Feed on
Posts
Comments

We all have some parts of our mind that we consider unworthy, some memory that makes us shudder and squirm.

The above quote from the character Quillam in the Doctor Who episode “Vengeance on Varos” captures one aspect of the Sixth Doctor admirably – some of the harshest characteristics of the Doctor, from his arrogance to his willingness to see lives lost on occasion – come to the fore in his character – as does his persistent lack of fashion sense.

We find this mirrored in a society that has some of humanity’s worst features prominently displayed: our voyeurism when punishments or executions occur, or when accused criminals are on the run from authorities and we can watch the exciting high-speed chase.

It is a society that evolved from a penal colony. They are being exploited by the mining company represented by the entertaining character Sil, who takes full advantage of the fact that none of the humans on Varos knows the true worth of the ore they export. And in the face of the hard lives of the people of Varos, working hard in mining and dealing with scarcity of food, they find diversion from discontent in watching the suffering of others.

There is a humorous section in which, prior to the Doctor’s scheduled execution, he and a fellow prisoner are led to the gallows with much ceremony, with a priest chanting a parody of religious verse, including lines such as “In the name of the great video…” The devotion people give television in real life, and the ability of TV to distract us from the troubles of life, makes the parody poignant.

The ending of the episode is even more poignant, as a couple whose lives we’ve seen snippets of, as they watch the events in the episode unfold on their television screen, realize they are free. They ask what they should do now that they are free, and the wife’s face falls as she answers honestly, “Dunno.”

Very often we dream of freedom, but give surprisingly little thought with what we want it for, what we want to do with it.

In my First Year Seminar class this past week, we finished Plato’s Republic. One topic we focused on is how Socrates does not find democracy the ideal society. One reason is that it seems to make freedom itself the ultimate end in and of itself. Both the Republic and “Vengeance on Varos,” in very different ways, can useful spark discussion of whether freedom is a worthwhile end in and of itself, or whether what matters most is the use to which freedom is put.

Oh, one last thing. Long before there was Neo, stopping illusions with his outstretched hand, there was the Doctor:

Tags: , , , ,

If you’re in the UK, you can get The Burial of Jesus from Amazon.co.uk – no need to go to the American store.

And if my calculation is correct, it is slightly cheaper via Amazon in the UK for some reason!

The book has now reached the Top 10 in the Kindle bestsellers in the Ancient History category on Amazon.com. Who knows what will happen on Amazon.co.uk if the word gets out that it is closer to $3 there! :-)

Tags: , , , ,

Created by my good friend Bob Patterson

Tags: , , , , ,

This cartoon illustrates well one of the reasons why I’ve moved away from exams that focus on the recall of facts of the sort that can be memorized for a test and then forgotten.

HT A Feather Adrift

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Yesterday’s episode of Fringe, “A Better Human Being,” explored a couple of interesting religious and philosophical themes related to modern science and scientific possibilities.

The more obvious of the two relates to the doctor who, when using IVF to help women get pregnant, implanted them with “improved” genetic material to try to make “a better human being,” one in which some of our latent abilities were reactivated. The doctor in question refers to the hubris of “trying to improve upon God.”

That classic sci-fi objection to “scientists playing God” rings somewhat hollow, now that we know so much more about the evolutionary and genetic processes that are directly responsible for the form that human existence now takes. Evolution, a process which cobbles and tinkers, has put us together, and on the one hand, it is not unthinkable that human intelligence could indeed improve upon what evolution has come up with. It is logical to think that real, actual intelligent design would be superior to the products of evolution, at least in theory. Yet on the other hand, as the products of evolution ourselves, we are only at the early stages of grasping the processes that made us and the stuff we’re made from. If evolution is rather like the inferior demiurge of Gnosticism, then we are not yet superior to that creator.

(On the topic of “Scientists Playing God,” see further Alison Bright Macwilliams’ chapter in Religion and Science Fiction.)

A more subtle philosophical and ethical exploration in the episode relates to the increasing degree to which Olivia is remembering the memories of Olivia as Peter had previously known her. It remains to be seen whether this is due to those memories coming from another universe, where “Peter’s Olivia” still exists, or whether this is due to Olivia regaining memories that were once her own, but which were lost when Peter was erased and the timeline rewritten.

