(Return to my home page) : Blog Home : May 2006
The Truthiness Will Set You Free
May 2, 2006 10:59
Hats off to comedian Colbert for coming up with the concept of 'truthiness'. As a religion professor, I find this term denotes the most common hurdle students face in trying to do any kind of critical thinking, much less about religion. How can there be any historical uncertainty, much less doubt, about the details of the Exodus from Egypt, or the life of Jesus, when it feels so right?
Let me simply reiterate the statement attributed to Jesus in John's Gospel: "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free". For a historian, whether or not Jesus said these words is uncertain: they are found only in John's Gospel, and the words placed on the lips of Jesus in this Gospel match the author's own style. For many Christians, these historical questions are either completely foreign to them - things they have never even heard, much less thought about - or they are indications of doubt, skepticism and unbelief. Yet if one believes that the truth will make us free, then the truth cannot be something that we explore only subjectively with our hearts. The heart and the head cannot be separated - well they can when you are talking literally, but I'm using this language metaphorically here!!! If we fear exploring historical, scientific, psychological and other questions because they will challenge our beliefs, we do not have the truth. We have truthiness. Of course, you might just happen to have the truth, but so might the people you disagree with. The only way to find out is to dare to think, to explore, to examine. Someone once said that you never truly believe something until you have looked seriously at the views of those who disagree with you. This is the path that leads beyond truthiness to truth. I encourage and indeed applaud anyone brave enough to take that path.
The New "Who's On First" [I received this as a forwarded e-mail and thought it was worth sharing]
May 3, 2006 10:44
George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?
Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.
George: Great. Lay it on me.
Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.
George: That's what I want to know.
Condi: That's what I'm telling you.
George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes.
George: I mean the fellow's name.
Condi: Hu.
George: The guy in China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The new leader of China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The main man in China!
Condi: Hu is leading China.
George: Now whaddya' asking me for?
Condi: I'm telling you, Hu is leading China.
George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?
Condi: That's the man's name.
George: That's who's name?
Condi: Yes.
George: Will you, or will you not, tell me the name of the new leader of China?
Condi : Yes, sir.
George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he's dead in the Middle East.
Condi: That's correct.
George: Then who is in China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir is in China?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Then who is?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Look Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.
Condi: Kofi?
George: No, thanks.
Condi: You want Kofi?
George: No.
Condi: You don't want Kofi.
George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N.
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi?
George: Milk! Will you please make the call?
Condi: And call who?
George: Who is the guy at the U.N?
Condi: Hu is the guy in China
George: Will you stay out of China?!
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi.
George: All right! With cream and two sugars.
My first ever TV appearance (Fox 59 on The Da Vinci Code)
May 12, 2006 11:54
I will be making my TV debut on the Fox 59 Morning Show one week from Today (Friday, May 19th 2006) at 8:15am. The show will be looking at The DaVinci Code movie. In case you are wondering, I am planning on seeing the movie, and I do expect to enjoy it. This is mainly because I found the book to be a page-turner and I tend to like the mystery/spy thriller genre.
What I do not expect, however, is for the movie to bear any resemblance to actual events. I expect, when the final credits are finished, to see the disclaimer that reads 'The persons depicted in this movie were fictional. Any resemblance to actual persons living or dead is entirely unintentional', as opposed to the one that claims a basis in fact but that some events have been 'fictionalized'. The movie, like the book, I am certain will not live up to the book's claim that depictions of historical events and artefacts are accurate. As anyone who knows early Christian history will confirm, they are not.
There are two positions that are equally different from the approach that historians take to ancient texts and events. Some adhere to the view that the Gospel accounts in the New Testament are the inerrant source of our knowledge about Jesus, this being supplemented by Church teachings (in some traditions explicitly, but in all traditions in one form or another). The other viewpoint rejects the New Testament and historic Christian viewpoint and replaces it by buying wholeheartedly into another, that found in other Gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Mary.
Neither of these approaches reflects the historian's approach, which involves sifting through any and all early accounts, and assessing each story, saying and detail on its merits. This means that the New Testament Gospels will have a more important place, being earlier. The historical approach to Jesus is not shocking to Christians because it gives priority to other extracanonical sources (only the Gospel of Thomas and a few other fragmentary works have any real possibility of being of value to historians, and even so their testimony is for the most part only useful when confirmed by other sources). Rather, the shock for most Christians is that the word of even the four canonical Gospels is doubted. Historical study means subjecting every claim to scrutiny, evaluating evidence, and determining what we can prove 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I hope that both the supporters and the detractors of The DaVinci Code will take the time to actually read what a serious historian has to say about Jesus, and try to understand how that differs from the views taken in mainstream churches and in Dan Brown's novel. Particularly useful are the books on the historical Jesus by E. P. Sanders, Marcus Borg and Tom Wright, Ehrman, and Theissen and Merz, as well as the overview of recent scholarship by Mark Allan Powell.
Enjoy the movie...but I sincerely hope that those interested not only in entertainment but in the historical figure of Jesus will read serious scholarly books on the topic and not merely the popular works of apologists and conspiracy theorists.
The Da Vinci Code...true after all?
May 17, 2006 13:58
Perhaps I have been wrong, and the Da Vinci Code has it right after all. No, I am not changing my judgment regarding the historical facts and their misrepresentation in the novel. But the Da Vinci Code claims that the Christian church has been engaged in conspiracies to cover up the truth, suppress dissident voices, and on the whole silence objectors. And the popular reaction in many circles around the world shows precisely why this depiction of events seems credible to so many. Protests, boycotts, demands for censorship, even hunger strikes have been undertaken by Christians around the world. Well, let's hear it once again for those (apparently large numbers of) people who don't understand when their actions and reactions serve only to confirm the views they claim to be fighting against.
