Jesus Creed

Jesus Creed


Advising Atheists (Loser Letters) 4

posted by Scot McKnight

LoserLetters.jpgI read somewhere that someone said Mary Eberstadt’s book, a collection of satirical letters to the upper echelon of atheists about how not to argue if they want to get some more converts to atheism … I read somewhere that someone said this is not the way to convert. This is not the way to win your argument. That her satire is shallow. And as I read her book I wonder if she’s not exposing the shallow arguments of the new atheists by giving them a taste of their own medicines. 

What’s the best in atheist art and aesthetics? What aesthetic legacy does Soviet communism leave us? [I will delete comments that simply try to insult Mary Eberstadt. The issue here is art and aesthetics, and the claim that such an aesthetic is connected to "something more."]
Anyway, The Loser Letters is clever fiction; it’s satire, and it takes on some angular issues in a way that will gain attention. Some atheists are upset with her, tossing out all kinds of barbs about her style and her grasp of the issues, and I have to ask this: And you think Dawkins is serious philosophy or theology? Or that Hitchens’ angry vituperations are good arguments? Or Sam Harris’ analysis of history and religion is accurate? Try on D.B. Hart’s  Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies
. That’s some serious reflection on history. I myself examined why it is that folks walk away from the faith, why it is that some of these become atheists (Finding Faith, Losing Faith: Stories of Conversion and Apostasy
), and I would contend that Eberstadt pushes back exactly in the way the new atheists do. And I thinks she touches on sensitive topics and that are rarely broached.
Letter 4 addresses a keen topic: art. Who’s done the great art in the world? Why? She’s almost taunting them to put forth their best stuff and compare it to “their” best stuff.

Believers or non-believers? Christians or atheists?
She calls this the issue of “Dull achievement” (54). They, the Dulls (satire for Believers in God), have accomplished much when it comes to art. Architecture, music, sculpture, painting, literature, philosophy and the aesthetic life. The infuriating claim for the Brights is that the Dulls see their achievements as inseparable from their faith. It’s unmatched, the author tells the upper echelon of atheists, especially when compared to the Communist Secular stuff, their drama and architecture and sculpture.
St Mark’s Basilica in Venice, Notre Dame in Paris, the Duomo of Milan, St Paul’s in London… the Divine Comedy and music and paintings and… and … and… on and on. She says atheists aren’t sensitive enough to beauty and sublimity.
So her advice: don’t get into this argument. The Brights can’t win it. George Weigel says it comes down to Notre Dame in Paris vs. La Grande Arche a la Defense. What ideas are embodied here? What inspirations does it lead to?
What, she says to her atheist friends, do we offer? The Brooklyn Museum of Art? Elton John?


Advertisement
Comments read comments(26)
post a comment
Brent Thorkelson

posted April 1, 2010 at 2:35 am


Oh give me a break, Yes religious art represented the pinnacle of human expression in all media from the Dark ages until the enlightenment. The role has been diminishing ever since. there are two reasons for this:
1) Expressions outside religious expression could only be completely anodyne and banal not to get the author killed for blasphemy. Thus only cute Brugel style peasant scenes etc…
2) all the money and power was in the hands of the church so they could buy all the best talent.
One can still find some exceptions from this period however: The Medici tombs and the Taj Mahal come to mind.
Once we hit 1900 the role of religion in inspiring the greatest art had diminished to near zero, as more than a kind of philosophers stone around which to construct archetypes.
Of the great architects of the 20th century how many were religiously motivated? How many cathedrals and other churches are among the greatest architectural masterpieces of the 20th century?
Think of the major art movements of the 20th century: Futurism Dadaism Cubism Surrealism Abstract expressionism Hyperrealism etc… none NOT ONE of these have a religious element in their philisophical/aesthetic underpinnings
Music, well here is the one exception, but its still 50/50 at best… for every religiously motivated great 20th century composer you name I can find a secular one.
Philosophy? good one! only cranks remain seriously religious in philosophy today…



report abuse
 

Steven Carr

posted April 1, 2010 at 4:30 am


The trouble with D.B Hart’s book is that he does not place that great a priority on meaningful syntax, sentences which communicate an idea, and an ability to express oneself in words which make sense to a reader.
As G.A.Wells wrote (I paraphrase) ‘You can keep people in the dark in a dungeon or by enveloping them in fog.’