But Peter’s dilemma in trying to decide how to respond to this situation provides an interesting philosophical conundrum, and a good opportunity to reflect on human personhood. If this Olivia is a parallel Olivia to the one Peter fell in love with, who has somehow come to remember the memories of that Olivia, then if Peter has a romantic relationship with her, is he being unfaithful to “his” Olivia? This is a somewhat different situation than that in which Peter was tricked by Fauxlivia into thinking that she was his Olivia.

This is not the first time that the show has touched on this topic in some way. Indeed, this episode made mention of the earlier one in which a couple, each of which had lost their spouse, forged a connection with a parallel version of that spouse in a parallel universe.

It is an interesting philosophical issue raised on Fringe. If there is indeed more than one of everything, and everyone, in an infinite universe or in a multiverse, then where does that leave the connections we forge, the love we feel, and the promises we make? Is a parallel version of someone that is 99% the same as the person that you vowed to remain faithful to and love forever the “same” person or a “different” one – or are such questions even meaningful?

The ending of the episode has quite a twist to it. Presumably we are to understand that Nina Sharpe had been replaced with a shapeshifter – providing yet another, somewhat different aspect of the philosophical and ethical problems raised on a show when there is more than one sense in which there is “more than one of everything.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One feature that young-earth creationists, mythicists, and other proponents of pseudoscholarly ideas have in common in the way they treat the writings of actual experts in the field in question.

On the one hand, they will mine the writings of experts for sound bites and quotes that seem to support their viewpoint, and will pepper their blog posts and discussion board comments with them liberally.

On the other hand, they dismiss at least one of the central conclusions drawn by those experts, and write about them in relation to that particular matter as if they were completely incompetent ignoramuses who cannot be trusted to draw logical, reasoned conclusions.

I think we should call this the “Schroedinger’s Scholar Fallacy.” Clearly both characterizations of experts in a field cannot be right simultaneously. Either they are capable of doing valid work in their discipline, in which case their acceptance of evolution, or the existence of a historical Jesus, or whatever else, cannot be chalked up to stupidity; or they are indeed incompetent, in which case they cannot serve as authorities to appeal to in order to bolster one’s own case, since they are just as likely to have botched those points as any others if they really are as gullible and illogical as is claimed.

But in the realms of mythicism and creationism, scholars seem to exist in a state of quantum paradox, like Schroedinger’s cat, being both reliable authorities with genuine expertise, and ignorant fools, and coexisting as both simultaneously.

It is time, I suggest, for mythicists, creationists, and other denialists to open the box and look inside. The experts whom they selectively quote are either one or the other – either authorities who can be cited as providing a perspective with genuine expertise that carries legitimate weight, or people whose expertise cannot be relied upon and should not be taken seriously.

On a related note, Bob Cargill said the following on Facebook, and it seems to me germane to the current topic:

‎’God of the gaps’ creationists are like defense attorneys defending a murderer: they want you to focus on the unaccounted for 38 seconds and ignore the smoking gun, body, fingerprints, and incriminating surveillance video while they try to suppress it.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

 

I had not yet seen a contribution to the “What I Really Do” meme depicting religion professors, so I thought I’d try my hand at one. What do you think? Any suggestions for improvements?

EDIT: Here’s another one, on the same theme, lest it seem that I either think that all religion professors are men, and lest in trying to divide the roles in one meme image, someone read too much into which ones I assign to men or women.

Tags: , , , , ,


I will be blogging over the coming days and weeks about many of the topics that I touch on in my book, The Burial of Jesus: What Does History Have to Do with Faith?, which is now for sale at Amazon.com for just $2.99.

One of the topics I address is the focus (some might say obsession) that contemporary Christianity has with the afterlife. Now, some might find that statement strange, but that is precisely because for many today, religion is by definition about an afterlife, to such an extent that it is simply unimaginable for them that there could be religion that is not focused on life after death.

Many of my students are surprised when they learn that that has not always been the case, and that within the Bible itself, most of the Old Testament/Jewish Bible has no interest in or evidence of belief in an afterlife.

One of the best examples is the Book of Amos. Amos is one of the closest examples we find in the Bible to the stereotypical “fire and brimstone” preacher. And yet note what he does not say. He warns the nation of judgment that is coming because of unrighteousness, but that judgment is never hell or some other notion of punishment in an afterlife. What he predicts is always disaster that will strike within history. Punishment in an afterlife simply was not on his radar. It was not part of his religious thinking, as far as we can tell.

