What it means to be a theologian

I found this blog post to be very well written and concise.

To understand the effects of religion on a wider scale, it’s absurd to think that reading a holy book would indicate anything beyond a peripheral understanding of the text itself. For behavioural effects, it’s best to look at neuroscience and psychology. For societal effects, there’s sociology and history. Being an accomplished theologian won’t teach anyone about the influence of religion on society, but the social sciences will and that’s the place to look to.

Now consider the parallel with something I actually do care about: gaming. One might ask the question “what are the wider effects of gaming on the individual and their role in the community?” Now if there was a study that showed a trend of violence among gamers, would it be more pertinent to question the controlling factors of the study or whether the psychologist in charge had ever beaten Quake on Nightmare difficulty? If there was a sociological study showing anti-social behaviour increasing among online gamers, would the controlling factors of the study be under question or whether the sociologist’s World of Warcraft character had reached level 80?

The parallel with gaming is there to show that knowing the content of a subject is not an adequate resource to deal with questions not relating to that content. Knowing the back-story of Zelda universe does not make that person any bit qualified to answer questions on behaviour associated with playing the game. Theology won’t answer questions of individual behaviour, it won’t answer question of the wider social effects of group behaviour and how that has happened throughout history. The best way to study the inquisition is to look at the historical evidence, not the bible.

This really is to what this argument boils down. There is often an attempt to discredit anyone who dare suggest the idea of a concerned or even aloof creator is a faulty one. No, it isn’t good enough to say that the notion of a god doesn’t hold up very strongly under scrutiny; it is necessary that we fully understand the specifics of what man has written concerning this notion.

What does reading the bible actually tell us? It’s like any other piece of literature, it has a message that the author(s) intended. Those who are adept at literary analysis would see even further into the book and be able to understand the authors themselves. But for the layman, the bible is a chance to get immersed in the world of the mythology. They are able to emotionally connect with the characters involved and try to understand the motivations associated therein. In essence studying theology has the academic scholarship of studying Lord Of The Rings.

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote a masterpiece in the fantasy genre, it’s influence today is seen transcending literary fantasy and into the pop culture. Admittedly the adaption to the silver screen helped bring it into the consciousness of an otherwise ignorant mainstream, but it’s success still speaks volumes for it’s quality. It doesn’t stop there either, the appendices, and further books all bring Middle Earth to life and give it a complete mythology.

I personally would have chosen All Quiet on the Western Front, but to each his own. Even if it’s the great literary work that is the Bible.

Bruins

The Boston Bruins are currently in first place in the Eastern Conference. Still, no one respects them anyway.

Lucic

Einsteinian Religion

There are these perverse notions floating around about what Einstein believed or didn’t believe regarding religion and god(s). The page at Conservapedia – which deserves no link – will give the impression that Einstein believed in some sort of conscious, higher power. Any research will show this is highly unlikely. Einstein believed in ordering physical principles to the Universe which are ultimately far beyond the understanding of humans. This is not a god at all, which is why it’s somewhat unfortunate that he used the term “god” to describe these ordering principles. On the one hand, it’s misleading and it tends to invite people to attempt to associate a brilliant thinker with their own positions, as if appeals to authority confer truth to a statement or thought or idea. On the other hand, there’s a certain poetry to his language; we should all appreciate personification in our literature.

Ultimately, Einstein was an agnostic. Precisely where he stood on, say, Richard Dawkins’ Scale of Religiosity is unclear. I suspect he may be slightly to the left of someone like Carl Sagan (physically assuming “1” is left and “7” is right – see scale video). That may place him as a 4, as I would place Sagan as a 5. Unfortunately, neither man can clarify at this point. However, it is quite clear that neither one believed in any personal god – the seeming indifference of Nature to our plights, our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, it all indicates a lack of personality, of personalization, no matter how much poetic personification we like to use.

Really? Prince?

Apparently, Prince hates homosexuals. He has evidently been a conservative Christian for some time. You’d think a guy who writes about fucking Darling Nikki and makes songs about sex toys and dresses flamboyantly might be a little bit looser. Nah. The virus that is religion has found another host.

Prince

Capital Weekly

Here is an article I wrote for the Capital Weekly. It’s about a roadtrip I took this past summer.

Oreodont

This is the guy currently in the header of this blog. It’s a 35 million year old oreodont fossil found in the South Dakota Badlands.

Daphnia

Daphnia

This little guy is a crustacean which has its molting synthesis activated by Halloween genes (as do insects because, gasp!, they share a relatively close lineage). Some of the names of these genes are Spo, Spok, Spookiest, Phantom, Disembodied, Shadow, and Shade.

World Beard Championship

A top contender

The competition gets tougher every year.

Joe Buck and Tim McCarver

This is what I’m talking about when I say I want to expand my range. Joe Buck and Tim McCarver are the two worst announcers in any sport. They are quite roundly hated, at least in baseball. So it’s refreshing to see that Yahoo! has a blog entry on the subject.

Buck has indicated he’d be perfectly happy calling a football game. Baseball fans seem to agree. What’s the problem? Let’s make this happen, Fox. When he gets bored with that, maybe Buck could replace Conan O’Brien late nights at NBC. That’s probably what Buck really wants, anyway. He’s talented and engaged enough with entertainment and pop culture (“Bachelorette”) to do a great job with it.

As for McCarver, he’s just impossible to defend from himself, so to try any harder …

I have to disagree that Buck is talented, but the rest of the post makes solid points. Dump these two, Fox.

Expanding My Range

I’ve decided I should expand my range of topics for this blog. The primary focus will still be the best way of knowing – science – but I will also include a small dosing of other topics, from politics to social issues to whatever comes across my radar, even ignorant blog posts.