Vol. 1 No. 17 - November 27, 2006

Download

Publisher’s note

TART reader and In-depth Reporter (Science) of Die Burger Elsabé Brits called on Thursday to tell of her experience at the opening of the South African Jewish Museum in Cape Town exhibition “Of Hominids and Humankind” – in honour of the life and work of the renowned South African scholar Phillip Tobias.

“How to square science and religion”, mused Tobias, and then added that he had been seeking that answer for 61 years and expected to go to his grave without discovering it.

Indeed. Science and religion are incompatible. (See Tart Remarks, November 20, 2006.)

The subject will receive attention this week again, on November 28, when Professor Wentzel van Huyssteen of Princeton will talk about his book Alone in the World? Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology, the record of his Gifford lectures. Enquiries and bookings can be made on +27-21-686-1269 or at christianspirit@xsinet.co.za.

What role can theology play in the quest for human understanding? What role religion?

I have been struck this week by the reaction to my online challenge to Christians: What do Christians believe?

The matter is addressed in this issue, in the leading article Our firm foundation...

Methinks that if Christians are unable, or unwilling, to identify their beliefs, and to defend same, they can hardly expect to contribute to the moral and social structure.

Editor’s Note

I have spend a considerable amount of time this week reading and commenting on the thread 'n Uitdaging aan Christene (A challenge to Christians), on the Online forum Kletskerk. It is a thread of my design and origin and proposes that Christianity is identified by ten elementary beliefs which are non-negotiable for the creed.

The reaction was rather astounding. I have had numerous discussions and correspondence on the matter, and I report in some detail on my experiences and insights in this issue of TART Remarks.

Pulitzer Prize winner Natalie Angier has authored a new book. Ms Angier is a clear thinker and able writer and communicates her “God Problem” effectively and efficiently. The book, and Ms Angier’s argument is covered in Tolle Lege this week.

Jesus and Mo, of late joined by Moses, remains one of my favourite cartoon strips. In The sound of thorns crackling in a fire the cadre muses about Allah’s ability or not… to secure Cat Stevens concert tickets.

Contents

Publisher’s note
Editor’s note
Our firm foundation…
Faith's last gasp
The gospel according to Jim Wallis
The canon: a whirligig tour of the beautiful basics of science by Natalie Angier
The sound of thorns crackling in a fire

Click here to order a free copy of Tart Remarks, Vol. 1 No. 17 – November 27, 2006

Vol. 1 No. 16 - November 20, 2006

Download

The Marine Reserves' Toys for Tots program, reports the Los Angeles Times, has turned down 4,000 talking Jesus dolls offered by one2believe, a division of the Valencia-based Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Co., to have been distributed to needy children this festive season.

The button-activated, bearded Jesus, dressed in hand-sewn cloth outfits and sandals, recites Scripture such as "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." All for $20. Retail. One just can’t discount The Message, can one?

The charity balked because of the doll’s religious nature.

Michael La Roe, director of business development for the snubbed donor companies, said the charity's decision left him "… surprised and disappointed. I believe as a churchgoing person, anyone can benefit from hearing the words of the Bible."

Bill Grein, vice president of Marine Toys for Tots Foundation, in Quantico, Va. countered that as a government entity, Marines "don't profess one religion over another... We can't take a chance on sending a talking Jesus doll to a Jewish family or a Muslim family."

Strong arguments both!

But methinks…

Jews, Muslims, Agnostics… Atheists even, have to put up with George Jesus-in-my-heart Bush reporting on his divine injunctions virtually without end.

There ain’t no button to halt the ptolemaic amalgam of orphic averments from the White House as its First Resident inveigles, wheedles and cajoles his way through the vacuous skulls of the American faithful.

Sam Harris notes that Mr. Bush listens to the voice of “god” regularly – something the American people relish… and, in any event, if Evangelical clergy can speak the words of life, why not a $20 doll?

O-O-O-o-o-oy!

This week, on Kletskerk, a forum for discussing things religious, a contributor promoted, in the strongest possible terms, that subjection to the Holy Spirit “as a Person” (?!) will inure against misunderstanding.

