RT: Darwin’s Heretic

This presentation by James K.A. Smith on “Postmodernity and the Future of God” is in my opinion, a really good critique on how postmodernism can be easily misunderstood and often masked in modernism. For example, much of the contemporary discourse of religion by ‘the new atheists’ is really just a continued strand of modernity. Post-modern theorists do not engage religion as such.

Smith also critiques Derrida’s ideas of a pure religion as a kind of postmodern gnosticism and suggests another assumption that is grounded on incarnational logic.

I highly recommend this presentation… here are some highlighted notes I took:

1. There is no such thing as ‘pure’ reason – thinking independently apart from influence: There is no such thing as an un-biased; un-traditioned; neutral; subjective standpoint.

2. Secularism defines rational discourse as non-particular, but postmodern philosophical critique recognizes that secularism has it’s own set of assumptions, beliefs, and commitments

3. Derrida states that any specified particular (such as religion) is inherently violent. Derrida proposes a pure religion (generalized) that sheds away any particular traditional religion. Smith’s critique on this view is that it is still modernism.

4. Derrida’s whole project is motivated by the assumption that as soon as you say something specific about the deity, or make a particular historical claim, you have made it finite, and have got the ball of violence rolling. specificity is related to violence.

5. However, the move of wanting to leave behind embodiment, materiality, history, to arrive at some sort of pure untainted ideal… was once embraced as gnosticism. When viewed from that perspective… Derrida’s generalized pure religion starts to look a lot like a kind of postmodern gnosticism.

6. What if we started from a different assumption… rather then finite/particular = violent. but from an incarnational perspective: Incarnational logic embraces the goodness of finitude.

7. A true postmodern sensibility embraces the particularities. an unapologetic discourse that makes room for the tradition and the specific.

Then they grow up

And suddenly they stop asking questions and prefer to answer them. Suddenly it’s too risky to ask questions; too inappropriate. Asking questions might evoke responses that require change, and that can be messy.

Much easier to have the answers then to ask the questions.

When we compare ourselves to people who are less fortunate then us (whatever that may mean for you), we may begin to feel a bit superior.

When we compare ourselves to people who are more fortunate then us, we may begin to feel a bit covetous. why him, why not me?

For reasons unknown to us… God has given each of us unique lives to live… with different circumstances; different talents and different challenges. We have a responsibility to respond to the life we have been given. ‘Comparing’ robs us of that uniqueness.

An Occupy Wall-street protester robs a bank. See how Occupy Wall-street protestors are really criminals.

A Tea-party member holds up a racist sign. See how Tea-partiers are all really racists.

We define away categories of people by the behavior of the one. It creates a stereo-type… it’s a form of superiority. Oh… you are a Christian… therefore, you must believe that ….(fill in the blank).

But people are far too complex to paint with a broad brush. A group or category can never truly define the uniqueness of the person. You have to look past the surface.

If you look at the current landscape of creation theories , there are differing opinions being discussed. I thought I would outline the most popular views to show the broad distinctions. I’m sure this isn’t the full spectrum of theories, and these happen to be more specific to Christianity. Nevertheless, these might be helpful in recognizing the terms being discussed.

As a preface, I want to mention that this post isn’t about what is scientifically compatible or not? That is a much larger discussion. It is however, important to mention that there are well respected scientists who hold these positions.

Young Earth Creationism: This is the view that interprets the Genesis account most literally, concluding that God created the world in six twenty-four-hour days, less than ten thousand years ago. The most popular organization that spearheads this view is ‘Answers in Genesis, ‘ most notably promoted by founder Ken Ham.

Old Earth Creationism: This view tends to also interpret the Genesis account literally, but allows that the time periods are much longer. For example, the ‘days’ in the Genesis account are viewed as periods of time or geological epochs. The organization that is most popular for promoting this view is Hugh Ross’s ‘Reasons to Believe’

Intelligent Design: This movement does not adhere to any one religious viewpoint, but is founded on the assumption that since life if complex, there must be an intelligent agent responsible for life. There is generally a skepticism in ID regarding maco-evolution, claiming that there is not enough substantial evidence in science to suggest Darwinian evolution as fact. This view is generally promoted by the senior fellows of the Discovery Institute.

Theistic Evolution: This viewpoint holds that God created life using natural processes and maco-evolutionary change. Darwinian evolution via natural selection and random mutation is often embraced as the mechanism of God’s creative process. However, there are distinctions in the Theistic Evolution camp on how God is involved. Some hold that God simply kicked things off by allowing creation to self-create via random mutation (deism), while others hold that God is intimately involved in the process. The organization that is most popular via theistic evolution is BioLogos.

——-

In each of these views, particularly ID and Theistic Evolution, there are also differing opinions on the specifics. I am cautious not to make too many generalizations on these positions because of that reason.

My own personal opinion is I tend to favor the ID approach with an open mind towards theistic evolution. In terms of my beliefs, this topic isn’t necessarily a hill I plan to die on. I could be convinced either way, and I don’t build my theology on any specific creation story as the foundation of my faith.

I would say though, that I’ve always been fascinated in the creation stories. Contemplating and studying the origins of life is another way of looking at the beauty of God.

Every New Years day I look forward to watching some of the Twilight Zone Marathon that plays on the Sci Fi channel, and there will inevitably be some shows that I haven’t seen before. This year I was intrigued by one show titled ‘A Penny for your Thoughts.’

A bank clerk named Mr. Poole gains telepathic powers after tossing a coin that miraculously stands on its edge. He discovers that he is able to ‘listen’ to other people’s thoughts. This turns out to be a curse for Mr. Poole… why?

because he discovers the ugliness that is inside humanity.

“it’s like seeing people with their clothes off. I never imagined people were like that” – Mr. Poole

Imagine if you had the ability to hear what people are really thinking as they go about their business during the day. I know that in my own mind, I am constantly needing to correct my thoughts, It’s a struggle to think morally upright. And that’s the problem right? as much as we like to think we are morally good… when we look deep inside, there’s a sickness inside us.

The way out is to rationalize that even if these thoughts do creep in, since we are not acting on them, then we must be morally good. Of course there is a decency to virtues; to developing good character; to not allowing bad intentions to empower us. But what Mr. Poole discovers, and what seems very real to me.. is that we are trying to correct what is inherently natural in us. A conflict that is part of our natural self. Not meant to be there, but nevertheless finds its way like a cancer.

I think that for me, what made most sense of the Christian worldview at first, was this idea of human depravity. Not something that is out there somewhere, but a sickness in our souls.

Although I grew up Catholic, I had never really noticed how Cathedrals such as this one (St. Pats in NYC) encapsulate all of the senses.

The incense for smell
The lighting for sight
The holy water for touch
Both deep silence and then bells and chants for sound
The distance and yet closeness of the altar for motion
The eucharist for taste

All of which play a part in creating a sacred space

———

more pics from my photostream can be viewed here

As I reflect on 2011, the primary thing that comes to mind is ‘change.’ Everything is in motion, everything changes. This past year more then others has instilled that truth in me… globally, locally, and personally… nothing stays the same for very long.

Change is good, but because it is uncertain it is often unnerving. Since we like to plan and know what the future holds for us, we battle against change. Discovering that ‘change’ is common reminds me that the events of the future will always be more about trust and faith, and less about control.