The Marginal Christian's Handbook.

Richard Dawkins: "The universe is queerer than we can possibly image..."

...but there's nowt so queer as folk.    My favorite "village atheist" on the limits of human perception...an argument which some people might well assert against some of his own theories. At any rate, it's well worth watching; Dawkins is always worth the time. We could all benefit from spending more time thinking about thinking, consciousness, and perception. 

Here's the blurb from the site. 

Biologist Richard Dawkins makes a case for "thinking the improbable" by looking at how our human frame of reference -- the things we can perceive with our five senses, and understand with our eight-pound brain -- limits our understanding of the universe. Think of it: We can't see atoms, we can't see infrared light, we can't hear ultrasonic frequencies, but we know without a doubt that they exist. What else is out there that we can't yet perceive -- what dimensions of space, what aspects of time, what forms of life?

Is he not listening to what he is saying or am I missing something?  Anyway, the talk is well worth hearing and can be found here at TED.   I'll have to listen to it again, after which I'll probably need to update this.

Blogcombing: "What Have the Faithful Done?"

At her excellent (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED) blog, Writing in Faith: Thoughts, Sandy Carlson has posted a beautiful, thought-provoking and very balanced note on how churches as institutions have shown that they can indeed be agents of God's grace (a point on which I've sometimes felt doubt).

I believe that institutional churches of every hue and variety can be agents of God's grace--but only if we first accept that they are very human, very flawed attempts at reaching toward a divine mystery so much greater than ourselves. Teachers come in every shape and size. Sometimes they come in hellish nightmares. So be it. The gift of these lessons is no less a blessing.  (Sandy Carlson)

She then lists 13 "acts of faith--some beautiful, some hellish--as presented by Religion and Ethics."  Read more...

Gallup Poll: Over 80% of Americans Identify as Christian

A Gallup poll about religious beliefs in America doesn't reveal any earth-shaking information.  Still, I thought it was worth a comment. 

About 82% of Americans in 2007 told Gallup interviewers that they identified with a Christian religion. That includes 51% who said they were Protestant, 5% who were "other Christian," 23% Roman Catholic, and 3% who named another Christian faith, including 2% Mormon.

Because 11% said they had no religious identity at all, and another 2% didn't answer, these results suggest that well more than 9 out of 10 Americans who identify with a religion are Christian in one way or the other.  (Gallup)

But only about 62% of those polled identified themselves as belonging to a particular religion go to church.

To summarize, more than 8 in 10 Americans identify with a religion and 8 out of 10 say that religion is at least fairly important in their daily lives; more than 8 out of 10 say they attend church at least "seldom"; and again more than 8 out of 10 identify with a Christian religion  (Gallup).

Interestingly, only 14% of those polled said religion is "increasing" its influence. (Gallup). Of course, how one answers such a question would depend on one's assumption about its current or prevailing influence.   

Ricky Gervais, the Archbishop of Canterbury & The Nativity Story

Get Sol Invictus (The Unvanquishable Sun) by Damozel | This conversation between Ricky Gervais and the Archbishop of Canterbury has rattled a few cages and why?  Because the archbishop acknowledged what I've known since Sunday school days:  the nativity story as we "know" it is a cobbled-together story with elements of myth or legend.  Who knew?   The Telegraph reported:

His comments came during an interview on BBC Radio 5 Live with Simon Mayo yesterday. Later on in the show, the Archbishop was challenged by fellow guest Ricky Gervais, the comedian, about the credibility of the Christmas story.

It's quite clear if you listen to the conversation/read the transcript that the archbishop (NB:  I don't like him)  affirmed his belief in Christ and the Bible.   His critics don't seem to be sufficiently taking in this part:

Gervais told Dr Williams he was concerned about "brainwashing" of children who are sent to faith schools at an early age, comparing teaching that God exists to belief in Father Christmas.

Dr Williams said faith schools expose children to the full range of human experience and values and he did not believe they indoctrinated people. (Archbishop says nativity 'a legend'; emphasis added)

Part of the problem is that the Archbishop is the most diffident cleric ever.  Maybe he was intimidated by Gervais.  No doubt he's as big a fan of The Office and The Extras as I am----how could he not be?  So he didn't fight back as aggressively as he might have and he got himself as thoroughly and awkwardly ensnared as Andy Millman or Maggie ever did in The Extras..  And this all seemed to be due to simple diffidence, not to any intent on the part of Gervais to trap or trick him.    

But he said nothing that I haven't heard every educated cleric I've ever known say.  Here's the video:

Elaine Pagels talks to Salon about the Gospel of Judas.

I was so excited to see this interview.

I love Elaine Pagels. I read her book on the gnostic gospels at least once a year to remind myself not to accept with qualification the received wisdom concerning Christ, the life of Christ, his mission, and his resurrection.  The people who interpreted the Bible got the good news from sources with political as well as religious agenda.  Putting aside the question of whether the Bible should be accepted as the Word of God, direct from the source, the word of its interpreters (including the early church fathers) certainly does not.  Why don't people realize this?  And why aren't people who call themselves Christians or christians as hungry as I am to know the details of Christ's life from every possible angle? 

I know the answer, mind you:  it's because conventional Christians know so little about history, or about the state of the world during Christ's time, about his circumstances, the dangerous and unstable political situation in Judea and Galilee, or anything else that they haven't received via often unqualified Biblical interpreters that they have only the haziest idea of the man who allegedly stilled the water, walked on it, survived or was revived after Crucifixion or came back from the dead, and who referred to himself as "the Son of Man." 

They don't know the significance of his calling himself this, the difference between his calling himself the Son of Man and between those who called him the king of the Jews, or why it makes a difference what he really meant.  They don't know the significance of Pilate's writing, "The king of the Jews" on the tablet placed over his head at Crucifixion or why the priests objected to this.  They don't know the political or religious significance of his ride into the city, his driving the moneychangers from the temple, or his mission to the poor and outcast.  They don't even know that Jesus is just Greek for "Yeshua" or "Joshua."   Furthermore, they don't want to know.

And the reason they don't is that they are afraid that understanding Christ might interfere with their precious "personal relationship"-----as if human beings, gods throughout history, and God himself weren't perpetually anxious and hungry to be understood.   They want to worship him but not to understand him and are afraid of what they might find out if they let in any information that wasn't included by the very politically driven Council of Nicaea 300 years after his life ended.