This is pretty funny, and should make you laugh a lot out loud. But then, if you really start to think about it, it is pretty sad, and it might make you cry a little bit...
Religion makes people silly... (my thought on one of the main points of Jesus' "Good Samaritan" story found in Luke 10:25-37)
Shalom
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Thus Sayeth "The Science"
When did science become “the science”?
With the climate change debate going on at the moment, it seems that I read or hear the term “the science” not just every day, but many times per day. Sure, discussing climate change importantly involves discussing various scientific explorations and discoveries, but when did it become “the science”?
I think the idea behind “the science” is to give scientific exploration and discovery a new kind of status – dubious though it may be... In the pre-modern era, the people used to say, “thus sayeth the Lord”, but in the modern era (some would say “post-modern” era), apparently we are now supposed to say “thus sayeth the science”. There are a few problems with this...
The first thing, in relation to climate change science specifically, is that climate change science is not a “the” in the sense that it is not one science, but a combination of many different kinds of sciences (EG - biology, botany, meteorology, marine, environmental, pollution production science etc...). Climate change science is a “young” science, in that it is an amalgamation of a number of scientific traditions and practices, still finding its way. Another problem with “the” in relation to science is that there is no common consensus on what the various studies on climate change is telling us. There is not a strong sense of “the” in how scientists interpret data on climate change, and in fact, scientists are being accused of being parts of factions or sides in the debate, rather than allowing their results to guide their thinking on the matter. This seems to be an area of great concern, given that the objectivity of science is supposed to be its prime strength. The recent “Climategate” scandal has provided some evidence that these camps exist and there is pressure on the scientific community to demonstrate results that prove one way or the other way, rather than to allow the data to speak for itself. It seems that scientists are human after all, like the rest of us, and that science is not the totally rational, values-free domain many had put their hope in.
I wonder if “the science” is really about science’s last gasp at credibility as we continue to move out of the modern era and into the post-modern era. The modern era was supposed to be about science, technology and rationalism saving the world from all of its sins and problems. Instead, what we have seen is new technology and science bringing with it, new problems and sins to deal with. It is the same old story, told in new ways...
Science is great and has contributed a lot of good to many in the world. But the real issues in the world – like climate change, global poverty, war, first world health and mental health, global financial crises etc – will not ultimately be solved by “the science”. These issues need an approach that considers the human condition, not just "the science" involved. The kind of good will that will solve these kinds of problems are found in the teachings of all the Bible and of Jesus – care for neighbours, care for strangers, care for "the least", generosity, hospitality, the common purse, the common good etc etc...
Maybe it is time to go back to “thus sayeth the Lord” and rediscover what it might mean in this post-modern time...?
Shalom...
With the climate change debate going on at the moment, it seems that I read or hear the term “the science” not just every day, but many times per day. Sure, discussing climate change importantly involves discussing various scientific explorations and discoveries, but when did it become “the science”?
I think the idea behind “the science” is to give scientific exploration and discovery a new kind of status – dubious though it may be... In the pre-modern era, the people used to say, “thus sayeth the Lord”, but in the modern era (some would say “post-modern” era), apparently we are now supposed to say “thus sayeth the science”. There are a few problems with this...
The first thing, in relation to climate change science specifically, is that climate change science is not a “the” in the sense that it is not one science, but a combination of many different kinds of sciences (EG - biology, botany, meteorology, marine, environmental, pollution production science etc...). Climate change science is a “young” science, in that it is an amalgamation of a number of scientific traditions and practices, still finding its way. Another problem with “the” in relation to science is that there is no common consensus on what the various studies on climate change is telling us. There is not a strong sense of “the” in how scientists interpret data on climate change, and in fact, scientists are being accused of being parts of factions or sides in the debate, rather than allowing their results to guide their thinking on the matter. This seems to be an area of great concern, given that the objectivity of science is supposed to be its prime strength. The recent “Climategate” scandal has provided some evidence that these camps exist and there is pressure on the scientific community to demonstrate results that prove one way or the other way, rather than to allow the data to speak for itself. It seems that scientists are human after all, like the rest of us, and that science is not the totally rational, values-free domain many had put their hope in.
I wonder if “the science” is really about science’s last gasp at credibility as we continue to move out of the modern era and into the post-modern era. The modern era was supposed to be about science, technology and rationalism saving the world from all of its sins and problems. Instead, what we have seen is new technology and science bringing with it, new problems and sins to deal with. It is the same old story, told in new ways...
Science is great and has contributed a lot of good to many in the world. But the real issues in the world – like climate change, global poverty, war, first world health and mental health, global financial crises etc – will not ultimately be solved by “the science”. These issues need an approach that considers the human condition, not just "the science" involved. The kind of good will that will solve these kinds of problems are found in the teachings of all the Bible and of Jesus – care for neighbours, care for strangers, care for "the least", generosity, hospitality, the common purse, the common good etc etc...
Maybe it is time to go back to “thus sayeth the Lord” and rediscover what it might mean in this post-modern time...?
Shalom...
Thursday, December 3, 2009
I can relate to this...