I was sparked to blog about this particular topic by a post at Unreasonable Faith, which included this image:

In fact, the rise of belief in an afterlife in Judaism probably had more to do with the problem of evil than narcissism. The development of belief in God raising the dead to reward and punish first appears in the Book of Daniel, and thus seems to have been connected with the crisis the Jewish people faced during the reign of the Syrian king Antiochus IV. Antiochus outlawed observance of the Jewish Law, and this brought the classic problem of evil to an unprecedented peak. Now those who were considered righteous were not merely prone to suffer just as they unrighteous are – they were being singled out for harassment and even execution.

In response to this, belief in an afterlife was developed, out of the conviction that God is just, and so it cannot be the case that the wicked can exterminate the righteous and get away with it forever. Justice will be done, it was suggested, even if it means God raising the dead back to life again in order to accomplish that.

Today, as the caricature in the image above highlights, belief in an afterlife has taken on a different sort of character, and sometimes it even seems to work in a manner directly opposite to the reason the belief developed in the first place. Rather than being a solution for the problem of evil, it can exacerbate it. I remember in my younger days being in a church setting in which the view of this life was that “there is no point in polishing the china on the Titanic.” This world is passing away, I was told, and what matters is a world to come. And so belief in an afterlife has come to be used not as an effort to make sense of injustice, but to justify ignoring it. Why make the world a better place, when the world to come is what matters?

Surely this stance ought to trouble us.

I discuss this and related topics in more detail in my book, The Burial of Jesus. Here in this blog post, I want to ask what others think. Is the extent of focus on an afterlife in most modern Christianity a distortion of what belief in an afterlife was originally about? Can you envisage a Christianity that doesn’t focus on an afterlife in this way? If you think that there is change or rethinking that it would be useful to see occur regarding Christian ideas about the afterlife, what would that entail, and how might one go about being an agent for such change?

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

This Doctor Who episode about the Daleks was apparently envisaged as providing an end and closure to the Doctor’s interactions with the Daleks. Of course, it was not to be, and one of the things about narratives involving time travel is that, even if one totally obliterates, defeats, or fundamentally changes an enemy at one point in time, they can still be encountered in their past. They would, however, be absent from the show for several years.

In “The Evil of the Daleks,” the Doctor’s TARDIS is stolen as a way of luring him into a trap, with the aim of getting him to conduct an experiment for the Daleks. The Doctor’s companion Jamie is made to try to rescue Victoria Waterfield, who is being held prisoner by the Daleks. As he does so, the Doctor takes readings of Jamie’s emotions and identifies the “human factor.” When the Doctor administers that human factor to some Daleks, they become playful and even call the Doctor their friend.

It is then revealed that the aim of the experiment was not, as the Doctor had thought, to identify the human factor so that the Daleks could benefit from its supposed advantages. Rather, it was to help single out the Dalek factor and have that spread on Earth to turn human beings into obedient servants of the Daleks, like unto the Daleks themselves.

The tension is resolved when the Doctor tricks the Daleks into administering the human factor to significant numbers of Daleks. Once this is done, those Daleks begin behaving like human children – every time the emperor Dalek says something like “You must obey” the Daleks with the human factor as “Why?”

However implausible some elements of the story may be (such as the idea that some factor can so quickly turn one sort of entity into another), it still works as an exploration of the question of what makes us human, as well as the idea that ingenuity, compassion and friendship can make us stronger than powerful, obedient, xenophobic killers.

It also offers an intriguing exploration of whether, at the heart of what makes us human, is our willingness to question authority, whether of emperors or of parents or of deities. Is our penchant for asking “Why?” the quintessential component of the “human factor”?

Tags: , , , , ,

Students of the Bible learn about the Documentary Hypothesis, the view that the Pentateuch was put together using multiple earlier written sources, traditionally identified using the abbreviations JEPD. Sometimes challenges have been raised to such source criticism on the grounds that varying the way one refers to God is quite common within unified religious traditions and their musical expression of their faith.

For me, the strongest support for the Documentary Hypothesis’ distinction between sources based on different ways of referring to God comes from the Psalms, specifically Psalm 14 and Psalm 53. If you read them both side by side, you’ll see that they are both essentially the same psalm, the only major difference being that one addresses God using the divine name YHWH, and the other does not.

I don’t see any way of accounting plausibly for these two psalms being part of this collection other than in terms of there being different groups, or regions, or kingdoms, which had different preferences regarding how to refer to and address God. And that makes it seem plausible to account for the different passages in the Pentateuch which refer to God in different ways in terms of those same distinct traditions or groups.

