In this last post, I’d like to reflect on how Richard Dawkins unwittingly and certainly unwillingly helps the Christian Church, as well as the other theists he so energetically opposes.
In particular, he helps us by showing us how some of us sound to people such as he, as well as to others who also do not share our premises. I was struck as Dawkins spoke at how similar was his style to that of many Christian apologists and preachers I have encountered/endured through the years.
For instance, he presented major issues in a simplistic fashion only to dispatch them with breathtaking swiftness. Here’s one example.
Dawkins averred that theism is patently contradictory. A God who can see the future with certainty (because of omniscience) thus is powerless to do anything other than what he foresees himself doing, thus compromising his omnipotence. Voilà! Theism is incoherent!
Read the rest of this entry »
Richard Dawkins has traveled the world, sowing his particular gospel of atheism, science, rational argument, and the courage to live in the light of The Facts.
He has appeared before countless audiences, participated in dozens of debates, and handled hundreds of questioners. But he seemed surprised, even nonplussed, by the line of questioning he received from several members of the UBC audience who patiently lined up to press him on . . . vegetarianism.
By the time Dawkins encountered the third such questioner, he was moved to wonder aloud whether he was encountering some sort of “lobby.” No, just the West Coast.
Yet this particular issue presented an intriguing window into Dawkins that had not been provided in his presentation. For his presentation was mostly offensive, in the sense of attacking positions he disliked, rather than defensive, in the sense of offering cogent reasons for adopting his own life philosophy. (His presentation was also at times astonishingly offensive in the other sense, but more about that in my third post.)
Being pressed about vegetarianism, then, we got to see Richard Dawkins construct and defend some ethics. And what a ramshackle thing he produced!
Read the rest of this entry »
Richard Dawkins at UBC: Part One, Dawkins as Rhetor
April 29, 2008
So someone at the University of British Columbia (UBC) decided it was a good idea to bring Richard Dawkins to campus to give a free public lecture. Fair enough. He’s an academic celebrity and there are precious few of those.
The two (two!) professors who introduced him, however, introduced him as someone who could impressively relate the humanities and the sciences. That claim deserves a little scrutiny.
Lots of people have analyzed and criticized Dawkins’s arguments over the years. Indeed, there are whole forests’ worth of books now in print responding to one or another of his anti-theism volumes. And who can count the number of phosphors employed similarly in the blogosphere?
What I will do over the next three posts is to offer what I hope will be some observations that complement these direct engagements with this ideas, and I will do so indeed from the perspective of the humanities.
Let’s begin with one of the most ancient of the liberal arts and consider Dawkins as Rhetor, as orator, as public speaker.
Read the rest of this entry »
Jon Buller Hymn Project
April 24, 2008
The single most viewed post on this blog so far has been “Jesus, I’m NOT in Love with You.” As of this writing, it’s had over 8000 views.
In that post, I engage in a little criticism of a certain trend in contemporary Christian music. So, in the spirit of “Better to light a candle than curse the darkness,” I happily recommend a new album by Canadian singer Jon Buller and two of his musical friends. It’s “The Hymn Project” and it’s a simple setting of a dozen or so great hymns and songs for three male voices and a guitar or two.
Here’s the solid gold list: My Hope is Built on Nothing Less - Come Thou Fount - All Creatures of our God and King - Blessed Assurance - Great is Thy Faithfulness - The Old Rugged Cross - Trust and Obey - It Is Well With My Soul - My Jesus I Love Thee - Jesus, Priceless Treasure - Jesus Loves Even Me - I’d Rather Have Jesus - His Eye is on the Sparrow.
I had the privilege of teaming up with Jon, his band, and his group “Hear the Music Ministries” at a worship seminar they held in Winnipeg a few years ago. The highlight for me was borrowing a guitar from Jon and doing my best Eric Clapton impression in a blues his band generously played behind me. Confident as I am that no one actually mistook me for Mr. Clapton—or even for a decent amateur player, which I wish I were—it was nonetheless a blast.
Happily for this album, however, Jon and his friends are much better than decent amateurs, and their beautiful and imaginative vocals and guitars give new life to these fine expressions of worship.
Here’s what I wrote to endorse the album on Jon’s website:
In The Hymn Project, we find what we badly need to find: skillful music and rich lyrics that can fill in the empty spaces left by so many of today’s thin praise songs. What a high standard is set by these deceptively simple arrangements of classic hymns! Older Christians will rejoice to hear these good old hymns refreshed; middle-aged types (such as I) will be inspired by these clear declarations of the gospel; and younger listeners will perhaps finally realize why so many of us miss “the old songs.” This really is an album for everyone.
