Category Archives: Rationalism

Jewish parents: be ready for your kids calling you from campus.

It might not be about please transfer money into my account.

It might be about something that you might not have expected.

On college campuses, there is a growing sense that the mood is turning not only anti-Israel, but anti-Jewish and anti-Judaism.

Earlier this year, that consortium hosted a conference on Gaza. One of the presenters at this high-profile conference was the Palestinian rapper Tamer Nafar. He told the audience that he wanted to sing them a song, but that he needed their help singing it, because I cannot be anti-Semitic alone.

According to Bari Weiss (How To Fight Anti-Semitism) this is becoming the new normal on college campuses. Jewish students find that their core beliefs and very existence is under threat that the word Zionist itself has become a casual slur. Read her new book,

Because, in a world of uber-sensitivity and trigger warnings, there is one group that apparently does not deserve such sensitivity.

You got it.

Its the Jews.

I cannot say that this is new.

I encountered it myself, more than forty years ago, when I was a student on the college campus. The casual and vitriolic anti-Israelism, from both students and professors (and this, in the wake of the Yom Kippur War) was searing.

I do not often get nostalgic about my college days, but let me tell you this story.

One of my classmates actually told me something unbelievable.

She told me that Theodor Herzl had secret meetings with Adolph Hitler which proved that the Zionists had been in cahoots with the Nazis.

Which is interesting because when Herzl died in 1904, Hitler was fifteen years old.

Since the day that I graduated from college, many fads have come and gone.

Remember disco? Gone.

Remember leisure suits? Gone thank God.

Lava lamps? Gone.

There is one fad that is still around.

Anti-Israelism.

And I think anti-religion.

Even with the plethora and veritable explosion of Jewish studies programs on campus, I have a sneaking suspicion that in many academic settings, religion and faith claims should, well, know their place.

As well they should, perhaps. In places that value rationalism and evidence-based claims, we can understand why religious claims would not be entirely admissible. These are the fruits of the Enlightenment, now close to three hundred years old and it would be useless and unhelpful to try to reverse that history.

But, outright hostility?

Re-visit the experience of the young woman at Hofstra University who told her professor that she would be absent due to the coming Days of Awe.

Her professor told her that she should re-evaluate her religious beliefs.

What did he mean by that?

Did he mean that she should re-evaluate her religious beliefs as a Jew?

Or, did he mean that she should re-evaluate her religious beliefs because they were, in fact, religious beliefs?

Again, a moment from my own college days.

I will never forget something that happened during my first week in college in 1972.

It was in a psychology class. The professor had asked us to prepare statements on how our ideas had changed over the years in many different areas politics, culture, religion, etc.

In my statement, I said that I had evolved and changed in many ways but that if there was one thing that had remained strong, resolute, and even growing it was my religious faith as a Jew.

The professor asked me to meet him in his office.

This is what he said to me.

Jeff, I wanted to meet with you, because I am very worried about you.

What worries me about you is your absolute lack of rebellion against your religion.

By the way the professor was Jewish.

So, its not only about Israel, or Zionism.

It might be about having a particular, specific identity that is most often (erroneously) identified with being white and privileged.

It might be that identity politics on campus and in certain leftist circles are only valid if those identities are of the dis-empowered (forgetting, for the moment, all of Jewish history).

And, it might also be that having a religious identity or, at least, certain kinds of religious identities is simply, well

Not. Cool. For. School.

I am thinking about the book burnings on the grounds of Humboldt University in Berlin, in 1933.

This past July, my son and I visited the sobering memorial to those destroyed volumes.

Please remember: who gathered the books into massive bonfires?

The students themselves.

The only question I have: will our Jewish students be able to stand up for, and stand up against, and stand out?

Read more from the original source:

Academic antisemitism returns - Religion News Service

In Spain, a multitude of unique buildings of great architectural value have met the same tragic end: demolition. This has variously been due to land speculation, political motives, or because the building in question was conceived as a temporary structure; but whatever the reason for razing them, these architectural landmarks now no more than a memory in the popular imagination demand that their story be told and their legacy appreciated.

Antoni Rovira i Trias original building was just a small wooden structure that sold refreshments, coffee and water. Built in 1877, it was located on the upper stretch of the Rambla avenue, near the fountain of Canaletas, and it was part of a series of projects entrusted to the head of Barcelonas Buildings and Ornamentation Department to boost the development of the urban landscape and bring it in line with other European cities.

The kiosks first owner was Felix Pons, who had a refreshment stand near the Boquera market, further down the Rambla. But in 1901 it was taken over by Esteve Sala I Canyadell, who had a bar near the Barcelona FC soccer grounds. The kiosk prospered from 1901 to 1916 after Esteve noticed that soccer fans walking out after a game often gathered at the Canaletas section of the Rambla to discuss the match. To take advantage of this, he established communication with the bar to learn how Bara had played, and prepare his kiosk with extra food and drinks according to the mood.

Structurally, Esteve arranged for a series of extensions and redesigns to cater to his growing clientele. These included a project by architect Antonio Utrillo, who added a modernist twist that turned the kiosk into a city icon. Esteve began organizing debates at his kiosk and eventually his links with Bara were such that he became the clubs manager between 1931 and 1936.

The kiosk was torn down in 1951 on the orders of Mayor Antonio Mara Serrano. Some point to Esteves strong ties with Bara, and thus with Catalan nationalism, as the reasons behind the move, although the official line was that the authorities wanted to make the Rambla more attractive to pedestrians.

The 35th Eucharistic Congress was celebrated in Barcelona in the spring of 1952. It was the first to be held after the Second World War the previous one had been in 1938 in Budapest amidst rising pre-war tensions. The 1952 congress was Francos first international event and it was publicized with the slogan The Eucharist and Peace.

The altar was designed by Josep Maria Soteras in collaboration with fellow architects Vilaseca and Riudor and set up on Diagonal avenue then known as Generalsimo avenue. It was meant to be a temporary structure, but due to its unique design, it became something of an icon that should have been preserved.

The construction addressed two needs: one spiritual and the other practical regarding the distribution of facilities and space. The solution was a huge circle representing the sacrament of the Eucharist, with a canopy 25 meters in diameter held up by three supports: a 35-meter high cross and two braces representing faith, hope and charity in a bid to accentuate its spirituality.

These features used a pentagonal base rising five meters above street level, which could be entered from the back under the cross located in the last apex of the pentagon. The entrance led into the vestry as well as the area reserved for radio broadcasting, toilets, telephone booths, a storage room and an area for security forces and firefighters, all of which was hidden below the shadow of the canopy. The canopy, which resembled a vault, had a circular window that let natural light through during the day and artificial light by night.

This project was sponsored by the businessman Manuel Porres and designed by the young architect Francisco Javier Goerlich, 28, and rapidly made headlines due to its grand pretensions. Large enough to fit 1,500 people, it was built in a record seven months and inaugurated in 1914 on Pi y Margall street, which has since been renamed Paseo de Ruzafa.