Democracy rather than religion is the key issue here. Why is it that so many religious believers support democracy until it allows someone to voice an opinion opposed to theirs? Then, as if their support of democracy was nothing but a sham, they call for their opponents to be silenced. The Christians who are reacting in this way are not fundamentally (if you'll excuse the pun) different from those Muslims who protested the cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad not long ago.
Democracy (as we understand it in the United States, at any rate) works only if it protects the basic rights and freedoms of everyone, including minorities. Otherwise you have dictatorship of the majority, and the majority is often wrong and intolerant. So by all means forego seeing the movie, by all means be outspoken in denouncing its historical inaccuracies, by all means express your faith and share it with others. But if you cross the line and demand that the filmmakers or fans keep silent, then you are opposing democracy. And as someone who knows a lot more about the history of the early Christian Church than Dan Brown appears to, I am scared that anyone would undermine the system that allows us to share our faith in this country. This suggests to me that not only Dan Brown, but most Christians do not know enough about the history of either the early Church or the contemporary one. If Christians genuinely understood about being thrown to the lions, or being restricted in Communist countries, they would have more respect for the democratic ideal that lets them express themselves freely. Having one's detractors free to express themselves as well is not only a small price to pay for such freedom, but it is the only thing that can genuinely keep us honest, for you don't truly believe something until you've been confronted with the opposing viewpoints.
(Related Link)
Proud to be at Butler
May 18, 2006 09:26
I have always liked Butler University, and was delighted when I was hired. But it gave me a special sense of pride at having my name associated with this institution when I saw that Butler is mentioned in an article in today's New York Times. The subject: students cheating on exams, and Butler was mentioned as taking serious steps to counter and to combat this growing trend.
After catching yet another student plagiarizing this past semester, I've decided to be even tougher than I have been in the past. From now on, any sort of academic dishonesty will be punished by automatic failure of the course, and not just of that particular assignment. I fear that otherwise, a student might make it all the way to graduation without being called to account for such behavior.
Although there are many different approaches to ethics, I think Kant's approach is the best explanation of what is wrong with cheating (including plagiarizing and other forms of intellectual dishonesty). It is looking for a free ride in a system that only works because everyone else is paying. In other words, if professors knew that all students are cheating, they would simply give up on examinations of that particular sort, since they become valueless. For a cheater to have any benefit from cheating, others have to be getting their grades the hard way, and upholding the system through hard work, long hours of study, creative and careful analytical thinking, and just generally using the skills that a university education is supposed to instill and cultivate.
I'm proud to be at Butler, where professors are taking an increasingly hard line on plagiarism and other forms of cheating.
(Related Link)
Let Your Compass Guide You (LOST - Latest Hanso Foundation Commercial)
May 18, 2006 10:26
As a latecomer to the craze that is the TV series LOST, I've really enjoyed the fact that it has made use of clues on TV commercials during the breaks, and online web pages with secret passwords - precisely the sorts of things I liked in conjunction with the Matrix movies. I was rather surprised to find that no one online has mentioned the web link in the commercial in yesterday's episode. The site is http://www.letyourcompassguideyou.com. If you move the compass around for a while, you get a page with a link right where it says 180 degrees. If you click it, it opens a link to a Hanso web server which asks you if you are one of the good ones. If you answer Y for yes, it will allow you to go to the page http://www.letyourcompassguideyou.com/usr/. At that page, the only user directory that seems to go anywhere at all is hmcintyr (http://www.letyourcompassguideyou.com/usr/hmcintyr/). So far, I haven't managed to get it to do anything else.
I also liked the fact that there was a character named Ms. Klugh (= 'clue') in the show!
CJ7 Hatch Jeep (LOST - latest clues)
May 18, 2006 10:39
Hmm, I spoke (or wrote) too soon. If you click on the 'mail' folder after following the links described in my previous blog entry, you can get to a video clip on another site at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pna5kuVZDXE which is apparently a clue of some sort. There is also an image http://www.letyourcompassguideyou.com/usr/hmcintyr/mail/news_ad.jpg which offers an add asking you not to believe the things you've read about Hanso Foundation in the novel Bad Twin.
Very cool stuff for people who enjoy a good mystery!
Pat Robertson - Better weatherman than preacher
May 18, 2006 13:54
Pat Robertson has recently announced that God told him storms will hit the coastline of the United States, and possibly a Tsunami. Sounds like the sort of prognostication a weatherman would make, only less specific. Storms will hit the coasts? How often do storms not hit the coasts? (For the West coast, there is a collection of data at http://oregonstate.edu/~readw/). If you are going to predict the future, it is best to play the odds. But how does Robertson differ from any of the psychics who regularly make similar claims?
For those seriously interested in the Christian faith and its underlying values, a more appropriate announcement might be that storms will (as they do every year) hit the (already battered) coasts of the U.S. and as Christians, we want to do everything we can to help those in these areas to make it through and to show love, support, and compassion.
While we're on the subject, I've recently started reading a fantastic book by Keith Ward entitled What the Bible Really Teaches. It is a much-needed attempt by someone who represents historic, mainstream Christianity, and who has some personal experience with fundamentalism, to show why fundamentalism is wrong. Not intellectually wrong, but spiritually, Biblically, and 'Christianly' wrong. Fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon, and although they claim to take the Bible literally, they don't (at least not all of it, and not consistently). Although they argue that you cannot pick and choose, they do. Ward's book highlights these points and offers a much-needed corrective. If you are interested in taking the Bible seriously, if you are interested in a Christianity that resembles the historic faith that has changed human history rather than the holy huddles of many North American extremists, then I urge you to read this book!