report abuse
 

Steven Carr

posted April 1, 2010 at 4:38 am


‘Who’s done the great art in the world?’
Has anybody seen The Producers? A great film, starring Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder. I laughed a lot.
Do you remember the scene where the mad German says ‘Hitler could do everything better than Churchill! Hitler was a better painter than Churchill!’
Who would have thought that such arguments , originally designed to make people laugh in a cinema, are actually the best arguments to crush atheists with?



report abuse
 

Mark Mathewson

posted April 1, 2010 at 6:50 am


Brent (#1):
You said, ?Philosophy? good one! only cranks remain seriously religious in philosophy today…?
Would you care to substantiate this claim or are you just thoughtlessly throwing it around? How do you know this? Is Alvin Plantinga or Robert Audi or Dallas Willard or Harold Netland or Frank Beckwith or Terrence Cuneo or Paul Moser or Keith Yandell or Bill Craig (and I could go on with this for quite some time) a crank? Furthermore, am I a crank? I hold a Ph.D. in philosophy and teach that discipline and I am ?seriously religious.? I would be curious to know from you whether I am a crank or not.
Thanks.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted April 1, 2010 at 7:00 am


Brent, there’s tension here for me. Mary Eberstadt’s book is satire and it may tempt some to write responses that are sarcastic or ridiculing instead of level-headed. Part of your comment proffers evidence; other parts just insult with sarcasm. Sarcasm doesn’t work on a blog.



report abuse
 

Ray Ingles

posted April 1, 2010 at 8:22 am


Scot –

I have to ask this: And you think Dawkins is serious philosophy or theology?

I asked a question in the last “Loser Letters” thread, and I asked it non-sarcastically. RJS said you two did a series on Dawkins’ book, and I asked:

RJS, if either you or Scot would link to the series you’re talking about, I’d be happy to look it over. Or should I just put “jesus creed dawkins” into Google and hope for the best?

I got no relevant results in the first several pages of that search. I’m serious, I’d be happy to look over what you wrote. But I’ve noticed that a lot of theists tend to dismiss Dawkins because he doesn’t use the traditional terminology of theology – even though he does address arguments. See comment #30 on this forum: http://www.christianpost.com/blogs/tentativeapologist/2009/10/does-religion-lead-to-bad-parenting-30/index.html



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted April 1, 2010 at 8:26 am


Ray, look up The God Hypothesis. That’s the series.



report abuse
 

Ray Ingles

posted April 1, 2010 at 8:30 am


Speaking of how Dawkins is so shallow and doesn’t address arguments, here’s a passage from The God Delusion:

Even great artists have to earn a living, and they will take commissions where they are to be had? Its enormous wealth had made the Church the dominant patron of the arts. If history had worked out differently, and Michelangelo had been commissioned to paint a ceiling for a giant Museum of Science, mightn?t he have produced something at least as inspirational as the Sistine Chapel? How sad that we shall never hear Beethoven?s ,i>Mesozoic Symphony, or Mozart?s opera The Expanding Universe. And what a shame that we are deprived of Haydn?s Evolution Oratorio.

(Oh, and “Communist” is not synonymous with “atheist” – taking their limitations as characteristic of all atheists is “shallow”.)



report abuse
 

tscott

posted April 1, 2010 at 9:08 am


It doesn’t seem possible for the godless to break out of the
subjective/objective focus. What other spirit can they bring to
the equation for some depth? They have up till now their breakthrough philosophies-Marxism, existentialism, deconstructionism, post-modernism(future). You can call it hyperreal, surreal, abstractly real, Daddy(you pick the author)real, or cubist real- but the subjective/objective dichotomy remains.
Only through a “timely” criticism and action can the significantly new
come into being. No area of life is exempt from this form-creation. But action and participation is not enough. This is the practicle implication of the protestant principle. The depths, the tensions, the possibilties(creative) demand a venturing decision, the taking of a risk to avail people to the truly critical and formative power.



report abuse
 

Ray Ingles

posted April 1, 2010 at 10:11 am


(Scot, I don’t want to derail discussion of the primary topic, but the link I gave in comment #6 is ironically appropriate. The ‘paraphrase’ of one of Dawkins’ arguments at then end of “The God Hypothesis 3″ is addressed by that very link.)



report abuse
 

MatthewS

posted April 1, 2010 at 10:37 am


If history had worked out differently, and Michelangelo had been commissioned to paint a ceiling for a giant Museum of Science, mightn?t he have produced something at least as inspirational as the Sistine Chapel?
Is there any reason beyond opinion to answer in the affirmative?
Perhaps this is too hazy a connection, but I wonder if there is any possible interaction between Dawkin’s argument here and the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is partly about accepting reality as we know it rather than supposing what else could or would be.



report abuse
 

Larry

posted April 1, 2010 at 10:41 am


If history had worked out differently, and Michelangelo had been commissioned to paint a ceiling for a giant Museum of Science, mightn?t he have produced something at least as inspirational as the Sistine Chapel?
There has been plenty of secular money available to artists for centuries now, so where are the atheist equivalents to the Sistine Chapel, or the cathedral at Chartres? Who is the atheist Rembrandt? Even if you look at contemporary art, and I will admit that a lot of the explicitly Christian contemporary art is just schlock, it seems to me that the best art is still strongly inspired by religion, even if the works creator is not particularly religious.



report abuse
 

AHH

posted April 1, 2010 at 10:44 am


I think I’d rather have Elton John than most “Contemporary Christian Music”.
Of course the quality of artistic work connected with a belief isn’t very relevant to whether the belief is true or not.
I haven’t read the book, but based on the posts so far and on the one part I read in the National Review, this attempted satire seems more shallow and overreaching than clever, more like Ann Coulter than C.S. Lewis. Not that most of the “new atheist” argumentation is any better, but two wrongs don’t make a right.



report abuse
 

Mark Mathewson

posted April 1, 2010 at 10:48 am


Ray (#6):
I suspect the reason many theists dismiss Dawkins and others like him (e.g., Hitchens) is not due to their using nontraditional terminology of theology but rather using shrill (and often mean-spirited) rhetoric and straw man arguments. Dawkins problem is that when he is attacking Christian beliefs (I won?t speak for the other religions he attacks), he is often attacking misrepresentations or caricatures of Christian beliefs. So, as a Christian theist, I find it easy to dismiss his ?arguments? because they don?t apply to what I believe theism actually claims and/or entails. When Dawkins (and others) begin to care enough to tone down the puerile ranting and attempt to address theism in its serious and strongest forms, I believe theists will take him (and them) more seriously. But, of course, that?s a more difficult intellectual task and won?t sell as many books. In my considered judgment, the ?old atheism? of Antony Flew, Kai Neilsen, and others was so much more reasoned, sensible, thought-provoking, and convincing than anything the ?new atheism? proffers.



report abuse
 

Ray Ingles

posted April 1, 2010 at 10:56 am


Larry, you write,

There has been plenty of secular money available to artists for centuries now, so where are the atheist equivalents to the Sistine Chapel, or the cathedral at Chartres?

Dawkins actually makes a point about that, too:

[W]hat if, as my wife chillingly suggests to me, Skakespeare had been obliged to work to commissions from the Church? We’d surely have lost Hamlet, King Lear, and Macbeth. And what would we have gained in return? Such stuff as dreams are made on? Dream on.

A whole lot of art isn’t particularly religious or not. The Mona Lisa, for example. Art is certainly tied up in the culture it’s made in, but the Greeks didn’t need Christianity to do pretty well on that score. Why should all art that isn’t specifically “atheist” count to religion’s credit?



report abuse
 

Larry

posted April 1, 2010 at 11:08 am


Art is certainly tied up in the culture it’s made in, but the Greeks didn’t need Christianity to do pretty well on that score.
No, but they did need _religion_.
Why should all art that isn’t specifically “atheist” count to religion’s credit?
Didn’t say that it should, but my question, and the author’s of the book in question, still remains: where is the good atheist art, architecture or literature? Why is it, as our society becomes less religious and more secular (or atheist), that our aesthetics seemingly go into the toilet? Where is the great art that is inspired by atheist ideals? What piece of atheist inspired art will be still be attracting viewers in 200 years? 500 years?