Goerlich wanted the construction to be modernist in style and he decorated the faade with various sculptures. Within, the architect Luis Benlliure designed a hall in the style of Louis XIV with an imposing central staircase that led to the orchestra section and two side staircases going up to the first floor.

It was originally conceived as an auditorium offering plays and concerts, but some years later, due to financial difficulties, it was renamed Lrico Theater and used exclusively as a movie theater, making it the first Spanish cinema on that scale. It closed, however, in 1948 and there was no legislation in place to prevent it from being torn down.

This project was the brainchild of a stationery salesman who had become aware of the profits to be made from making writing materials. It was 1934 and, with the help of a group of partners who all lived in Ferrol, in the northwestern region of Galicia, he set up a pencil factory that he called Hispania S.L. using existing infrastructure within the city. Due to the companys success, however, a bespoke factory was built in 1938, which was designed by Nemesio Lpez Rodrguez using simple straight lines in the style of industrial rationalism, popular at the time. It also included touches of art dco, a style that had previously been used in Spain.

The factory started out with pencils and fountain pens but it also produced colored pencils, wax crayons and felt tip pens. During the 1950s, it was producing 50 million units a year and employing a staff of more than 400. But in the 1960s, the Spanish economy was in a critical situation following a prolonged period of autarchy, during which Franco had sought economic self-sufficiency. The regime adopted a number of austerity measures combined with some liberalizing policies that dealt a blow to certain industries, which now found themselves unable to compete on the international market.

After accepting that it could not win back the market share lost to China, Taiwan and Czechoslovakia, the company made a plan to wind up its business when its staff retired, with a date set for October 30, 1986. The factory was sold and the building was left empty, with a view to using the land for property development, despite a strong lobby arguing for it to be turned over to public use. It was eventually torn down in 2012.

This building should have been preserved at all costs, not just because of its appearance but also because of its purpose, which reflected a more leisurely age. Designed by the architect Jos de Azpiroz y Azpiroz in 1930, it featured rationalist lines that were softened at the buildings corners while the horizontal nature of its structure, which occupied almost an entire block, was emphasized by a thin white cornice that split the entrance.

The fact that it was low and gave onto two streets Espronceda and Fernndez de la Hoz allowed the sidewalks to be bathed in plenty of natural light, but it is the buildings use, rather than its design, that triggers nostalgia. Here, cars were pampered in a building so spacious that it housed a workshop, an administration area, a salesroom selling both new and second-hand vehicles, a gas station and a vast waiting area complete with a bar.

The gas station was located in the chamfer, which was decorated with a winged pilaster the company logo. Unfortunately, such a rambling structure was inevitably going to fall prey to speculators in a neighborhood like Chamber, where space is at a premium.

Olavide Market is possibly the starkest example of the loss of national architectural gems. Turning the area into a public square might have been a good option if it had somehow considered how this could work alongside architect Javier Ferrero Llusas design, which was one of the finest examples of rationalist architecture in Madrid. In fact, its demolition in 1974 was highly controversial.

The market had its origins in the second half of the 19th century, when a growing number of street stalls began to set up in the square. In 1934, Ferrero received the assignment from the government of the Second Republic as part of a wider urban-planning program, which aimed to solve the lack of infrastructure at the time.

Furnished with a supply area and ramp for vehicles, its octagonal shape conformed perfectly with the shape of the square itself the octagons went up in stages toward the center until reaching the central patio, which ventilated the whole.

The buildings demolition took place amid tension between city authorities, who considered the structure obsolete, and the local residents, entrepreneurs and architects who recognized its value.

In the Madrid district of Alameda de Osuna, there are still residents who remember this area as the Motocine. This recreational space was designed by the architect Fernando Chueca Goitia in collaboration with the engineer Bello Lasierra in 1959, an imitation of the successful US model of drive-in movie theaters. The US link was the reason for erecting the building close to the US military base in Torrejn de Ardoz.

It was the biggest drive-in cinema in Spain and the second biggest in Europe, managing to accommodate 700 vehicles which were expected to line up in front of the vast cement screen. There was also a protected seating area for bikers.

It was a simple building with modern touches evident in the entrance halls and in the efficiency of the facilities. But the project was either too ambitious or too nave, and it failed to match the success of such establishments on the other side of the pond. Even the US military personnel from the Torrejn de Ardoz base did not use it as often as projected, and it closed after just a few years.

Built between 1960 and 1962, the Monky Coffee Factory was demolished without warning by its new owners in 1991 a victim of property speculation. It was designed by Genaro Alas and Pedro Casariego and its transparent, expressionist features also doubled as a giant advertising campaign, as showing off the machinery within became part of its commercial strategy. It was a simple but effective tactic, which efficiently addressed industrial requirements and the aesthetics of its corporate image.

The building was designed to be seen from the road or, more specifically, from the N-II motorway connecting the capital with the airport. The main structure consisted of steel and glass, reflecting the basic principles of the Mies van der Rohe style of architecture, and seemed very modern for its day. It was this that allowed the 20-meter high stainless steel atomizer to be seen from the outside the main piece of machinery used for producing the instant coffee.

Another lower structure with the same features housed the extractors while other buildings of exposed brick were used as offices and storehouses, harmoniously completing the complex.

Despite its name, this building was not actually a laboratory but rather the headquarters of Standard Electrics Center for Research and Development. Built between 1966 and 1970, it was awarded the National Prize for Architecture in 1972.

Also located on Madrids route to the airport, on Avenida de Amrica, its high profile was due to its location on the side of the motorway and its double-armed shape, which anticipated future expansion.

Using traditional Spanish materials and designed to allow for plenty of natural light, the structure consisted of exposed brick and huge windows framed by iron latticework, in the Neo-Mudejar or Moorish revival style. Meanwhile, the turrets were obscured by a simpler lattice design.

However, changes in urban-planning legislation prompted the owners to demolish the building after just 30 years, to make way for a more land-efficient design with no consideration for its architectural value.

English version by Heather Galloway.

View post:

The lost architectural gems of Spains recent history - EL PAIS

Editors Note: In this post, the original secret Clergy Project Forum Moderators celebrate TCPs 1000 milestone. I asked them to address the following issues relating to their early involvement:

How you got involved; what was it like working on this new idea; how you felt then, how you feel now; what opening day of the secret blog was like; how your activity/interest changed over time; your thoughts on the group now having 1000 participants.

Here are their responses. /Linda LaScola, Editor

==============================

By Adam Mann, aka Carter Warden

I got involved with The Clergy Project, initially through a phone call with Dan Barker at just the right time and then being in the Dennett-LaScola Tufts Study. Also, my fervor to get out of ministry and do something meaningful played a big role in my eagerness to set up the first Clergy Project private site.

Working on this new idea was tiring and invigorating at the same time.For me, it provided hope during a time of helplessness, and was my way of proclaiming my disbelief while remaining anonymous.I felt extremely fortunate and honored to have been trusted and included in the formation of The Clergy Project. I still feel that way today.