Here’s a graphic which I found on the web page I link to here, which explores the two psalms and conveniently provides both in interlinear form with differences highlighted.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

At $2.99 my book The Burial of Jesus is probably well within the realm of the affordable for most people. But if you’d prefer to have a copy for free, then Joel Watts will be giving away three copies. Click through for details!

Tags: , , , , ,

Jen McCreight posted on her blog about someone who gave thanks for having passed an exam, and expressed gratitude for prayers offered on their behalf. Jen made several comments, among which this seemed to me the most interesting:

Seriously, if God really is the reason that some students were doing well, they should be expelled. A supreme deity isn’t enrolled in school, you are. If they’re altering your grades, that’s cheating.

I think this topic actually provides a useful case for reflecting on what one thinks about prayer. Christian views have varied widely on the subject down the centuries. Many church fathers were of the view that prayer changes us since God is unchangeable. If prayer is a way of gaining composure and relieving stress during an exam, it is presumably not at all inappropriate.

But if one believes that it might provide supernatural assistance, what then? Would asking God to help you do better on an exam represent a form of cheating? And conversely, if you don’t think it is cheating, does that suggest that you don’t really think prayer in such circumstances results in supernatural intervention on occasion?

Tags: , , , ,

The next Biblical Studies Carnival will be at Duane Smith’s blog Abnormal Interests, and Duane posted a reminder today about this, asking for submissions. Please tell him about the most abnormal, interesting, and abnormally interesting blog posts about Biblical studies from this blog, your own blogs, and elsewhere around the blogosphere!

Tags: ,

Young-earth creationists, strictly speaking, can’t believe that there are such things as “supernovas” in the sense in which other people use that term. That term refers to stars exploding in faraway parts of the universe. For instance, the NASA page about one supernova visible in recent memory, SN 1987A, says this: “The star is 163,000 light-years away in the Large Magellanic Cloud. It actually blew up about 161,000 B.C., but its light arrived here in 1987.” A young-earth creationist has to deny that, and must instead claim that God put the light from the explosion on-route to us at some point. Here’s a photograph of that supernova:

What we have seen in the sky on such occasions, and the remains seemingly left behind by the star’s explosion, are all – according to young-earth creationists – a lie that the Creator has told to human beings. And of course, according to young-earth creationists, that same Creator also supposedly takes great pleasure in those humans who can see that God is a liar (except in and through the Bible), and go around spreading the word to others, all in the name of defending the truthfulness of their interpretation of what is in fact a human book about God.

I think that even most young-earth creationists, if they think about this honestly and carefully, will realize how nonsensical this stance is, and how dishonoring it is to God.

There are other supernovas which, according to mainstream science’s understanding of things, would have happened billions of years ago.

But what if we consider the Crab Nebula, formed by an explosion that could be seen on Earth in the 18th century, which is a mere 6,000 or so light years from Earth, so that perhaps a young-earth creationist could assent to that time frame? They will have to say that the star did not explode for the reasons scientists say they do, reaching the end of their long stellar lifespan, but simply because God willed it.  So here too, a young-earth creationist has no choice but to deny mainstream science. All of it: observation, physics, astronomy, and chemistry, and not just geology and biology.

If you are a young-earth creationist, do you really believe that this is what God desires from you? Do you not realize that in denying the evidence from creation itself, you are making Paul (and thus the Bible) out to be a liar, too? For in Romans 1:20, Paul writes, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

Paul says that God’s invisible qualities can be clearly seen and understood from creation. The young-earth creationist stance, on the other hand, says that looking at creation does not give accurate information about God’s majesty, power, and activity in creation.

And let’s not forget Psalm 19:1, which says “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”

And so given that young-earth creationism is both antiscientific and antibiblical, isn’t it about time that its adherents gave it up?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

“One of my husband’s former professor’s used to tell her students that education is the only thing we’re generally happy getting less of for our money. We’re happy when the professor cancels class. We’re happy with less homework, less requirements, less writing, less reading, less seat time, less, less, less. There are exceptions to this, those who realize that they are paying for the privilege of higher education, a privilege that women, minorities, and lower-classes have fought for throughout history. But the overwhelming message in our society right now is, the quicker, the better, which is interpreted as the lesser, the better. My students don’t seem to see education as an opportunity, but instead as a chore, and by extension, my required class a just one more obstacle standing in their way to degree completion.”

– Lee Bessette, “Attendance, Retention, and College Success” in Inside Higher Ed

Tags: , , , , ,

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »