It doesn't take long before one discovers the religious boundary lines of students. They are not always aware of them. It takes a little prodding and poking with questions to get at those sacred, forbidden or sheltered subjects.
Like losing one's keys in the mud and fingering around uncertainly, many find the experience uncomfortable.
When it comes to the discussion of religion -- or, for my theological colleagues, the discussion of doctrine -- no questions should be pulled off the table. We need questions to keep us honest.
True, too many questions at once can, at times, keep us from doing justice to any one of them. Nevertheless, having our untouchables -- those beliefs that are off limits to questions -- only provide a veneer of impeccability. There is little reason to decorate an admiral at sea whose heavily armored battleship only ever fought canoes.
Being a professor, I often have more time than my students to consider the questions that are relevant to religion. There is a part of teaching that should be non-judgmental, that is, where we study religious beliefs and attempt to be dispassionate about them, seeking objectivity. I know from personal experience, however, that I cannot eliminate my own perspective entirely.
Whatever I study inevitably spills over into the bigger questions I have for myself, and I imagine this to be the same for my students.
In the classroom, however, I'm often just pushing back the brush covering the path that I've already taken. I want my students to see that others have already traveled this trail of thought and found it worthy. I want my students to begin considering the ideas that I've been engaged in for years. I want to say, "Hey, it's alright to ask these things. It may be the only way forward."
But then there is the time I'm off the clock -- if there is such a thing for someone like me. This is the time I begin treading new ground for myself, both professionally and personally. I may not be in the classroom, but I'm constantly looking forward to that new question and potential answer, even when the answer is painful.
I've had to mourn over lost beliefs.
Books, conversations with colleagues, online discussions on Facebook or Google+ -- all of these provide avenues for the consideration of new ideas. Much the same, I especially look forward to the annual American Academy of Religion meeting, which is in San Francisco this weekend. This provides an opportunity for me to venture where others have already found gain, to not only be better at my job, but also to be a better person by exploring the possibilities. It is a chance to practice what I teach.
At The AAR, I get to explore the ramifications of neuroscience for religion by listening to papers in the Cognitive Science of Religion group, or learn more about religion in the ancient Near East, or even discover new models for teaching in religious studies. I break the bubble of my small world when I engage the minds of others outside of my usual circle and specific field, or when I brave that book I barely have time for in a world of grading and course prep.
I do this because questions are essential for life and engaging others is essential for finding them. Questions are treasures worthy of the hunt and they can set the truth free.
Follow Brandon G. Withrow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bwithrow
Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: Peace Breaks Out in the War Between Religion and Science
To debate religion, we must first find out what people believe | Julian ...
Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free ...
Religion Vs Science Debate | More fuel for faith-vs.-science debate ...
Why the Religion and Science Debate Continues? » Evangel | A ...
We don't need to prove that there's no God. Keep asking as much as you like, that will be the answer. Bertrand Russell summed it up very nicely in 1958 when explaining why he was an atheist, and I quote:
"I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely."
Science hold to the belief that organic life cannot come from inorganic life. Yet this is what the theory of evolution claims happened. It is as much a theory as it was decades ago.
If evoltion is the origin of life: why do animals become extinct instead of continuing to evolve. Why hasn't man evolved into something else? Why hasn't the Croc evolved? Why did the process of evolution just go kapoof?
Most importantly, why would anyone hold to an admitted theory as if it were facts?
Christians study science too; we just don't worship it.
Whether there is a God or not: do you ever wonder whether Jesus might never have existed?
Whether Jesus existed or not: do you wonder whether the teachings ascribed to Him might be completely unrealistic? For example, Jesus is said to have said: when someone strikes you, turn the other cheek. Is this good advice? We don't tend to think that it's wrong or sinful for someone to react to being physically assaulted by calling the police and having the assaulter prosecuted, do we? And if they don't do that, or fight back, shouldn't they at least cover up, protect themselves, or run away? Hopefully these questions suggest many other equally pertinent ones regarding the lessons of Jesus which supposedly are followed by billions, but of course rarely if ever actually followed by anyone, and that's good thing..
Question can set the truth free. Questions faster than one can comprehend becomes counter productive.
The question "How do you know what words are God's in the Bible?" afforded me a starting point. Ex.31:18 & 32:16 state that the law was written with God's own hand. I assume the 613 laws are the word of God.
Again, pondering the question: "How do you know what words are God's in the Bible" set this bit of truth free. Had I not diligently considered the question this post would not be up.
Oh, atheists, I know, I know, yada, yada, yada. I get it; you don't believe in God; not addressing you..
"I get it"
No, you don't.
"not addressing you"
Sorry, it's a public forum. Everybody gets to comment on everything.
If evolution is the cause of life, why do animals become extinct? Why hasn't man become something else? Why hasn't the Croc changed? Why, after decades is the Theory of Evolution still, just a theory?
Consider: The very nature of a revelation, must by definition, lead reason beyond it's own limits or there would be no purpose in the message. And purpose is what can be demonstrated by reality to be true. Did God raise Jesus from the dead to demonstrate perfectly that He is prepared to act, to intervene directly into the natural world to accomplish His will? Why even speak of an omnipotent, omniscient God unless the means existed, by faith, to access the power of that ultimate wisdom.
The 'authority' of tradition is not part of any criteria fro truth. Theology offers only dogma and doctrine to express and embellish its claims; ignoring the vision of peace, justice, wisdom and other unfulfilled promises that institutional religion has no means to realize. The religious quest is unfinished. It may not have even started. . . .yet! http://www.energon.org.uk
The more I asked, the more I moved from fundamentalism. Many questions asked have never been answered. The Christmas Tsunami of 2004 wrenched a "Why?" out of my heart, and I viciously refused any explanations based on platitudes. I came close to renouncing faith -- but didn't.
Talking with others, I discovered the errors in Creationism. This huge, supposedly all-important idea that "proved" the Bible was based on lies, deceits and utter falsehoods. My faith suffered severe stress, moving further from fundamentalism and conservatism toward a more liberal interpretation.
The most important question of all is, "Why?" I search for it, I want to understand things in context. While I have not renounced faith, I'm grateful for the stresses that changed my perspective. I can put faith to work in the here and now, understanding faith is not about having all the answers. The Bible doesn't have all the answers. But now, in asking questions, I can do my own searching.
what sets the truth free is realizations. the awakening that happens in an instant.
not a conversion or a discovery or knowledge they are only part of the process.
I have found there are two groups of followers that do not like questions about their beliefs.
the religious and the materialists.
thoreau was correct when he stated there is more religion in men's science then science in their religion. find one atheist that understands that bit of wisdom.
while at that conference ask how a christian nation as proclaimed followers of jesus supports an industrial military complex and 720 military bases around the world.
"Is realizations" or epiphanies really the way to "truth"? I think not. The sensationalized moments of clarity is a myth. Every bit of knowledge we've acquired is doubted and scrutinized regardless of its source...even if it is your own observations. What sets "truth" free is doubt, skepticism, cynicism, and scrutiny. What sets "truth" free is a process that takes time and many, many, many perspectives...which are then doubted and reexamined.
Thoreau was incorrect in what he stated, unless he meant that "religion" was a set of practices/actions or a ritual in science that is followed, but even still there is a problem as a ritual is usually symbolic in practice and the process of science is not. That is the same claim that atheism is a religion...pssssssstttttt....it's not. It doesn't take faith to be an atheist and there is no faith in science...don't mix-up hope and faith...we can expect outcomes based on evidence (hope) but science is not a faith based practice.
Here's to your continued courage!
The guideline of doing the right thing and allowing relevant authorities to manage matters of impropriety and societal direction appears to be increasingly less valid as purveyors of impropriety appear to be infiltrating decision-making positions by using our society’s apparent self-interest ethic against it.
Exploration of these issues both individually and as a community appears to be important.
** religions reduce to illegitimate political institutions
All gods are dead. With divinities gone religions appear as are, institutions wielding illegitimate political (secular) power based on wholly irrational claims of cult.
• To reason with xians about their tall tales ends in illogical defenses of core commitments = creeds. Apologetics is a waste of time. Theology, that subject without an object, is fifth-rate fan fiction.
Religious institutions -- prominently fundie, dominionist, mormon, catholic -- are centers of anti-democratic ideology which deserve no more respect than any other enemy of the Open Society. Their intolerance cannot be tolerated in a secular state. They have no place in making public policy.
• The irrelevance of gods to political legitimacy in an Open Society was carefully engineered by James Madison, chief architect of the Constitution. The deistic “God”, “Providence”, “Nature’s God”, “Nature” of 1776 evaporated when creating the first purpose built secular state in 1786.
The US Constitution guarantees a radical right which millions of xians would deny to all citizens — the right of freedom of conscience. The right not to serve self-anointed god-proxies -- pastor, priest, rabbi, imam -- of a sadistic “father” common to the Big-3 Monster Theisms.
• Even should some god exist, each citizen has the sovereign political right to reject any claim that *it* must be acknowledged, accepted, or worshiped.
the anti_supernaturalist