On the day that the secret blog opened, I felt nervous excitement, considering that I was experiencing it all from my church office!

In terms of how my activity and interest changed over time, obviously it was heavy up front and for about two years until my career change required me to step away and let others work on the site and moderate the forum.

I distinctly rememberbeing excited to beset up as member number one on the private forum by Mike or Andy from the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDRS), which had provided our early platform.And I wondered what that number would eventually be one day.I hope The Clergy Project has been and will continue to be a real agent of change, not only for individuals struggling to make sense of their new worldview without religious faith, but for members of society at large who need to know that its okay to question religion.

Adam and Chris also developed the Public Page for The Clergy Project when it went up in October of 2011. Here is an early draft of the home page.

By Chris

I am Chris, one of the two original participants of The Clergy Project. I entered full time pastoral ministry in 1996, and for a time presented a progressive Evangelical message to the congregations I served. Over time, I became troubled by a number of the questions that Christianity did not seem to answer. In particular, the issues of theodicy and the problem of evil and the highly edited nature of scripture became concerns for me. For a number of years I became involved in the Emerging Church movement, which seeks to approach these questions with a sense of openness. However, I was still deeply unsatisfied with the Churchs overall sense of certainty and its closed attitude. Through a process of deep personal searching, I grew into the awareness that I no longer connected with the supernaturalist claims of modern Christianity.

I was immediately hopeful about the prospects of The Clergy Project, for the purpose of community and connection with others of similar experience if nothing else. My primary hope was that a network of post-supernaturalist communities would emerge. These communities would be led by former ministers and designed to connect people together, and to help people ask the deeper questions of life free from the limited constraints of both dogmatic religion and hard rationalism. That is still my hope for the future of The Clergy Project.

After the launch of the private TCP forum, I was surprised that so many of the people applying for membership were former ministers. In some cases, applicants had not served in decades and were no longer experiencing the stresses of leaving the ministry. I had hoped that there would be more ministers, like me, who were actually currently serving and who were looking for guidance and support.

Thankfully, many currently serving ministers have joined TCP since then, and my hope as the group reaches the 1000 participant milestone is for more to become involved and find support.

I am thankful for my involvement in the early stages of The Clergy Project. I left ministry in 2011, transitioning to work in the nonprofit sector. While I am not involved in any aspect of the freethought movement today, I am grateful for the community I found in TCP. I have moved on to lead a life today that is free from dogma, and free to explore the questions of life with openness, curiosity, and hope.

========================

Bio:Carter Wardenis a former conservative pastor of 25 years, now openly atheist. Using thepseudonym Adam Mann, he was a founder of The Clergy Project, its first member and one of its first forum moderators.Adam was one of the original five interviewees in the 2010 Dennett-LaScola article, Preachers who are not Believers. While still in ministry, he wasinterviewed undercoverby ABC World News Tonight and theCanadian Broadcasting Company.Carter made his change of beliefspublicat the Freedom From Religion Foundation National Convention on October 7, 2016. Carter is now a member of the Secular Student AllianceSpeakers Bureau. He hopes that his story andsongswill bring encouragement to clergy who feel trapped because of changing beliefs, people who fear openly identifying themselves as non-religious, andanyone who desires to be honest and genuine about personal beliefs, identity and personal expression that may go against societal norms.

Bio: Chrisis a former pastor, having served for over 18 years in moderate Baptist churches in the southeast US. He now holds a fully naturalistic view of reality, having come to this position partly because he takes the Bible too seriously to take it literally. He has had a fulfilling secular job for several years and he and his family now spend time together enjoying the natural world, free from the chains of dogma.

See the original post:

Adam and Chris Builders of The Clergy Project - Patheos

As we accelerate into a year of intense presidential politics, CT will offer essays about how evangelical Christians understand our times and what our response should be. This is the first in an occasional series. --Eds

We live in a time of shifting sand. The avalanche of social, political and legal changes weve experienced has left many believers reeling. They are troubled by what they see but also befuddled about how to respond. Amid much wringing of the hands they hear some calling for a circling of the wagons; others insist we must take America back; still others counsel engagement with the culture, often on its own terms. Confused by their times, many Christians remain uncertain about what Israel should do.

This last phrase is drawn from 1 Chronicles 12:32. The historical setting of this passage was also a time of shifting sand. King Saul had become unstable and was all but finished; yet he was still powerful and dangerous. The young upstart David appeared to be the future, but he was scarcely a sure thing. Israels tribes faced a ticklish decision. Each had to decide where their loyalties should lie. The tribe of Issachar made the right decision. This, the chronicler informs us, was because they understood the times and knew what Israel should do.

Crafting a wise and godly response to whats taking place around us requires that we understand our times.

This is the challenge many evangelical Christians face in our own generation. Crafting a wise and godly response to whats taking place around us requires that we understand our times. To gain that understanding, however, we must be willing to look beyond our societys presenting symptoms to underlying causes. Only then can we make sense of our current cultural predicament.

Thoughtful accounts of how weve gotten to our present plight are many and varied, from Charles Taylors massive A Secular Age, to Rod Drehers thumbnail sketch (The Roots of the Crisis) in The Benedict Option. Yet the story we need most wont be found in any of these books. Its a little-appreciated technical narrative told by law professor Steven D. Smith in a very different kind of book: The Rise and Decline of American Religious Freedom (Harvard, 2014).

Smith is the co-director of the University of San Diegos Institute of Religion and Law. His book was not written either for or about evangelical Christians, and it does no special pleading on our behalf. Its a book about the law. More specifically, it is a detailed chronicle of American jurisprudence on the subject of religious freedom, from the founding of the nation to the present. Smiths careful analysis deserves in-depth attention, but we will settle here for only the briefest summary of one of the books key insights.

The tale were after begins in December of 1791, when Americans approved ten new amendments to the Constitution they had ratified just two years earlier. The first enumerated right in these amendmentspreceding even the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assemblywas Americas so-called first freedom, the freedom of religion. Thus the Constitutions Bill of Rights begins with these striking words: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Surprising to many today, this wording was originally designed as not much more than a jurisdictional limitation, stipulating that the federal government (Congress) must keep its hands off religion. With no federal laws for the judicial branch to adjudicate or the executive branch to execute, Americas new central government was to leave religion alone. Religious matters were to be left to the states or local jurisdictions.

Yet it was inevitable that complications would arise. The interplay of intricate questions surrounding the freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of worship, and the relation of church and government led early on to the development of what Smith calls the American settlement: a distinctive and uniquely valuable approach, says Smith, to the challenge of religion in American society.

This settlement was designed to accommodate two contending interpretations of America, both of which were in play from the beginning. Smith calls these the providential and secular interpretations. The providential interpretation recognizes vertical premises such as the self-evident claim of the Declaration of Independence that all humans are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. The secular interpretation prefers a horizontal view of America that disallows any such vertical tethers.