Cartoon by Dave Walker. Find more cartoons you can freely re-use on your blog at We Blog Cartoons.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Christianity and Politics
I just listened to a very interesting podcast by Tony Campolo entitled "Christianity and Politics". It was recorded before Barack Obama became the President of the USA and includes a great quote from him.I'd recommend a listen to it if you are into such things. It can be found by clicking here ...
Shalom...
Steve
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
The Rise of "The Mad Monk"
Is anyone else concerned that the nick name of the new opposition leader is "The Mad Monk"? Tony Abbott ended a pretty tumultuous week for the Coalition by getting voted in as the new leader of the party by 1 vote. He certainly seems to have a big job ahead of him to unite the party and start moving ahead towards the next election. Not everyone is thrilled with the choice of "The Mad Monk" as new leader. Some have concerns with the "mad" part, saying that he is a bit erratic and outspoken, while others are more concerned with the "monk" part. In The Australian today, there were a number of articles about him, describing him as "Conservative" and as a "Devout Catholic". These terms appeared almost always together, painting them as related traits, if not as the same thing. In Tony Abbott's case, this is probably true. In Australia, there has been a long relationship between Conservative politics and the mainstream Christian churches. And for each of us, there is certainly some connection between our worldview or spirituality and our political ideology.
Eva Cox, the Chairwoman of WEL (Women's Electoral Lobby) said that Tony Abbott, "lets his personal religious views interfere with his political role and I think that that's a problem." In 2004, talking about the relationship between his faith and politics, Abbott said, "Christian politicians can not check their faith into the parliamentary cloakroom and be otherwise indistinguishable from everyone else. Still, modern society is not a community of believers and the parliament is not the place to make rules for one." I think that Tony Abbott "gets it". He is no dummy and has clearly thought through his own position on this.
I don't know anyone who checks their world view or spirituality into the 'cloakroom' before before doing their job or living their life. We all certainly have to apply our world view appropriately in the context we find ourselves in at any given time. Our world view is the means by which we engage with and interpret the world, and this most importantly applies to those areas of life where difficult decisions need to be made or strong points need to be debated (EG - in politics!). On one hand, I find it odd that some people expect politicians to 'check their faith' into the cloakroom and then perform their political role.
It reminds me of those old Warner Brothers cartoons with the sheep dog and the coyote, where they used to clock in, fight like blazes, then clock off and go home arm in arm. This was funny because it was a bit ridiculous. I don't know any politicians who don't profess some kind of faith who are expected to leave their world view and values in 'the cloakroom' before doing their job. So, I think that there is a double-standard going on here to an extent.
On the other hand, I don't think that politicians should push their personal beliefs, spiritual or otherwise, in the political arena. The role of politicians is to represent the needs, wishes and desires of their electorate, and to do this in such a way so as to reflect their personal faith stance or world view.
Being a politician in a truly democratic society, seems to me to mean that you would need to ensure that you were representing all the views of your electorate with integrity, and work out the way you would do that "Christianly" (whatever that looks like)... As well as this, in a truly democratic , and even secular, society, those of the Christian faith have a right to engage in the political processes and have their voices heard. Politicians certainly have a right to be Christians and participate in the process without slicing themselves up into spiritual and non-spiritual beings.
Whatever that looks like... So, to all you Christian politicians out there - good luck with that...
Shalom...
Eva Cox, the Chairwoman of WEL (Women's Electoral Lobby) said that Tony Abbott, "lets his personal religious views interfere with his political role and I think that that's a problem." In 2004, talking about the relationship between his faith and politics, Abbott said, "Christian politicians can not check their faith into the parliamentary cloakroom and be otherwise indistinguishable from everyone else. Still, modern society is not a community of believers and the parliament is not the place to make rules for one." I think that Tony Abbott "gets it". He is no dummy and has clearly thought through his own position on this.
I don't know anyone who checks their world view or spirituality into the 'cloakroom' before before doing their job or living their life. We all certainly have to apply our world view appropriately in the context we find ourselves in at any given time. Our world view is the means by which we engage with and interpret the world, and this most importantly applies to those areas of life where difficult decisions need to be made or strong points need to be debated (EG - in politics!). On one hand, I find it odd that some people expect politicians to 'check their faith' into the cloakroom and then perform their political role.
It reminds me of those old Warner Brothers cartoons with the sheep dog and the coyote, where they used to clock in, fight like blazes, then clock off and go home arm in arm. This was funny because it was a bit ridiculous. I don't know any politicians who don't profess some kind of faith who are expected to leave their world view and values in 'the cloakroom' before doing their job. So, I think that there is a double-standard going on here to an extent.On the other hand, I don't think that politicians should push their personal beliefs, spiritual or otherwise, in the political arena. The role of politicians is to represent the needs, wishes and desires of their electorate, and to do this in such a way so as to reflect their personal faith stance or world view.
Being a politician in a truly democratic society, seems to me to mean that you would need to ensure that you were representing all the views of your electorate with integrity, and work out the way you would do that "Christianly" (whatever that looks like)... As well as this, in a truly democratic , and even secular, society, those of the Christian faith have a right to engage in the political processes and have their voices heard. Politicians certainly have a right to be Christians and participate in the process without slicing themselves up into spiritual and non-spiritual beings.Whatever that looks like... So, to all you Christian politicians out there - good luck with that...
Shalom...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
