The Warfare Is Mental

Cult, Occult

June 10, 2008

The word cult (Latin colere) means ‘to cultivate’ or ‘to worship,’ and is occasionally mistaken as occult but has nothing to do with it, except that some cults base their rituals and worship around occult ideas. Occult (Latin occulere) means ‘to cover, hide or conceal.’ A cult is a noun and refers to a movement or group of people with a specific agenda; occult is primarily an adjective used to describe any of the various ideas represented by the Old Religions or their modern offshoots.

Assessing The Value Of Religion

June 8, 2008

When should we grant or relinquish trust in the various religious statements, leaders and organizations?

Religious statements can address the here-and-now or the forever-after. Part of our answer to the question of which religious beliefs to accept depends on whether our primary concerns are the here-and-now, the forever-after, or both.

An Important Point In My Religious History

June 4, 2008

When I was younger, I had a watch. Not a fancy watch, just your average, run-of-the-mill wristwatch that a kid who didn’t know any better might purchase from a department store for not more than say, twenty dollars. It was comparable to a cheap Swatch knockoff, but nothing like my very favorite watch I ever owned, a low-key G-Shock WaterSport with all sorts of timers and even a legit compass. Either way, I liked the Swatch knockoff, so I was of course ultra-bummed when it stopped one day without warning.

Pascal’s Wager

May 31, 2008

I was recently asked a question by an atheist we'll call Writer A
in a thread:

"Do you think we should seriously entertain the possibility of God's existence despite its failure as a scientifically-framed hypothesis? If so, why, and what means should we employ to evaluate the question?"

My full response to this was,

"Well, that answer depends on questions only you can answer for yourself. I think if the possibility of eternal separation from God is something one might wish to avoid, then one might be justified in seriously entertaining the possibility of God's existence whether they think God has failed as a scientifically-framed hypothesis or not. Contrary, if the possibility of eternal separation from God is not a big deal to one, then I'd say one has no reason to pursue the matter at all. And should one declare the pursuit worthy, the means one should employ to evaluate the question will likely be as unique and diverse as one's path to reverence of the question in the first place." (emph. added)

Christian

May 18, 2008

Just what is a Christian? Or, what set of behaviors is implied by the term? Famed logician and skeptic Bertrand Russell addressed this in his essay Why I Am Not A Christian:

Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make out what one means by the word Christian. It is used these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some people mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a good life…"

As in Russell's time, the meaning of the word is vague today. It seems possible to be a Christian by one person’s definition yet equally possible to not be a Christian by another’s. If the definition of the word Christian is assumed to be somebody who believes in God and goes to church, then by that definition there are a great many Christians around. However, if a Christian is defined as somebody who accepts and adheres to the teachings of Christ, then there are hardly any Christians around. Besides, what type of Christian are you referring to? Protestant? Catholic? Liberal? Scientist? The point of all this is not to play the game of semantics; rather, such examples are included to highlight the importance of clarifying our terms to prevent the furthering of ignorance, dissension and misunderstanding.

Fundamentalist

A Fundamentalist is someone who holds to the five fundamental doctrines of Christianity, being 1) The inerrancy of Scripture; 2) The virgin birth and deity of Jesus; 3) Redemption through grace; 4) The physical resurrection of Jesus; and 5) The authenticity of Christ's miracles. Points 2-5 are undoubtedly supported biblically; however, depending on how one interprets the pertinent terms, Point 1 can cause an awful lot of confusion.

A Fundamentalist is not necessarily a person who interprets every word of the Bible literally, although some Fundamentalists do interpret every word of the Bible literally. Biblical literalism is not necessarily synonymous with biblical inerrancy. Whereas the issue of errancy deals with the truthfulness of the author's intended message, biblical literalism deals with the literal interpretation of certain passages.

**Related Posts:

Christian

Is Humanism A Religion?

May 17, 2008

There is debate over whether secular humanist organizations meet the criteria of a religion. Several cases have been appealed on account of the idea that secular humanism is a religion, on the premise that as such the teaching of evolution is a religious endorsement. What do our courts say? In 1987 the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals noted, "The Supreme Court has never established a comprehensive test for determining the delicate question of what constitutes a religious belief for purposes of the First Amendment.”

False Argument #9: Bible Claims Sun Revolves Around Earth

Science itself is a continually evolving enterprise and mistakes are a natural part of the evolutionary process. For religious expressions of this peculiar human ability to error, one need look no further than the well-publicized story of the Italian scientist Galileo, (1564-1642) prosecuted by the Roman Catholic Church on grounds that his claim Earth revolved around the sun was heretical. First we must secure accurate definitions of the pertinent terms.

The word heretical can be defined as contrary to the chartered traditions of the Church, and heliocentrism is the notion that the sun is the center of our solar system. Is this idea at arms with anything the Bible actually says, or was it at arms with the power structure’s interpretation of scripture at that particular time?

False Argument #8: Science Has Proven The Soul

The twentieth-century frontier experiments conducted by Duncan MacDougall M.D. of Havervill, Massachusetts are worthy of mention. As a skeptic, it should be noted that MacDougall approached his research from a methodological naturalist’s point of view, writing with detectable resentment towards the blind faith demanded from theologians and so-called metaphysicians regarding the existence of the spirit / soul. Thus his experiments suffer from confirmation bias in that McDougall set out with a specific goal, to disprove existence of a soul that transcends death.

His hypothesis was simple enough:

…the soul substance so necessary to the concept of continuing personal identity after death of the material body must still be a form of gravitative matter…”

Hence it must have weight.

On The Nature Of Truth

May 16, 2008

Truth almost escapes definition. Rather, it is what is. Houghton Mifflin defines truth as, “conformity to fact or actuality; fidelity to an original or standard; reality; actuality.” Thus it can be said with confidence that the truth regarding any particular event can only be what actually exists or happened, and the truth of any belief can only be its correspondence to that reality. Any given statement regarding life or history can either be true or false, fact or opinion, and while some are easily verifiable, others are not. Especially in the arenas of religion, politics and science, most facts are buried under tons of corporate agenda, human ambition and political motive.

← Newer Posts | Older Posts →