The important point for our purposes is that under this arrangement both of these interpretations played significant roles in shaping the nations law, government, policies and public education. The idea was that both options could and should be openly contested in American society. The genius of the American settlement, says Smith:

was that instead of officially elevating one or the other of those interpretations to the status of constitutional orthodoxy and condemning the other as constitutional heresy, the American approach left the matter open for We the People to reflect on and debate and negotiate on an ongoing basis.

By this means, says Smith, America long managed to avoid the basic blundernamely, of officially preferring one among competing faiths or would-be orthodoxiesthat in earlier centuries had produced civil havoc and often war in European societies.

Roughly seventy years ago, argues Smith, Americas Supreme Court committed the basic blunder of granting official preference to one among competing faiths or would-be orthodoxies.

So it was, so to speak, for the first two-thirds of American history. Now fast-forward to the middle of the 20th century.

Roughly 70 years ago, argues Smith, Americas Supreme Court abandoned the wisdom of the American settlement. It committed the basic blunder of granting official preference to one among competing faiths or would-be orthodoxies. Beginning with a series of decisions from the late 1940s into the 1960s, the Court declared the secular interpretation of America to be the nations official dogma. Though still widespread at popular and ceremonial levels, providential ideassuch as the claim that the source of our human rights is God rather than the state, or that mans law is but a mask of Gods lawwould no longer be permitted any official role in Americas law, government or public education. The nation went officially horizontal, creating at the core of American society a massive, ever-expanding governmental dead zone devoid of providential thinking or reasoning.

It doesnt take much connecting of dots to recognize this mid-20th century shift as the root of todays culture wars. In 1991, sociologist James Davison Hunter popularized this term in his aptly-subtitled book, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. There he described the conflict as political and social hostility rooted in different systems of moral understanding.

The end to which these hostilities tend is the domination of one cultural and moral ethos over all others. Let it be clear that the principles and ideals that mark these competing systems of moral understanding are by no means trifling but always have the character of ultimacy to them. They are not merely attitudes that can change on a whim but basic commitments and beliefs that provide a source of identity, purpose, and togetherness for the people who live by them.

As a sociologist, Hunter early on recognized that when the complexities of Americas culture wars are distilled to their essence, the underlying contest is between two different systems of moral understanding. Said Hunter, The cleavages at the heart of the contemporary culture war are created by what I would like to call the impulse toward orthodoxy and the impulse toward progressivism.

The orthodox impulse is oriented vertically toward some external definable, and transcendent authority. The impulse toward progressivism is oriented horizontally toward a spirit of rationalism and subjectivism. Hunters orthodoxy thus parallels Smiths providential interpretation of America, while his progressivism parallels Smiths secular interpretation. Says Hunter, the contest between these two worldviews and their respective social and political agendas is cultural conflict at its deepest level. It is a conflict over the very meaning of America, who we have been in the past, who we are now, and perhaps most important, who we, as a nation, will aspire to become in the new millennium.

Again, Smith stresses that the struggle between these two interpretations of America was present from the beginning. What transformed their ongoing arm wrestling match into the deep cultural impasse it has become was the earlier abandonment of the American settlement. By this move, says Smith, the Court:

thereby unlearned the lesson that Americans had taken from the religious strife that had afflicted post-Reformation Europenamely, that if among competing faiths one is to be singled out as the officially preferred position, then the devotees of the various faiths will fight for that honor (and, perhaps more urgently, will fight not to be among the losers).

This dynamic explains much of the bitter acrimony of our current national discourse. As Smith observes, its a natural consequence of the shift from a situation of open and legitimate contestation to a discourse structured in terms of constitutional orthodoxy (political secularism) versus constitutional heresy (political providentialism).

Todays secularists tend to scorn the notion that there exists in America any so-called war on Christianity. Comedian and TV personality Jon Stewart, for instance, offered up this sardonic prayer:

Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion . . . perhaps around their necks? And maybedare I dream it?maybe one day there can be an openly Christian president. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively.

There is a campaign taking place, not against Christianity but providentialism in general. Christianity is simply the most prominent example.

Stewarts clever sarcasm should serve as a warning against overstating the case. Measured against other times and places, Christians have it easy in America. What cannot be denied, on the other hand, is the reality of the ongoing cultural struggle described by Smith and Hunter. There is a campaign taking place, but its not against Christianity per se. Its against providentialism in general. Christianity is simply the most prominent example.

This development is no illusion. Its a predictable aftereffect of the constitutional shift recounted in Rise and Decline. It was triggered seventy-some years ago when the secular interpretation of America was declared the cultural winner. Its social and political agenda, empowered by a now weaponized Constitution, began a steady, easily-documented advance through the second half of the twentieth century. It was inevitably a messy, inconsistent, up-and-down affair, but the overall trend was clear.

Then, after the turn of the century, that trend hockey-sticked up. Fresh developments signaled a new secular aggressiveness. On issues such as gender, homosexuality, marriage, the unborn and religious freedom, providentialist resistance by voters or legislators was summarily slapped down by the courts. The legal thumb that had always weighted the scale in favor of Americas first freedom shifted to the anti-discrimination cause. Livelihoods hung in the balance as conscience-driven proprietors resisted the secular push. Massive corporate boycotts were organized against states daring to buck the tide. The full weight of the executive branch of the federal government swung in behind the radical agenda. On campus, language and thought police ratcheted up the enforcement of their PC rule book. Dissenting voices were shouted down at the podium or punished by social media mobs. With few notable exceptions, the cultures elitesintellectual, legal, media, entertainment, corporateappeared to be singing in unison from the same secular score.

It began to dawn that this was not just more of the same. A spate of new books with alarming titles began to appear, arguing that America had passed some sort of tipping point. Evangelicals found themselves not only out-of-step with their secularized culture but increasingly in its cross hairs. Not just in official settings but in Americas broader culture, taking a stand on the truth claims of the Bible generated accusations of bigotry and intolerance. Such claims were no longer merely mistaken; they became hate speech that creates hostile environments that make others feel excluded and unsafe. Those who offered such claims found themselves castigated as sexist, racist, misogynist and homophobic. Traditional Christian and pro-family groups were newly labeled social extremists.

These seemed to be ominous new developments. In truth they were in large measure the predictable fruit of the constitutional shift chronicled in Rise and Decline:

In a regime of open contestation it is possible to disagree respectfully. . . . [But] where disagreements are framed, not in terms of legitimate contesting conceptions but rather in terms of an official position or orthodoxy versus heretical and illegitimate deviations, respectful disagreement becomes difficult; it is replaced by a discourse of accusation, anathematization, and abuse.

Ever since the 2016 election, pundits have been scratching their heads over the high percentage of evangelical Christians who voted for Donald Trump. For many this remains an ongoing puzzle. How can those who so willingly censured the moral failures of previous Oval Office occupants, they ask, now so conveniently overlook the shortcomings of this one?