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted April 1, 2010 at 11:14 am


Ray, I think you’re missing the point. Eberstadt’s saying that Christian art is great art because it was inspired by belief in God. The issue here is that religious art is inspired by a belief in beauty that transcends this world and that evokes more than we see now. Her critique then is for the atheist artist to offer a theory of Beauty that can evoke the same power.
Listing a few atheist artists isn’t quite the point; of course, of course, there are atheist artists. But the great art of this world has a religious subtext and atheist art does not evoke the same depth. That’s her point, as I see it.
So, the point would be: counter with a powerful atheist aesthetic.



report abuse
 

Jeremy

posted April 1, 2010 at 11:48 am


After reviewing all of the posts, I think my objection in the first post definitely still stands. This is terrible satire. A.F. Christian is no more believably atheist than an upper class white kid that’s never met someone poor pretending to be from the ghetto. Ms. Christian doesn’t believe a word of her claim to be an atheist and it shows. If Eberstadt wants to write good satire, her character has to believe the position she’s espousing, not pay lip service to one team while clearly batting for the other. Screwtape was evil through and through, A.F. Christian is a christian that likes to claim to be an atheist.
If all that was required of satire was to say “Hey guys, I’m an atheist!” then satire would be a dead art. Maybe I’m setting the bar too high, but that’s the prerequisite of greatness, isn’t it?



report abuse
 

Ray Ingles

posted April 1, 2010 at 12:00 pm


Scot – As you point out, I can’t just list atheist artists. Even if I contended that any examples I listed were on the same level as some of the greatest artists in history, others could just say, “Nuh-uh, they aren’t.” You, for example, would presumably say – as you basically did just now – that they don’t “evoke the same depth”.
(The greatness of art is very often only ‘obvious’ in retrospect, anyway. Who really knows what art of the 20th century will really be respected a couple centuries hence?)
I, for example, don’t find religious art particularly appealing, and I certainly don’t find even beautiful examples of religious art beautiful because of their religious themes or grounding. I’ve seen La Piet? in person – and while I appreciated the workmanship and proportion and skill, I found the subject itself terribly tragic and depressing.
So what you want is “a powerful atheist aesthetic”. But if I were to present one, how would we judge it? What standards would we use? In short, how could we know I’d met your challenge? Or could anything I put forth be dismissed as ‘lacking depth’ regardless of its content?



report abuse
 

#John1453

posted April 1, 2010 at 2:14 pm


There is one interesting, and I believe significant visual art trend, that is worth noting and appears to result from the fact that atheists do not have an objective and transcendent meaning to life (I’m not saying no meaning, just not that type). Per atheism everyone is nought but random creations of quantum wave functions, of “particles” acted upon by the four fundamental forces and who existence has no more intrinsic purpose or meaning than any other random collection of particles–like a clod of dirt, for example.
There is nothing particularly inspiring in that, there is little to inspire people to create inspiring art. There is also nothing that really tanscends the individual such that public communiciation in a common language of art symbols / symbolism is important.
I think that is why contemporary art galleries and museums are filled with art that is intentionally ugly or in your face shocking and which indulges in death and decay, including, particularly, excrement. Think of the faeces madonna, or P*** Christ, or other such art that has no religious reference.
regards,
#John