Now, I’m all for new music and not simply the recycling of the old, no matter how worthy the result. But some old stuff needs to be part of our repertoire of praise, too, and this album proves it. I bought twenty of them to give away over the next year to friends and family. Check it out: It’ll do you good!
Does the Trinity Prove Anything about Gender? Not Much
April 19, 2008
Amid all the arguments among Christians regarding the roles of men and women in home, church, and society, one of the most prominent nowadays is the argument from the Trinity, namely, that the way the persons of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) relate and are related to each other tells us something important about how men and women are related and ought to relate to each other.
And no wonder some argue this way. What a trump card! “Our view of gender is rooted in the very nature of God!”
The first troubling thing to notice here, however, is that this argument is deployed by both complementarians/patriarchalists and egalitarians/feminists.
I’m Certain that There Are Two Kinds of Certainty
April 11, 2008
There is a lot of huffing and puffing nowadays about “postmodernism” and “skepticism” and “certainty” and “absolute truth.” And it’s been going on for a long time.
On one extreme we have those who affirm that all statements are simply indications of one’s own state of mind, simply matters of opinion, and have no determinable reference to reality. On the other are those who declare their belief in absolute truth and in the absolute truthfulness of their conviction about their favourite absolute truths.
I’ll deal with the radical postmodernists/skeptics/cynics/social constructivists/solipsists another time. (I’ve already dealt with postmodernism in a previous book—Humble Apologetics—and doubtless will again.) Today, let’s deal with the other end of the scale, those who declare not only that certainty is to be had, but that right-thinking people and particularly Christians ought to say that we have it about the main convictions of our outlook.
Alas, too many of these folk proclaim that anyone (such as your servant) who questions whether a human being is actually equipped to enjoy certainty about his or her convictions is guilty of betraying the faith. Some of these folks are clearly off their rockers, while others seem sensible enough on most matters, if regrettably strident and rigid on this one.
The situation boils down to a simple distinction between two kinds of certainty. The former describes a situation and the latter describes a state of mind.
The Best Restaurant in Vancouver
April 9, 2008
Normally this blog attends to matters mainly of the mind and spirit. But mind, spirit, and body all are honoured at my favourite restaurant in this foodie town, The Pear Tree, located just over the Vancouver/Burnaby border on Hastings at Gilmore.
My beloved and I have been enjoying The Pear Tree since shortly after its opening, when we moved here ten years ago and found this gem just a few blocks from our house. Chef Scott Yeager has gone from strength to strength in the kitchen, last year receiving 7th Place honours at the international Bocuse d’Or competition in France as Canadian team captain. (He is coach of this year’s team.)
Appetizers, if I may say so, are Scott’s speciality. His frothy lobster “cappuccino” is the finest lobster dish I have ever had, and his scallops are simply the best anywhere. Main dishes are reliably tasty and inventive, without ever being weird–so reliable, in fact, that I routinely order food from Scott that I would rarely order anywhere else–and there is always a high-value table d’hôte option. Desserts are superb. (Kari and I usually have the lemon and chocolate desserts, respectively, although occasionally she walks on the wild side and has the extraordinary crème brulée).
Wife Stephanie runs the front of the house, and is as good at her job as Scott is at his. The service is simply flawless. Always appearing right when you need them, the staff come and go in friendly silence. No grandstanding, no ingratiating chit-chat to push up the tip, they leave you free to enjoy your dining mates while supplying every need before you quite realize you have it.
You Are Your GPA
April 4, 2008
It’s getting towards the end of the academic term throughout North America, and it’s time to confirm a thought that haunt the corners of many student minds particularly this time of year. It’s not a pretty truth, but it needs to be said:
Your intelligence, your chance of competing successfully in the global marketplace, your ability to contribute meaningfully to the world, and your entire worth as a human being is precisely correlated to your grades.
The corollary to this axiom is that you must do everything you can to earn or otherwise obtain the highest grades possible, even if that includes shameless flattery of professors (”Have you been working out, sir?”), dark hints of litigation (”I don’t know how my parents, or their attorneys, will feel about any grade lower than a B+”), or obsequious alacrity in helping in the classroom (”Here, let me move that podium for you, ma’am, and get you some nice, cool water to go with the chocolates I’ve brought, and fan you while you lecture”).