The preferred answer of those on the left, as well as the some of the never-Trumpers on the right, seems to be that evangelical support for Donald Trump represents a hypocritical sacrifice of moral principle. Speaking of conservatives in general, opinion writer Bret Stephens put it this way in the New York Times:

It was once the useful role of conservatives . . . to stand athwart declining moral standards, yelling Stop. They lost whatever right they had to play that role when they got behind Trump, not only acquiescing in the culture of shamelessness but also savoring its fruits. . . . Trump-supporting conservatives the self-aware ones, at least justify this bargain as a price worth paying in order to wage ideological combat against the hypostatized evil left. In fact it only makes them enablers in the degraded culture they once deplored.

Is this a fair assessment? In the case of some Trump supporters, perhaps it is. They seem willing to back Mr. Trump no matter what he says or does. In other cases, however, this simplistic analysis misses the mark. The stories told by Smith and Hunter offer a more nuanced key to solving the evangelical/Trump riddle.

The 2016 election did not offer evangelicals the luxury of voting for a candidate to their liking. They were forced to choose among four unattractive options: not voting at all; squandering their vote on a meaningless independent candidate; voting for a continuation or acceleration of an aggressively secular agenda they believed was toxic for America; or voting for the mercurial Donald Trump. The first two options seemed an abdication of their electoral duty. Their only real choice was between options three and four. This dilemma forced them into an any-port-in-a-storm strategy. Whatever the downsides of option four, they calculated, at least it wasnt option three. So they cast their vote accordingly.

In the 2016 election evangelicals found themselves forced to decide: Which of two unlovely things would live? This continues to be the civic quandary many evangelicals face in todays polarized America.

For many of these Trump voters their decision felt like a mirror-image of Sophies choice. In William Styrons searing story, Sophie was forced to decide which of two lovely things, her son or daughter, would die. In the 2016 election evangelicals found themselves forced to decide: Which of two unlovely things would live? This was, and continues to be, the civic quandary many evangelicals face in todays polarized America.

Our focus has been on understanding our times. Space precludes turning now to framing a godly response. For starters, though, an excellent way to begin might be to steep ourselves in the godly counsel of 1 Peter, a letter addressed to first century exiles and sojourners whose allegiance to Christ and his word also placed them at odds with their prevailing culture.

In any case, this much is clear. No superficial assessment of Americas current struggles will do. Evangelical Christians need to think deeply about what theyre facing: the mounting cultural dominance of a very differentand increasingly intolerantsystem of moral understanding, one that is anchored in the purely horizontal assumptions that became official Americas established religion (worldview, set of ultimate beliefs) 75 years ago. The cultural battle lines of today are but the latest ripple effects of that irreversible shift.

Crafting a godly response to this reality must begin with the recognition that our societys illness is not a temporary ailment; it is now a chronic condition, one which is likely to demand of Americas 21st century evangelicals a much more costly Christ-like response than many of us have yet contemplated. Behold, Jesus said, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

Duane Litfin is Wheaton College President Emeritus and author of numerous articles and books, including, most recently, Pauls Theology of Preaching (IV Press).

Go here to read the rest:

The Lost Genius of the American Settlement - ChristianityToday.com

Atheist bestselling author Richard DawkinsYouTube/Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science

Although its readers were to name him one of the top three intellectuals in the world, Prospect magazine gave a scathing review to Richard Dawkins' anti-religion polemic The God Delusion, writing at the time, "It has been obvious for years that Richard Dawkins had a fat book on religion in him, but who would have thought him capable of writing one this bad? Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, it has none of the style or verve of his earlier works." That did not stop TGD becoming a multi-million copy bestseller.

At a personal level I am thankful to Richard Dawkins because he opened the door for me and others to proclaim the Good News of Jesus to tens of thousands who would not have heard it otherwise. In fact, I have met more people who were converted to Christ through Dawkins, than have been converted to atheism. I wrote a book called The Dawkins Letters, which the Lord still continues to use.

There was however a down side to this the level of vitriol from what I came to recognise as the New Fundamentalist Atheists, was at times overwhelming something which rather sadly was encouraged by Dawkins with his mocking and sneering tone. And the arguments Dawkins used (largely borrowed from previous atheists such as Bertrand Russell) although simplistic and nave, were repeated ad nauseum in schools and through the secular media.

Which brings us on to Outgrowing God: A Beginners Guide, Dawkins latest book, published on September 19. It is designed for young people so I was interested and intrigued by what he would say. Had his argument developed? Would he have taken account of the weaknesses? Would he be able to explain and discuss in such a way that young people could grasp and think for themselves?

The arguments he uses are just a rehash of those in TGD, as are many of the illustrations and stories. So we have all the old ones atheists just worship one god less; evolution proves there is no God; you don't need God for morality; and of course the oldie but goldie, 'who created God, then?'.

He's even got the same old stories and illustrations the cargo cult, the universe where you have a green moustache, the (mis) citation of Hitler etc.

Dawkins pontificates as though he were an expert in subjects which he knows very little about. Space does not permit me to list all the subtle and howling errors. But here are a few of the simplistic lowlights.

People worship Jesus all over the world today because of a historical accident in AD 312; the Trinity is polytheistic. Paul says virtually nothing about the life of Jesus. Until now nobody doubted the Gospels. Revelation was the inspiration for the doctrine of the rapture. There is little or no evidence for the existence of Abraham, David, Moses and perhaps Jesus didn't even exist. If he did, he may have said some cool things but he really was not nice.

Dawkins does strain at gnats while swallowing camels. He is so desperate to disprove the Bible that he will grab any bit of confirmation bias he can. He confidently asserts knowledge he does not have. One example is his claim that Abraham could not have existed when Genesis said he did (2nd millennium BC) because camels (mentioned in Genesis) were not domesticated until hundreds of years afterwards and yet we have evidence of camels being used in the 3rd millennium BC.

If you want to understand how Dawkins works, take this example: "No serious scholar today thinks that the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses."

Here you need to grasp how Dawkins uses language. "Serious scholar" means 'someone who agrees with me'. If they don't they obviously can be neither serious nor a scholar. Which is why he can dismiss, if he even knows about, Professor Richard Bauckham of the University of St Andrews, whose serious scholarly work Jesus and the Eyewitness is an authoritative piece of academic research.

Likewise when Dawkins confidently asserts that no "educated theologian" believes that Adam and Eve, or Noah is history. But I'm educated (two degrees) and I'm a theologian, and I believe they are history. I may be wrong. But Dawkins' simplistic Emperor's clothes attitude 'any intelligent person will see that the Emperor is wearing the finest clothes' is easily exposed.

One of my favourites is his repeated argument that there is very little about Jesus in the contemporary written histories of the first century. Why should there be? Jesus was a Jewish peasant on the fringes of the Empire who died an ignominious but not uncommon death. Why would any contemporary historian write about him?

Or how about this: "'Isn't it remarkable that almost every child follows the same religion as their parents, and it always just happens to be the right religion!" Dawkins misses out the rather obvious point that this is also true for secular atheists whose children happen to follow their position which remarkably happens to be just the right position!

