Academia & Ecclesia

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/10/is-philosophy-the-most-practical-major/246763/

See a brief talk by Dr. Damon Horowitz at Stanford: http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~janzb/humanities/humcareers.htm

The theological tradition of orthodox Christianity is imbued with excessive and unnecessary metaphysical baggage. So, I propose that Christians should consider what I call creedal minimalism in their formulations of their statements of faith. It is the view that ecclesiastical or academic Christian institutions should simply require the barest minimum set of theological beliefs for qualifying for membership. I call this set of beliefs the kernel of the Christian faith: 1. God, who created the universe, ultimately revealed God’s love and grace through the religious history of ancient Israel, the life and teachings of Jesus, and the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit in the history of the church. 2. Through God’s mighty acts in history, God is faithfully fulfilling God’s covenant to redeem God’s creation from its bondage to sin, suffering, and death. 3. The Bible, i.e. Old and New Testaments, is the most authoritative written witness to God’s creative, revelatory, and redeeming acts

I am a bit embarrassed to admit that I just started reading Sam Harris’ "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" and that I’m actually liking it so far. Firstly, it’s a little late to read it now, considering that all the hypes about the book have almost subsided completely. The book might be a bit outdated already. It’s like commenting on a book that is already out of print or a book that one commonly finds in the bargain sections of major bookstores. As a matter of fact, I just recently got a copy of it for 75 cents from a used bookstore of a public library. Secondly, I am not supposed to like this book, since I am an adherent of a religion. Most religionists who read and reacted to the book tried to figure out something degrading to say about the book. I don’t feel the urge to do the same. Don’t get me wrong here. Although I am sympathetic to the criticisms of religion, I am not a closet atheist or agnostic. Although some philosophers (even nonreli

http://chronicle.com/article/From-Technologist-to/128231/?sid=wb&utm_source=wb&utm_medium=en

I am not a fan of Bill Maher. As a matter of fact, I find him to be annoying. His obnoxiousness does not appeal to me. But I watched Maher’s “Religulous.” Essentially, it is a documentary that pokes fun at the credulity of religious people and the ridiculousness of religious claims (Christianity in particular). Although I am a Christian, I surprisingly like “Religulous.” It appears sacrilegious or blasphemous for a Christian to watch it. But I think that Christians should watch it. Rottenness is sometimes not readily visible. It infects the inner core and gradually sets the process of decay. Sometimes the truth about a certain condition becomes more visible, when someone uninhibitedly brings out in the open the rottenness of what many consider to be sacred. So, there has to be a playing field, where nothing is sacred. In that playing field, we discover even that which is initially unimaginable. In a playing field where freethinking is suppressed in order to protect the sacred, the mind

Although the Assemblies of God is commonly associated with evangelical fundamentalism, it is actually a denomination that is coming-of-age. Just look at the revised version of its position on the doctrine of creation: http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/PP_The_Doctrine_of_Creation.pdf Unlike its former position on the issue, it does not reject (at least explicitly) the theory of evolution. In addition, as a denomination, it does not associate itself with any political party, considering that, as an organization, it is apolitical and, for the sake of unity, it considers the attempt to associate the church with any political party as deeply divisive. http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/topics/contempissues_09_government.cfm http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/topics/contempissues_10_politics.cfm About a year ago, I was accused of being a wolf in sheep's clothing by an Assemblies of God pastor for supporting the same positions.

While I was driving yesterday, I ended up listening to a Christian radio station. The hosts with a special guest pointed out how creationist students are persecuted by evolutionist professors. The special guest who was a former student in a secular university exaggeratedly related a story about a biology professor who would not write a recommendation letter for a student who did not affirm the truth of the theory of evolution. While I was listening, it dawned on me what exactly is the problem with the perspectives of fundamentalist creationists and dogmatic evolutionists. It appears to me that both of them are confused about the nature of a theory (especially a scientific one). I usually hear creationists claiming that the theory of evolution is a mere philosophical theory. So, they claim that it is not intellectually superior to creationism. On the other hand, evolutionists usually claim that the theory of evolution is actually a scientific theory, while creationism is a mere religiou

For a more sensible evangelical stance on politics, see http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/manifesto.php