report abuse
 

Adamb

posted April 1, 2010 at 2:38 pm


I think Scot’s comments are the best said and so I will try to respond to his point of argument.
>Listing a few atheist artists isn’t quite the point; of course, of course,
>there are atheist artists. But the great art of this world has a religious
>subtext and atheist art does not evoke the same depth. That’s her point, as I see it.
So listing specific artists is not the point, or even pointing out that some of the artists that were commissioned to work on religious art pieces may or may not have shared the faith of the commissioner is not the point. So we’re not questioning the skill of atheist artists, we’re questioning the subjective viewpoint of the “depth” to the art that is based on a religion, than say based on a non religious artist sentiment.
So is all religious art superior or just Christian like you mentioned? Pagan, Taoist, Buddhist, Muslim, etc. are they as good? And are we limiting this to specific types of art? Music? Sculpture? Architecture? Paintings? Poetry? Literature? Dance? Once you start to list it out like this it starts to seem like an empty argument since it is not unreasonable to find an examples in each of these mediums, religious or not, that will easily hold up to comparison. List out the medium you want to specifically belabor and we can find secular work that has equal beauty and historical import as the religious based work.
And were do we draw the line on religious work? Is the Parthenon more important historically or “evokes more depth” than the Colosseum? Are the Moai statues which may or may not have religious significance counted, or are we limited to western European religions?
And if the argument jumps to include ALL spirituality inspired art, not biasing on any one religion, and predisposing that any religions art is somehow subjectively more “deep” than secular art then that leads to two small issues there also; Historically atheists have hovered around 15% of the populace, and religious intolerance has always been pretty highly valued within almost all religious communities.
Count those variables along side the historical fact that as religions subsume areas, they destroy the previous cultures art, in an attempt to propagate their own sensibilities. This would completely nullify and destroy any traces of work done that was not sanctioned by the current reigning religion.
Imagine the untold art, the poetry, the literature, the history, that was lost due to the burning of the Library of Alexandria by the Archbishop of Theophilus.
This whole argument is bogus. Enduring art is subject to the ravages of history, and historically art has been destroyed quite a bit, and those destroyers more times than not have been those with an opposing religious belief than the original artist.
>So, the point would be: counter with a powerful atheist aesthetic.
The powerful secular aesthetics are plentiful. The human condition, the majesty of nature, the awe of the unknown, fear of all stripes, the joys that all humans experience, injustice, pain, pleasure, love, romance, and a million other examples that have nothing to do with any religion and have everything to do with how all humans face the experiences while they trod on this planet.



report abuse
 

Duke York

posted April 1, 2010 at 2:53 pm


Who’s done the great art in the world? Why? She’s almost taunting them to put forth their best stuff and compare it to “their” best stuff.
Really? She’s proud of that record? First, the religious art of the Renaissance was paid for by criminal extortion, making the poor and the ignorant part with their hard-earned money under the threat of torture, both imaginary — hell — and real — the Inquisition. Of course the kingpin at the head of that criminal organization will use his ill-gotten funds to build himself a nice palace. Look at what Saddam Hussein did. We got some art with excellent technique based on ludicrous stories (the Sistine Chapel, David) and some inspiring music with a tenuous tie to religion (Mozart’s Requium). We also get art that is vile (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion), insane (the book of Revelation), pornographic (the Song of Solomon) and doubt-filled (Job and Ecclesiaties)
More importantly, Ms. Eberstadt is conviently ignoring the fact that her god specifically ordered her not to make these graven images, making the whole experience a bit surreal. She disobeying her god and expecting us to praise her for it. It’s rather like she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar and tried to avoid the spanking by saying she was helping mom the her diet.
Now, of course, Ms. Eberstadt will have some sort of excuse why she doesn’t have to obey that command her god gave her, just like she have some facile excuse why she is allowe to eat pork and shellfish, wear fabrics of different fibers, not kill homosexuals and unruly children, all those other commands her god gave her personally that she feels she’s too good to obey. I hope, for the sake of not appearing to be a hypocrit, that Ms. Eberstadt doesn’t claim to have an absolute standard of morality when it’s so clear she’s just doing “whatever feels good”.
One of those rules that I hope Ms. Eberstadt isn’t too keen on enforcing is from Leviticus 24:16, where her god tells her to kill anyone who blasphemes. Of course most of the rest of Christendom wasn’t so wishy-washy and insincere as Ms. Enberstadt, and this is the main answer to her clever little conundrum. If anyone had tried to do “atheist art”, not only would they have found them without patronage, they would have foun themselves without life! Anyone who lived long enough to develop any talent as an artist had to do exactly what Ms. Eberstadt has done: put on an insincere display of whatever the conventional belief of the time is. Ms. Eberstadt might as well ask where all the strong African-American voices were in the Klu Klux Klan.
Finally, I could find a list of the composers and authors who are atheists, but I don’t want to waste any more time typing it in. In the couple of hundred years since a person could disavow belief in Ms. Eberstadt’s god and not be tortured to death (or at least excluded from society) I think atheists have made an excellent showing. I’m sure she’d disagree: if she can suspend her morality, she can suspend her artistic judgement.



report abuse
 

Ray Ingles

posted April 1, 2010 at 3:03 pm


John1453 –

Per atheism everyone is nought but random creations of quantum wave functions, of “particles” acted upon by the four fundamental forces and who existence has no more intrinsic purpose or meaning than any other random collection of particles–like a clod of dirt, for example.

Eh, only sort of. And humans are definitely not “random collection of particles”.