Then there is the unlikely anecdotal hearsay evidence that he uses, for example, when he asserts that when he asks Christians what the Ten Commandments are, they can only remember one 'thou shalt not kill'. Either his Christian acquaintances are extremely limited or he's not telling the truth. Most of us can remember about not stealing, committing adultery, keeping the Sabbath, etc.

He is also not averse to twisting the Bible to make it mean what he wants it to mean: "What the Sixth Commandment originally meant was 'Thou shalt not kill members of thine own tribe.'"

But it's not just in his attempt to diss the Bible that Dawkins shows both illogicality and a lack of knowledge. It's also when he asserts his own faith. To him evolution is much more than a scientific theory that explains how life develops it is the theory of everything. It proves that things are getting better - including wars, human morality and the world in general.

Whilst mocking the God of the gaps argument (an argument that we do not use) he sets up his own blind faith the science of the gaps. We don't know but one day science will be able to explain (and sort) everything. He believes so passionately that science and Christianity are opposed that he cannot seem to comprehend the many Christians who are scientists.

One area where I was surprised was his argument for abortion:"You can define a fertilized egg as a human being if you like. But it doesn't have a nervous system, so it can't suffer. It doesn't know it's been aborted, feels no fear or regret. A woman has a nervous system."

If Dawkins were being consistent and logical, this would mean that he is opposed to all abortion after a few weeks when the baby does have a nervous system.

He is hopelessly all over the place with morality. On the one hand, he argues that the universe has no moral properties, and that there should be no lines and boundaries. On the other, he argues against the "immorality" of the Bible and for the absolutist belief that "causing suffering is wrong" unless of course it is the suffering of the unborn child, or the Christian who is refused the right to educate their child according to their faith.

Conclusion

In summary, all I can say is that he's done it again. Richard Dawkins has managed to produce a book on theology, history, philosophy, ethics and science that is even worse than his first.

Outgrowing God is a dumbed down version of TGD, which itself was a dumbed down version of more classical atheist arguments. Apart from the half of the book that is about evolution and where the writing is at times beautiful and often informative, it is poorly written, badly researched and relies on ridicule and ad hominem rather than rational and intelligent discussion.

Dawkins wants to assure us that the atheist emperor is covered in a fine robe of scientific rationalism. He argues that those who do not see this are 'uneducated' and to be frank, quite thick. Of course there are those in the fawning interviews and book reviews who will declare that the emperor is fully clothed and in his right mind. But his book only demonstrates that the emperor is naked.

The childish arguments and sneering mockery only show his inability to see beyond his own prejudices and preconceptions. It's time for him to outgrow his atheism and mature in his thinking. If our society follows the philosophy and faith of Dawkins we will be heading into a dark abyss. It's time for another Christian Enlightenment.

David Robertson is director of Third Space in Sydney and blogs atwww.theweeflea.com

Go here to read the rest:

Outgrowing Atheism: it's time for Richard Dawkins to grow up - ChristianToday

CHARLOTTE, NC: Some of the most joyful moments in life occur at times when an unanticipated series of events align themselves to create memories that can never quite be explained and certainly never be duplicated. It is the Spontaneity, Serendipity, Synchronicity of life.

In the simplest of terms, most of us would refer to them as you had to be there moments.

We have all had them, and no manner of explanation or retelling of the events can ever completely replicate the pleasure of the experience by the participants.

Perhaps another, deeper and more philosophical, way to put it is to call it the Three Ss: Spontaneity, Serendipity, and Synchronicity.

In their own way, each of this trio of phenomena is related.

Over the years, I have come to revel in the serendipity of travel as one of the driving forces for my wanderlust passion. It lies deep within my psyche and growth as a person in ways I could never have fully attained in a classroom or a book.

For me, the classroom and books come after the experience in ways that serve to reinforce what I have discovered and promise to further arouse my curiosity.

No matter who we are, it is the anticipation of such events that create the excitement of a journey before we ever take the first step out of the front door. The sensation is much the same that football fans experience before the Super Bowl.

All too often, the game is not able to live up to its billing because the hype diminishes the reality of the expectations.

Likewise, travel is also filled with unpredictability and possibilities. However, unlike sports, an entire destination becomes the product rather than the limitations of a finite playing field. Thus, the opportunities for unique and awe-inspiring occurrences are enhanced and magnified by the destination.

One of my high school classmates, who is also someone whose life has been broadened by travel, describes serendipity as those delicious random mysteries that appear like magic in our lives.

While those are some pretty heavy-duty words, Jung simplified their meaning with the following example:

I was sitting opposite (a patient) one day, with my back to the window, listening to her flow of rhetoric. She had an impressive dream the night before, in which someone had given her a golden scarab a costly piece of jewelry. While she was still telling me this dream, I heard something behind me gently tapping on the window. I turned round and saw that it was a fairly large flying insect knocking against the window-pane from outside in the obvious effort to get into the dark room.

This seemed to me very strange. I opened the window immediately and caught the insect in the air as it flew in. It was a scarabaeid beetle, whose gold-green color most nearly resembles that of a golden scarab. I handed the beetle to my patient with the words, Here is your scarab. This experience punctured the desired hole in her rationalism and broke the ice of her intellectual resistance.

Although the affliction frequently denotes more negative connotations than positive.

On the other hand, if you think about it, be it for good or for bad, life itself is an amalgam of events that are either serendipitous, spontaneous or synchronous or some blending of the three.

Not long ago, an ALS patient wrote a poem that upon first reading appeared to be little more than his own private pity party. Truthfully, I had to force myself to re-read it, but by the time I finished the second review, I realized that the message was, indeed, one of hope.

As the author later clarified,

If we are honest with ourselves, life is only temporary for anyone. All ALS really does is to provide a slightly more defined awareness of the inevitable.

That being the case, I plan to continue my pursuit of the Three Ss until I am no longer able.

Following that, I can sit back and savor each precious moment, encounter and person who passed through the pageant that has been my life.

Even ALS cannot take that away from me.

About the Author: Bob Taylor is a veteran writer who has traveled throughout the world. Taylor is an award-winning television producer/reporter/anchor before focusing on writing about international events, people and cultures around the globe.

Taylor is the founder of The Magellan Travel Club (www.MagellanTravelClub.com)

Read more of What in the World and Bob Taylor at Communities Digital News

Read more of Bobs journeys with ALS and his travels around the world

Editors Note: Support Bobs GoFundMe to give him a hand up

Follow Bob on Twitter Facebook

See the article here:

Living with ALS: The Three S's of life Spontaneity, Serendipity and... - Communities Digital News

A political commentator Pedzisai Ruhanya has argued that first lady Grace Mugabe's debacle in South Africa depicts the struggle between legal positivism and political realism.

This was after the SA authorities imposed diplomatic immunity to Grace after she assaulted a model in that country when she found her in the company of her sons.

"Explaining First Lady Grace Mugabe's SA problems from a REALISM analytic lens; is International Law Vs International Relations: International law and international relations have long been concerned with the ways in which states interact with one another, and both fields have traditionally build their theories on the twin assumption of state sovereignty and non-intervention, most notably embodied in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia," he said.

