kinds of religious folks have modified his words to say, or imply:
"Extremism in defense of the way I believe is no vice." 

Mostly, these folks don't agree with each other about what to believe.  Many brands and stripes of Christians assert their form of this (whether liberal or conservative, liturgical or free-form, "spirit-led" or "traditional" does not seem to matter.  They reserve the right to be extremists.

Then we have contemporary Muslim fundamentalists who, in may ways, cannot agree on what the fundamentals of Islam really are except that they probably require them to kill people who disagree wit them.  For some, they are required to kill people who agree with them in order to "make a point".  The people who die agreeing with them, will, of course, enter Paradise (so killing them is really good for them).

Fundamentalist Hindus have been attacking Christian churches in India even though Hindu beliefs are more inclusive than exclusive.  They seem to be thinking, "Extremism in defense of the way I believe is no vice."

Of course, we have the same thing in political religious beliefs.  Whether conservative or liberal, democratic or republican, monarchical or communal, people assert by faith that their way is the right way and the only right way.  

Pretty much everyone can quote some authority (Bible, Koran, tradition, Federalist papers, etc.) for their extreme assertion.  Doing so is so much easier than thinking.  

Questions to ask the statement of Goldwater include: 
 "Whose liberty?"  (ours or theirs, mine or yours, blacks or whites, etc.?)
  "What liberty?"  (liberty to try, liberty to defraud, liberty to murder, liberty to discriminate against people that scare me?)
  "Liberty here or there?"  (liberty in the United States, but not in Nigeria where we need people to get our oil on the cheap, liberty on my side of town but not on yours, liberty in my wealthy neighborhood but not in your middle class neighborhood?)

How, you ask, are these "faith reflections"?

They are faith reflections because Goldwater was making a statement of faith, one that has religious overtones even today.  Neither the study of the science of biology nor the study of the science of astronomy produces his assertion.  He makes a faith statement, and people for whom faith is important must think clearly about this.

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know.  

Critical Thinking and Faith

As we walked I thought about quantum physics and the old saying, "You can't be two places at once."  Well, according to quantum physics certain particles can be two places at once, and are.  That' doesn't invalidate the "old math" or "old physics" -- it simply adds to it.  A person simply has to define which framework of thought she/he is working in.

I believe that to be true with the supposed conflict between "creationism" and "science".  Scientists have carefully observed the age of the earth's crust, carbon dating, species evolution.  They are now able to discern Neanderthal DNA within some human DNA today.  Within the framework of science, some form(s) of evolution are obviously true.

Within the framework of faith (no observable proofs or evidence) believers assert that God created the world, or the universe, or more.  It's a different framework.  It should never be taught as science.  This assertion is not within the framework of science but that of faith.

So, in a faith based setting, it seems appropriate to teach that God created everything.  In a secular school system, however, it should only be offered as one of many beliefs, and never as science.

What do you think?  Which framework are you living in when you think these thoughts?  Share with us by leaving a comment.

Criticizing God -- or Not

Odd Thomas, a character invented by Dean Koontz, gets me thinking.  He is ruminating, and wonders:

"I’m not criticizing God, if that’s what you think, because nobody knows why God does things or how He thinks, and He’s humongously smarter than any of us, even smarter than [massive super computer artificial intelligence - Ed].  They say he works in mysterious ways, which is for sure true. What I’m saying is, maybe the whole praying business is a human idea, maybe God never asked us to do it.  Yeah, all right, He wants us to like Him, and He wants us to respect Him, so we’ll live right, and do good.  But God is good—right?—and to be really good you’ve got to have humility, we all know that, so then if God is the best of the best, then He’s also the humblest of the humble.  Right?  So maybe it embarrasses Him to be praised like around the clock, to be called great and mighty all the time.  And maybe it makes Him a little bit nuts the way we’re always asking Him to solve our problems instead of even trying to solve them ourselves, which He made us so we could do.”
  “Odd Interlude”, by Dean Koontz, p. 225 (paper) 

What kinds of wondering about God goes on in your mind?  Do you ever think, really think, about God as person?

I recall as a young man being impressed, or depressed, by the number of church people I knew who never thought about God.  They thought about rules, about salvation, about heaven, about hell, about right, about wrong, about theological formulae -- but they never thought about God.  

Then ten or more years later I was impressed, or depressed, by the number to church leaders (mostly televangelists) who knew exactly what God wants, who described in great detail how we could impress God.  After a bit of their blather I began realizing they still weren't thinking about God as person.  They were thinking about self as impressing the great favor-dispenser in the sky.  

Odd Thomas raises some interesting musing in my mind.  What if God really is humble, for instance?

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know.