There is nothing particularly inspiring in that, there is little to inspire people to create inspiring art.

But even if that were true… does it follow that no other possible inspiration might be found?

There is also nothing that really tanscends the individual such that public communiciation in a common language of art symbols / symbolism is important.

Except for the fact that humans are extremely social and don’t need an external compulsion to relate to each other and want to tell stories and convey feelings, viewpoints, and insights.



report abuse
 

Richard

posted April 1, 2010 at 3:13 pm


@21 AdamB
In response to some of the questions I heard you asking, I think the current discussion probably better described as religious aesthetic vs. atheist aesthetic rather than the Christian aesthetic vs atheist aesthetic.
Regarding your example from Greece and Rome, I think anyone would be hard pressed to describe any architecture in Roman and Greek culture that wasn’t religious. I don’t think they would make the sacred/secular separation for the Parthenon and Coliseum that we would.
“The powerful secular aesthetics are plentiful. The human condition, the majesty of nature, the awe of the unknown, fear of all stripes, the joys that all humans experience, injustice, pain, pleasure, love, romance, and a million other examples that have nothing to do with any religion and have everything to do with how all humans face the experiences while they trod on this planet.”
A couple of questions. If the atheist aesthetic is the naturally occurring things they aren’t responsible for, what’s to stop the religious from claiming those same aesthetics? Why do atheists get things like the Iguassu Falls and the Grand Canyon when they’re not man made?
And while beautiful things may come out of pain, injustice, or fear I’m thankful that I’m not the one claiming those as aesthetically powerful in and of themselves.



report abuse
 

Francis Beckwith

posted April 1, 2010 at 4:16 pm


“Think of the major art movements of the 20th century: Futurism Dadaism Cubism Surrealism Abstract expressionism Hyperrealism etc… none NOT ONE of these have a religious element in their philisophical/aesthetic underpinnings” And your point is?
Rebuttal by analogy:
Think of the Sex Pistols, Mothers of Invention, and the Ramones…. none NOT ONE of these have a religious element in their philosophical/aesthetic underpinnings (like Bach, Mozart, etc.).
Exactly!



report abuse
 

Bill Kilpatrick

posted April 2, 2010 at 4:40 am


I think this entire discussion is off the rails. Does anybody seriously think that the religious convictions of the artist, or lack thereof, are the defining characteristics separating great art from garbage? The politics of a given community, whether theological or secular, influence the artist’s hand but in a superficial way. Medieval art cannot be completely separated from its religious patronage, just as postmodern art has reflected the nihilistic fads of 20th-Century life. But art is not art because of ideology, whether the influence is direct or indirect.
No one has remotely suggested that people of faith cannot create great works of art, nor does it make much sense to deny the artistic merit of artists, or their work, because they lack a similar conviction. The qualities that make for great art – whether we’re talking about an interesting truth, creativity in presenting it, the use of color, hue, contrast, lighting, and other details – hardly rest upon the religious convictions of the artist.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Jesus Creed. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:15:58am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Our Common Prayerbook 30 - 3
Psalm 30 thanks God (vv. 1-3, 11-12) and exhorts others to thank God (vv. 4-5). Both emerge from the concrete reality of David's own experience. Here is what that experience looks like:Step one: David was set on high and was flourishing at the hand of God's bounty (v. 7a).Step two: David became too

posted 12:15:30pm Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Theology After Darwin 1 (RJS)
One of the more important and more difficult pieces of the puzzle as we feel our way forward at the interface of science and faith is the theological implications of discoveries in modern science. A comment on my post Evolution in the Key of D: Deity or Deism noted: ...this reminds me of why I get a

posted 6:01:52am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Almost Christian 4
Who does well when it comes to passing on the faith to the youth? Studies show two groups do really well: conservative Protestants and Mormons; two groups that don't do well are mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics. Kenda Dean's new book is called Almost Christian: What the Faith of Ou

posted 12:01:53am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Let's Get Neanderthal!
The Cave Man Diet, or Paleo Diet, is getting attention. (Nothing is said about Culver's at all.) The big omission, I have to admit, is that those folks were hunters -- using spears or smacking some rabbit upside the conk or grabbing a fish or two with their hands ... but that's what makes this diet

posted 2:05:48pm Aug. 30, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.