I went to Ken Miller's talk and I think he was both very intelligent and a great speaker. His voice, if not the mouse-trap tie clip, kept him quite entertaining as well. I have to disagree slightly with him being the wrong speaker for Awaken to choose -- he made Christians look damn good. I know that there are loonies out there that take the bible completely literally, and I think most people, including Christians, can recognize them as loonies. But, Ken Miller proves that Christians can be logical, reasonable, and Catholic.
Awaken, although it is quite a Christian event, is also putting on important interfaith events, that recognize other ideologies and support tolerance. By having Ken Miller speak they stressed the idea that science, and the people who believe strongly in it, can co-exist with their beliefs. I think a lot of people who are on the fence about religion because of evolution will no doubt be converted by Ken Miller's theories that are absolutely true, there is no reason that the two cannot co-exist. Does that mean I believe in God just because there can still be evolution? No. But I bet it pushed people over to God's side of the fence, so to speak.
Either way, I really enjoyed Ken Miller and definitely recommend everyone to take a look.
Peace,
Amber Hughson
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Oops! Awaken invites the wrong speaker on evolution and religion
So, as we enter into Awaken's week of "love, justice and unity" one would expect the typical set of ideas brought forth by the campus Christian community; universal acceptance of Jesus Christ as personal savior will end the world's pain and suffering, lack of morality in the youth is causing societal problems, etc. One would hardly expect a well known evolutionary microbiologist from Brown University to be on the event list. In case you aren't familiar with Dr. Ken Miller, he was featured on the Colbert Report, NPR, and was the lead witness in many of the famous Intelligent Design school board cases. Anyway, he is outspoken when it comes to defending science in the classroom. Snippets of his talks can be found on YouTube.
When I heard Dr. Miller was coming to speak, I wondered if I was thinking of the wrong Dr. Miller. Could I possibly be thinking of the man who, despite being personally religious, does not believe in the absolute infallible word of the Bible, nor does he believe that religion has any place in everyday science? How could this man be brought in by Christians, primarily Evangelicals, and presumably active ones at that?
Could this be something like the lame "God is Dead" ploy put on before, or could this be a genuine "reaching out" by the Christians, who, realizing finally that churches are typically last on issues of science and human rights, are desperately searching for some way to retain control over a growingly displeased group of subjects?
Many moderate Christians on campus will tell you it is a valid event put on to show people that the campus Christians aren't that bad. Perhaps, but in that attempt it was something more than that. It was an expose' of the ignorance and unwillingness of the Evangelical Christian to logically reason. For those not familiar with the event, Dr. Miller's talk on the failures of I.D. was followed by a discussion panel where Dr. Miller and another evolutionary biologist were paired with a resident physicist and an alum M.D. Ph.D. candidate. The physicist claimed that he had trouble with the whole evolution thing, and that he just couldn't reconcile his differences between his Evangelicalism and evolution. Having become a Christian in his adulthood, he seemed like the fiercest type of Evangelical, a real Jesus Camp trooper. He knew exactly how long he had been a Christian. He was trumped only by an Evangelical literalist, who started his argument with a reading from Genesis and had his bible in his hands the entire length of the panel discussion.
The fair number of people who got up and left when the literalist started reading Genesis should have stayed for Dr. Miller's response. It was beautiful. He referred to a passage where the bible claims in a song "God is a rock." He proceeded to ask the literalist if God was igneous, sedimentary, or metamorphic. This question may be silly but brings up a completely relevant point; if this line is a metaphor (which it obviously is) and interpretation has to be applied to it for it to make any since, how could it not apply similarly to the seven day Genesis story. The response was golden; some areas obviously need interpretation to make sense, some don't. You can obviously see what flaws are in this argument. It was followed up by the statement that the spirit will lead you to the truth. Is anyone else reminded of a big wagon of pick and choose bullshit yet?
The literalist did make a very relevant point for everyone to see though. If you blindly believe the bible literally, there is no way to reconcile its claims with evolution's. Dr. Miller tried to find some common ground, but basically let the argument go for the sake of time. The other evolutionary biologist addressed the issue very tenderly, basically saying that we really can't expect wackos to be reasonable.
So this brings us to my earlier statement: The panel discussion was an expose' of the ignorance and unwillingness of the Evangelical Christian to logically reason.
It was as simple as this: a scientist spoke, inviting religious people to abandon their thoughts that science and religion aren't compatible. He opened his arms for love, justice, and unity in science, and the evangelicals turned him away. Typical.
Oh, and on the matter of "stacking" as being an intellectual cop out, I have only a little to say. Religion answers questions with what people want to hear. It's a way of answering things that science hasn't figured out a comprehensive answer for yet. Personally, I am fine with the idea that I simply don't know, but most people find comfort in answers, despite the irrelevancy to an actual accurate world view.