Read the rest of this entry »
How to Subscribe
March 27, 2008
If you don’t want to keep checking back here, but would rather be notified when new entries are posted, you need to follow a couple of simple steps, outlined nicely here. Basically you need to download a news reader and then click on the RSS “Subscribe” icon in the right column of this blog’s page. Then when you consult your reader, you’ll see what’s new from every blog to which you subscribe.
If you’d rather be notified by e-mail when there’s a new post, then here’s that option also:
Subscribe to Prof. John Stackhouse’s Weblog by Email
Empty Tomb or Empty Gesture?
March 24, 2008
One of Canada’s leading newspapers, the Toronto Globe and Mail, reported this past Easter weekend on a local church who decided not to sing, “Christ the Lord Is Risen Today, Alleluia,” but “Glorious Hope Is Risen Today.” As the reporter, veteran Michael Valpy, probed to find out in just what that hope consisted, if not Christ the Lord, he was told by the pastor, Gretta Vosper, that her church had no room for miracles. Just moralism.
No “Big God-ism,” as Valpy reported her putting it: “No petitionary prayers…. No miracles-performing magic Jesus given birth by a virgin and coming back to life. No references to salvation, Christianity’s teaching of the final victory over death through belief in Jesus’s death as an atonement for sin and the omnipotent love of God. For that matter, no omnipotent God, or god.”
The Subversiveness of Easter
March 21, 2008
What in the world is Easter about? It makes no sense to celebrate the gruesome death of a minor country preacher, making a virtue, as Nietzsche warned, of failure.
There’s no subtlety to the symbolism of the alternative celebration of fertility this weekend, all eggs and rabbits and rainbows and yeah, we get it. Yet the odd, dark events of that ancient Passover/Easter weekend warrant a closer look. For here some important matters are being transacted in disguise, in irony, in spite of the intentions of some of the lead characters in the drama.
As Jesus submits himself completely to leaders of the Jewish religion of the day, he finally tells them who he is—Messiah and the divine Son of Man—only for the light of this final revelation to expose the dark logic of their understanding and motives. Since they will not accept him as Lord, he must be a blasphemer. And since they will not worship him as God, they must destroy him as Beelzebul. For all of their great religious tradition and learning, their custodianship of what Paul sums up as “the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2), when their God finally comes to save them, they not only fail to recognize him, but take him to be exactly the opposite, the Enemy.
The Romans, representing the rest of humanity, the Gentiles, demonstrate the hollowness of their own purported glory. For as Jesus then submits to the Roman legal system, the pride of that civilization, it evanesces under the slight pressure of expediency. Jesus becomes a nuisance, and the massive integrity of Roman law is easily set aside, as a cardboard façade, to dispose of him. So much, then, for all those marble columns and domes and pavements (let the reader understand). Rome was, indeed, built on sand after all.
The Reality of Sex
March 13, 2008
It was my privilege to give a public lecture at the University of British Columbia recently on the question, “Why Are Christians Against Sexual Freedom?” I haven’t spoken on quite this subject before, so I enjoyed preparing for it partly so I could think about the question a little more clearly than I had previously. Here’s the gist of what I said, and I’ll be glad if you can clarify my thinking still further:
Some Christians Are, Indeed, Against Sex: Some Christian teachers have taught the superiority of lifelong celibacy. Some Christians have taken out their own confusions and frustrations and traumas on others by speaking of sex as a Bad Thing to be avoided if possible and endured if necessary. Yes, some Christians are against sex, so they’re certainly against sexual freedom. But that’s not all there is to say.
Christians Aren’t Against Sex: In fact, the very first chapter of the Christian Scriptures contains the very first command of God to the very first human beings, and it’s this: Have sex. Indeed, have lots of it (Genesis 1:28). The world, God says, is fresh and wild and good. It’s now yours to look after, and it’ll take more than you two (Adam and Eve) to do it. In fact, the planet will take a planet-full of human beings to bring it under cultivation (”subdue it,” “have dominion,” etc.). So (ahem) get busy.
Sexual relations are celebrated in an entire book of the Bible, The Song of Solomon, and celebrated so graphically that Jewish and Christian commentators throughout history have tried to distract us with spiritual allegories so that we won’t stare at all the eyes and hands and breasts featured therein. And, to be sure, sexual imagery sometimes is used in the Bible to depict the relationship of God and Israel.
No, Christians aren’t against sex.