"The Grace Mugabe debacle depicts the struggle between legal positivism and political realism; that is the supremacy of politics over law. Like realism in international relations, rationalism in comparative politics concentrates on "means-ends" calculations and how they affect political outcomes. But realism engages in methodological nationalism, whereas rationalism as it is deployed in comparative politics engages in methodological individualism. For realism, the ontological unit of analysis is the state as a unitary actor from which the models and explanations for events and political outcomes in international relations are derived."

He said for rationalism, the ontological unit of analysis is the individual, whose strategic interaction forms the basis of political explanation.

"The difference between the two perspectives thus resides in their focus on states and individuals, whereas the common affinity of the two perspectives is their emphasis on the UTILITY-MAXIMIZING of the units of analysis. Like the polarity of LAW and POWER (which is the case with First Lady Grace Mugabe's issue) in the fields of international law and international relations, rationalist and structuralist accounts of politics have created a polarity between structureless agents on the one hand and extreme rational choice and agentless structure on the other extreme structuralists. To address the problem, there is need to construct an EMPIRICAL MODEL," Ruhanya posted on facebook.

"If the norms contained in the international human rights regime are important, as legal proceduralists, neoliberal institutionalists and liberal-republicans argue, then there aught to be a positive relationship between international law of human rights (rights in principle) and the protection of human rights (rights in practice). Such an expectation is supported by Henkin's (1979: 47) claim that "it is probably the case that all nations observe almost all principles of international law and almost all of their obligations almost all of their time."

"States are the primary and most powerful actors in the international sphere . The world is anarchic. Since there is no power over states and no state may command another, there can be no order in international relations. States seek to maximize their security power. Realists perceive the world as having limited resources that are evenly distributed and so they see states as primarily focused on maximizing power and security. States behave rationally in their pursuits of security or power. There is utility in the use of force It is important to note that there is a major division within the Realist School regarding how states measure the maximization of power .Under classic realist theory states seek to make absolute gains in their power," he said.

"Under this view, a realist state does not care whether other states gain in the same transaction as long as the state that is acting makes a gain in power. Neo-realists argue that states seek relative gains. In this view states will want to know whether they will benefit more than other states based on the existing power structure. Based on these assumptions, realists tend to view the world as a series of prisoners' dilemmas. The classic prisoners' dilemma involves two suspects arrested for a crime. The suspects agree in advance not to say anything."

Ruhanya said the police interrogate them separately and over each leniency in return for a confession.

"If neither suspect cooperates, they will only face a light sentence for a lesser included offence. If both suspects confess, they will both go to prison for the full crime though they will get some leniency for their cooperation. If only one suspect confesses that suspect will be left off while the other gets the maximum sentence for the full crime. The best overall outcome for both suspects is when both choose not to confess. For each individual the best outcome is to confess while the other sticks to their agreement not to say anything. If either suspect believes the other will cheat by confessing, it is in their interest to also cheat and confess. Unless the two suspects are incredibly committed to their agreement this prisoners' dilemma should tend to end in both suspects confessing to protect themselves against worst possible outcome and possibly obtain the best outcome," he said.

"The basic idea from the prisoner's dilemma can be translated into the international relations sphere. For example, States will follow the Third Geneva Conventions (which protects prisoners of war and wounded soldiers) as long as they believe other states will also comply. Yet if one state suspects or knows that another state is violating the Third Geneva Convention, the other state would be motivated to break the treaty Criticism."

He said while realism may explain certain choices made by states in the international sphere and thereby illuminate conduct (particularly economic and military conduct), it has difficulty explaining the acceptance by states of international human rights in such as self-centered and power focused world as understood by the realist theory.

"The problems are two fold: Realists must find some benefit for states in agreeing to and complying with international human rights norms and other norms of good governance. Even if such a benefit could be found, realists would need to show why there would be a strong incentive to cheat under the prisoner's dilemma," he said.

The rest is here:

Grace Mugabe debacle depicts the struggle between legal positivism and political realism - Bulawayo24 News (press release) (blog)

How did your to philosophy journey begin? What sparked your interest in Stoicism and philosophy as a way of lifeor as you put it for life? If we understand correctly, you discovered it after struggling with some issues on your own in your adolescence?

I think I read Marcus Aurelius at school. Then, when I was 21, I was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and social anxiety brought on by some bad drug experiences. I suffered from that from 17 to 21, five pretty rough years. I eventually went to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy support group for people suffering from social anxiety. It helped me a lot, and it also reminded me of Stoicism. A few years later, in 2007, I interviewed the two founders of CBT Albert Ellis and Aaron Beck -and discovered theyd both been directly influenced by Stoicism. It was around then that I became interested in the revival of Stoicism, and started to interview other people who use its philosophy today.

How do you explain Stoicism to people when they ask? Does it depend on the audience?

I usually explain it through the prism of CBT, because a lot of people are already familiar with that, or I compare it to Buddhism. I emphasise three ideas: firstly, that our thoughts affect our emotions. Secondly, the wisdom of focusing on what you can control. Third, the importance of habits. Those to me are the three best ideas in Stoicism.

Do you have a daily routine that incorporates any Stoic exercises? If so, has it always been the same? And which exercises do you practice? How has it benefited you?

Not really. It helped me a lot from 21 to 27, Id say when I was in a crisis and needed to change myself to get out of it. I might occasionally turn to it now if Im in a difficult stage of life, but luckily life has been a lot easier since then.

What books would you recommend that you think embody Stoic lessons or ideas but usually are not mentioned in discussions about Stoicism? Or maybe you could recommend a Stoic gem that most people havent read?

Ohhmmm well there are Christian mystic books that are quite influenced by Stoicism, Thomas Trahernes Centuries of Meditation for example. There are modern takes on Stoicism, like Bertrand Russells Conquest of Happiness. Then theres a lot of rich stuff in classical philosophy in general no one reads Cicero any more but he was the most popular author of the Renaissance.

What would be the one Stoic idea or exercise that you think anyone would benefit from? What would you recommend? Feel free to suggest more.

Well, the idea that business people and sports people find most useful is to accept whats beyond your control. Were all control freaks, so thats a really useful, simple idea that we need to keep reminding ourselves of.

Do you have a favorite stoic quote?

This one from Seneca inspired me when I was writing Philosophy for Life: you are retained as counsel for unhappy mankind. You have promised to help those in peril by sea, those in captivity, the sick and the needy, and those whose heads are under the poised axe. Whither are you straying? What are you doing? I think a lot of academics could do with a reminder of that.

From what weve read, you feel like there is something missing from Stoic philosophy that youve tried to find by studying other schools and are beginning to write about. Can you tell us about that? Does that mean you would identify as a Stoic?