When I heard Dr. Miller was coming to speak, I wondered if I was thinking of the wrong Dr. Miller. Could I possibly be thinking of the man who, despite being personally religious, does not believe in the absolute infallible word of the Bible, nor does he believe that religion has any place in everyday science? How could this man be brought in by Christians, primarily Evangelicals, and presumably active ones at that?
Could this be something like the lame "God is Dead" ploy put on before, or could this be a genuine "reaching out" by the Christians, who, realizing finally that churches are typically last on issues of science and human rights, are desperately searching for some way to retain control over a growingly displeased group of subjects?
Many moderate Christians on campus will tell you it is a valid event put on to show people that the campus Christians aren't that bad. Perhaps, but in that attempt it was something more than that. It was an expose' of the ignorance and unwillingness of the Evangelical Christian to logically reason. For those not familiar with the event, Dr. Miller's talk on the failures of I.D. was followed by a discussion panel where Dr. Miller and another evolutionary biologist were paired with a resident physicist and an alum M.D. Ph.D. candidate. The physicist claimed that he had trouble with the whole evolution thing, and that he just couldn't reconcile his differences between his Evangelicalism and evolution. Having become a Christian in his adulthood, he seemed like the fiercest type of Evangelical, a real Jesus Camp trooper. He knew exactly how long he had been a Christian. He was trumped only by an Evangelical literalist, who started his argument with a reading from Genesis and had his bible in his hands the entire length of the panel discussion.
The fair number of people who got up and left when the literalist started reading Genesis should have stayed for Dr. Miller's response. It was beautiful. He referred to a passage where the bible claims in a song "God is a rock." He proceeded to ask the literalist if God was igneous, sedimentary, or metamorphic. This question may be silly but brings up a completely relevant point; if this line is a metaphor (which it obviously is) and interpretation has to be applied to it for it to make any since, how could it not apply similarly to the seven day Genesis story. The response was golden; some areas obviously need interpretation to make sense, some don't. You can obviously see what flaws are in this argument. It was followed up by the statement that the spirit will lead you to the truth. Is anyone else reminded of a big wagon of pick and choose bullshit yet?
The literalist did make a very relevant point for everyone to see though. If you blindly believe the bible literally, there is no way to reconcile its claims with evolution's. Dr. Miller tried to find some common ground, but basically let the argument go for the sake of time. The other evolutionary biologist addressed the issue very tenderly, basically saying that we really can't expect wackos to be reasonable.
So this brings us to my earlier statement: The panel discussion was an expose' of the ignorance and unwillingness of the Evangelical Christian to logically reason.
It was as simple as this: a scientist spoke, inviting religious people to abandon their thoughts that science and religion aren't compatible. He opened his arms for love, justice, and unity in science, and the evangelicals turned him away. Typical.
Oh, and on the matter of "stacking" as being an intellectual cop out, I have only a little to say. Religion answers questions with what people want to hear. It's a way of answering things that science hasn't figured out a comprehensive answer for yet. Personally, I am fine with the idea that I simply don't know, but most people find comfort in answers, despite the irrelevancy to an actual accurate world view.
Hot damn that sounds exciting!
So... I was wondering about a possible common reading or something, and was reminded of a few books one of my mentors had mentioned to me. One is "The Culture of Make Believe", the other is "Religion is Not about God". Both very good, a bit on the long side, so would be good for the summer. If not a common read, definitely check them out.
BTW, Kaylee moves like a Tortoise giving birth.
Mark E. Lampen
Monday, April 14, 2008
They swarm, like children to the playground...
Hey! I know I don't come to meetings, so you're probably thinking -- Why is she even writing in here? Actually, I can't make it to meetings this semester because I have to work in the Kellogg Center at the same time. Lame. However, I will be attending every meeting next semester, and you should too.
I'm actually writing about a Social Justice Open Mic Night that is going to take place at the Coffee House, Thursday 4/17 at 8:15 in the evening when you all usually meet. You can have a regular meeting in the back room as I told Dan, OR, you could join in on the discussion about social justice. I think its really important to bring different perspectives to the table at these types of events, and as the event is put on by a Christian group, we should throw in our ideas as well.
It should be a really cool event, if you want to know more, let me know. I'm taking off work just to be there, so I hope to see you there!
Peace!
-Amber Hughson
(p.s. Kaylee Pope is pretty sweet for creating this blog, and so is Alex for the awesome title.)
Welcome to the Albion College SHG Blog
Hello all. This is Kaylee Pope, the secretary of the Albion College Secular Humanist Group. I have created this blog for the group. It will be used by any member who so chooses and if you are interested in writing an entry or starting a discussion, please feel free to email me at krp12@albion.edu . My hope is that this blog will be used as both a way for us SHGers to get our name out there as well as a way in which we can keep in touch over the summer. Feel free to post any interesting ideas, articles or discussion questions. I'll also try to keep the page rolling with the meeting minutes and SHG plans when necceasry.
Enjoy.
KP
Enjoy.
KP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)