Gagging a Jesus doll? Not gagging a Jesus medium (so-called for they are neither rare, nor well done)?

Truly, the Lord moves in mysterious ways.

Contents

Publisher’s note
Editor’s note
Science and religion
Beyond belief: in place of god
God vs. Science
The Bookshelf talks with Michael Shermer
The sound of thorns crackling in a fire

Click here to order a free copy of Tart Remarks, Vol. 1 No. 16 – November 20, 2006

Vol. 1 No. 15 - November 13, 2006

Download

Publisher's Note
I was engaged this week in email debates on several fronts following my castigation of the By reviewers mentioned here in the previous issue – Gerrit Brand (Belydende ateïsme op sy beste) and Johannes de Villiers (Dawkins, hou jou by jou lees).

In the latest By, contributor Charles Wallace, writing from England, speaks to the discomfort of theologians and believers when confronted with the clarion thinking of leading scientists and philosophers and researchers – people such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. Science, writes Wallace, is loosing patience with religion’s disputable claims served up as fact. And certainly leading thinkers are increasingly appalled by the apparent protection religion enjoys – demands even! – when pronouncing on current issues with reference to myth, oracles and ancient rites and writs. Particularly disquieting is the dreadful theology that is served up to the faithful in a desperate attempt to conserve a fundamentalist approach to, among others, homosexuality, protection against HIV infection, and even the future of nations in the Middle East!

My sparring partners demanded a more “reasonable” (read “tolerant”, and read also, again, TART Remarks of August 21 – Tolerance… intolerance: How much? How long?) approach from me. (I stated that religion, albeit a fact of life, is bunk, and that “god”, real as it may seem to the great unwashed, is, in the very words of one of the reviewed authors, a “delusion” – a dangerous delusion, I added. As I am also arguing in the leading article this week: Why fight religion?)

I challenged the correspondent, “Shall we, in the name of reasonableness, also consider a flat earth (as opposed to, well, a more rounded vision), phrenology (as opposed to neurology), chemistry (as opposed to alchemy), astrology (as opposed to astronomy), magic and miracles (as opposed to natural laws), and, all ye gods forbid, “Intelligent Design” (as opposed to Natural Selection)?”

“Yes!”, came the reply.

“In principle”, was the reply qualified.

In reasonableness, this particular correspondent did reject Intelligent Design as a feasible option… yet allowed for the “fact” that debunked ID was no reason to accept that there was not “in fact” an “Intelligent Designer” after all.

Ya, well, no, fine.

I rest my case.


Publisher’s note
Editor’s note
Why fight religion?
Democrats win bigger share of religious vote
For Georgetown 'Apostles,' A Rowhouse Rebellion
In one week: counsel, soaring hope, war protest
Six impossible things before breakfast: the evolutionary origins of belief
The sound of thorns crackling in a fire

Click here to order a free copy of Tart Remarks, Vol. 1 No. 15 – November 13, 2006

Vol. 1 No. 14 - November 6, 2006

To be a Christian should be more than “doing (so-called) Christ-like things”. It is important that we, all of us humans, strive primarily to avoid doing things that may harm others. And harm nature. It is imperative that we attempt (at least mostly) to do things that may benefit others. And nature.

Humanitarians live by this creed. Rotarians do. Lions do – the club members, not necessarily the predators.

So I think that “being a Christian” should be something different, something additional, something other than “being a decent person” – I regard myself as a decent person, but I am certainly no Christian.

The descriptive English word “gay” has forever lost it’s original meaning. So has the insulting “queer”.

So, can “Christian” still be used to identify someone who, say, no longer accepts that the Christ has physically risen? Or of someone unsure of the Virgin Birth? Or of creation?

Publisher’s note
Editor’s note
What is a Christian?
Democrats get religion
They have seen the light, and it is green
This is no attempt to force-feed religion to children
Gay episcopal bishop says communities of faith may be at crossroads
War & Peace - Michael Shermer
The sound of thorns crackling in a fire

Click here to order a free copy of
Tart Remarks, Vol. 1 No. 14 – November 6, 2006