Well, theres a lot missing from Stoicism. Humour, for one, a sense of the absurd. They didnt have much sense of the power of the arts, imagination, music, dance, poetry. There isnt much dancing in Greek philosophy as Jean Vanier said when I interviewed him. It can overemphasise self-reliance and under emphasise the importance of friendship. Stoics can be Puritans, which Im definitely not. In general it can overemphasise rationalism and miss out all the importance of non-rational ways of knowing like ecstatic states, which involve the body more. I dont think rationalism is the last word in consciousness. Stoics often seem quite prickly, cold, pedantic personalities which they hide behind a stiff veneer of rationalism. I think its too rule-based Massimo Pigliucci wrote the other day of the algorithm of Stoicism I dont see life as something best approached with an algorithm, though I think thats why Stoicism appeals to computer programmers. No, I dont identify as a Stoic anymore, but I think there are Stoic techniques that everyone could benefit from knowing and practicing.

This interview was originally published on DailyStoic.com

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Read this article:

Philosophy for Life: An Interview With Jules Evans - HuffPost

The great sky wolves devoured the sun Monday.

You won't see that headline in any American newspaper. Nor should you.

But that was the Viking explanation for a solar eclipse. In fact, the concept of a mythical beast or god consuming the sun was a pretty standard interpretation for much of antiquity. To the ancient Chinese, it was a veracious dragon. In Vietnam, a celestial toad swallowed either the sun or moon during a solar or lunar eclipse.

These were agricultural cultures, mind you, completely dominated by anecdote and the rhythm of the growing seasons. Those shadows of polytheism still exists today, remnants permitted by later, more powerful monotheistic traditions as a means to more easily sway recent converts.

Easter, for instance, is probably a fusion of Catholic doctrine and more ancient pagan spring festivals, built around the planting calendar and an associated concept of rebirth. The egg has long been a tangible, powerful symbol of new life. And that pre-Christian tradition sticks around today.

Point is, myths come and go. They're the necessary result of a curious species that spends an unprecedented amount of time pondering the world around it. And there tends to be substantial upheaval and pushback whenever a seminal moment throws shade at the established intellectual tradition. Entire political power structures are built around belief systems. Entire institutions derive their power from the myth itself. Overturning an established myth is, often, a direct assault on a civilization's cultural and political framework.

It's no surprise then that Galileo was put on trial in 1633 for suggesting earth revolved around the sun and offering conclusive evidence to prove it. The Vatican convicted the Italian naturalist of heresy, tantamount to a 17th century blacklisting, and forced him to recant his findings. It wasn't until 1992 that Pope John Paul II admitted the church's error after a 13-year investigation.

For more than 350 years, the story of Galileo's trial has stood as a symbol of the inherent tension between religion and rationalism.

On Monday, millions of Americans turned their gazes skyward to watch the moon blot out the sun. This time, it was widely understood that the entire event is just a chance occurrence of orbiting bodies passing by one another. With incredible accuracy, scientists predicted precise moments when the sun would be fully eclipsed by the moon. And Americans of all political and religious stripes took those predictions for granted.

It's a notable level of confidence in the predictive abilities of scientific observation and mathematics in a moment when similar endeavors are scrubbed from government websites and blasted as hoaxes of the most politically motivated kind. Such charges, mind you, would not be foreign to Galileo. They were the same accusations made against him.

Attempts to objectively measure the universe put us on the moon. It split the atom. It created a network that transmits information at light speed. It nearly doubled average life expectancy and eradicated polio.

And yet, scientists still fight for legitimacy, even though they are the one's whose only real agenda is understanding. That's because those in power weaponize irrational fear. Baseless conspiracy theories are wrongly cast as legitimate doubt. One can't pose legitimate questions about that which they don't understand.

But new information threatens those whose entire access to power is rooted in old systems. With that understanding, no one should be surprised that we're still arguing about evolution 158 years after Darwin published his widely confirmed mechanism for speciation. Nor should anyone be shocked that billions have been spent on delegitimizing climate science.

Almost 400 years ago, merely predicting Monday's eclipse could have been a capital offense. But rationalism soldiered on. It reshaped how the universe is understood. It built political systems, including the United States. And, on Monday, people accepted the calculus that accurately predicted the event.

On Monday, millions looked skyward and understood they weren't seeing the wrath of an angry god or hungry serpent. And that's only because those honestly seeking truth refused to back down.

Read more here:

Alexander: One fleeting victory for reason - Quad City Times

After the neo-Nazi demonstration in Charlottesville, Va., William F. Buckley Jr. must have been rolling over in his grave. As the founder of the National Review magazine, Buckley was an important catalyst for the modern conservative movement. Perhaps his greatest service was marginalizing extremists to prevent them from gaining ascendancy within Republican ranks.

In his bid to make conservative politics mainstream, which over time allowed for someone like Ronald Reagan to become governor of California and later president of the United States, Buckley singled out the John Birch Society and Ayn Rand as unacceptable. Why he went after the Birchers and the author of Atlas Shrugged may offer a lesson for todays GOP.

First and foremost, Buckley sought a politics based on rationalism, facts, empiricism and expertise. At the cost of rationalism, the Birchers were prone to embracing oddball conspiracy theories.

In one outlandish charge, Bircher leader Robert Welch charged that President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a communist agent. He further asserted that 50 percent to 70 percent of the U.S. government was communist-controlled.

Incidentally, it was during a 1964 meeting in Palm Beach that a plan was hatched between Buckley and then.-Sen. Barry Goldwater to denounce Welch. In a subsequent article, Buckley warned about the head Bircher being a liability for conservatives since he was far removed from common sense.

What Buckley did was use alternative media (which the National Review was) to neutralize fake news and keep it from corrupting the overall conservative movement. Today, unfortunately, the opposite has been occurring along with a president aiding and abetting disinformation.

Second, Buckley was a serious Catholic with sincere faith. Consequently, he was a staunch champion of the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is why he had no patience for Rand, who reduced capitalism to materialism and selfishness. Her coffin bore not a cross but a dollar sign!

As an immigrant from the Soviet Union, Rand brought to Americas shores a reactionary economic belief system that became another ism. But her ideology retained Kremlin-brand atheism.

Though religion does continue to play a role in Republican circles, honest observers recognize that too often it has been reduced to a tool for fake God endorsement. Buckley was not so crass, but regarded religion as necessary for promoting our Lincolnesque better angels.

Today, many politicians prefer sharp tone over civil discourse. Such leaders operate as if they do not believe they will one day be judged by God. Religion, sometimes even its veneer, has the power to elevate behavior over dishonesty as well as promote a show of respect toward political opponents.

Buckley was not perfect, but he was a thinker and a life-long learner. His adamant position on states rights cast him on the wrong side of history with respect to civil rights, but near the end of his life, he confessed that he had been wrong and that federal intervention to end Jim Crow was the right action.

Republicans would do well to return to the political wisdom of Buckley. It could make the GOP great again.

ROGER CHAPMAN, WEST PALM BEACH

Editors note: Chapman is a professor of history at Palm Beach Atlantic University.

Go here to read the rest:

POINT OF VIEW: Today's GOP needs another William F. Buckley Jr. - Palm Beach Post