Best.Conspiracy.Ever

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Why do people believe in Christ?

During a recent Facebook exchange, a friend of mine said the following:

I think that there are basically 4 reasons why people believe in Christ 1) The bible told you so. 2) Other people told you so. 3) Something happens in your life and you think Jesus did it. 4) It feels right.

He then went on to explain why all of these reasons are, in fact, unreasonable. I can summarize his arguments as follows:
1) The Bible has inconsistencies, hence it is not reliable
2) Where did the other people get their faith? And since there are more non-Christians in the world than Christians, we should follow the majority.
3) Whatever happened in your life may be due to other causes that do not involve Jesus, so how can we be sure that it was Him.
4) This is not a good reason to believe something is true or good.

I totally grant my friend the last point. Believing in something because it feels good is

On biblical contradictions

In response to a musing I placed on Facebook ("I wonder if certain modern atheists realize the logical and factual errors on which they rely") a friend replied with a reference to this list of biblical contradictions.

The reference has nothing to do with my question, but it makes for interesting reading regarding a different aspect of the atheists' approach, namely a lack of understanding of what Christianity is and what it teaches.

I agree that such a misunderstanding is also due to our doing a poor job of explaining said features of Christianity, mixed with the fact that in our society the most vocal Christians seem to be those who have a very poor intellectual understanding of it. Lots of faith, and God will give them credit for it, but poor understanding.

Still, why do they base their criticisms on what they heard from very

Are you blind or gullible?

Granted, we all have different ideas and different points of view. And on some issues we may discuss and debate until the cows come home (I hope they don't: where would I put them?) and still not change our minds one bit.

But why is it that when we find ourselves at odds with another person, we so often end up labeling the other person with disparaging epithets? In particular, I find that often this happens:

• If I don't see what the other person sees, then I am called blind (or worse)
• If I see something the other person does not see, then I am called gullible (or worse)

Maybe I am, but maybe it's the other person who is on the wrong side of the coin. So, why not stick to the argument and present our perspectives? Why go ad hominem?

Lest I confuse you, I am not saying that I do not do this also. I have done it and, despite my efforts, I will probably do it again.

What I am asking is why? And is there something good about it? If not, what can we do to avoid this behaviour?

KONY2012 or ME2012 ?

These days there is a lot of discussion, both online and in person, about the KONY2012 campaign. No need to explain or reference: just Google it!

I am totally in support of the principle that it is our collective duty to protect the children who are, or may become victims of this violent warlord.
I hope that the organizers of this campaign will reach the stated goal of bringing this menace under control and to justice.
I am also not sure whether their proposed approach is the best one, as I have read strong arguments pro and con.
I am not in any position to assess the sincerity of their effort, which some have called into question: only God knows that.

Having said that, here is my point:

How about starting a campaign to have each of us look into our own lives, to identify and eliminate those character and behaviour aspects we have in common with Joseph Kony?

I am not saying that any of you reading this note is in a league even close to this degenerate man, but think:

• Do you ever try to lord it over other people?
• Do you ever try to trick or force other people to do your job, or to do things that are mostly to your advantage?
• Do you ever look at other people's body and think of them as objects to be used for your own purposes? (Yes, consuming pornography is part of that!)
• Do you ever try to escape justice knowing full well that you have done something wrong? By justice I do not mean only the civic authorities and their laws, but even person-to-person justice.
• Do you ever do things for your own pleasure, even if it serves no other purpose whatsoever and does not benefit anyone, let alone the common good? (Like watching TV for hours...)

After all, this is what Kony is doing, isn't it? Each of us has very little to contribute to the solution of the Kony problem, although it can be argued that together we can. But each of us can do a great deal to curb those same issues within ourselves.
Therefore the same global logic of effectiveness applies here:

• KONY2012: Each of us can do little, but together we can produce a big improvement in the world.
• ME2012: Each of us can do little (because we do little damage), but together we can produce a big improvement in the world around us.

What do you think?

Heterophobia

Red Deer College will soon present a play called "Heterophobia", as part of "Diversity week". The play's theme is described as follows:

Imagine sexual discrimination reversed – gay is the norm and straight people are threatening the sanctity of marriage. Picture coming of age in a family vehemently against rights for straight couples. They speak at rallies against the dangers of opposite-sex marriage. Social norms are flipped on their ears, and extreme role reversal ensues.

While I understand the goal they are trying to achieve, I am puzzled by the approach taken. Is it possible that in order to present/explain a certain ideological position one has to resort to a preposterous scenario and ask the public to accept an absurd situation? Can't they come up with better arguments and methods and a more realistic/convincing situation?

So, here I ask some questions, for my own clarification, but in the hope that others will get clearer ideas too.

1) With regards to the play, how is it ever physically possible to have a society in which homosexuality is the norm? How would it sustain itself in terms of reproduction? What would a family look like? What does this irrationality say about the argument?

2) Why is opposition to the sanctioning of a homosexual life style seen as a phobia? Why are we expected to accept the fact that we are afraid of something (someone?) simply because we do not accept it? Are vegetarians afraid of meat? By the way, remember that the Catholic Church is all in favour of support and acceptance of people with homosexual tendencies. She only rejects the notion that a homosexual lifestyle is a positive thing. If people do not see the difference between these two concepts, I think that it's because of their faulty thinking: what do you think?

3) Should I become homophobic as I hear of more and more aggressive behaviour by homosexual activists against those who oppose their views? I am not afraid of homosexuals (I have many gay friends), but I am afraid of violent and bullying people. Is that the goal? Making me afraid and hence phobic?

What is "education" for you?

During a discussion with a friend/colleague, the observation came up that for some teacher the essence of education is helping students achieve a certain mark/grade, while for others the mark/grade is a small, if not detrimental aspect of our educational system and that stimulating interest and curiosity is the key.

What do you think?

The opium of the masses

Karl Marx famously claimed that religion was the opiate of the masses. Here is an argument that turns the claim on its head.

What do you think?



By the way, contra me, Fr. Barron seems to use the meaning of "religion" that includes belief in God. Cool!

The time when Jesus goofed...

Today's Gospel reading made me think: if Jesus is God, how come He didn't get it right the first time? Here is from Mark's Gospel, Chapter 8, verses 22-25:

When Jesus and his disciples arrived at Bethsaida,
people brought to him a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him.
He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village.
Putting spittle on his eyes he laid his hands on the man and asked,
"Do you see anything?"
Looking up the man replied, "I see people looking like trees and walking."
Then he laid hands on the man's eyes a second time and he saw clearly;
his sight was restored and he could see everything distinctly.

What do you think?

Speaking of logic

Here is an interesting reflection on the use of logic and statistics in relation to the current US kerfuffle on compulsory coverage of contraceptive.

What are our life axioms?

It has been a very long time since scholars realized that in order to do any logic one must accept certain basic facts without needing to prove them. These so-called axioms or postulates were identified at least since good old Euclid (300 BC) and have been studied since. An early approach to axioms was to think of them as the basic building blocks of nature or reality, something that one could not and need not question.

A more recent realization was that we can actually question them, in the sense that if we pick different axioms we arrive at different constructs, such as non Euclidean geometry. (The trick, BTW, was in realizing that axioms do not require definitions and that when we apply certain axioms to certain suitably defined objects, we end up with "models" that make sense and are in fact useful.) However, the foundational character of axioms has not gone away.

You would think that such an important concept had been properly included in our basic educational system, that all people were familiar with it and that it would be used and considered in all aspects of life. Alas, not!

So, we end up quarreling about the "logic" of our arguments, when in fact our differences are in our axioms. Or we laugh at each other's ideas, claiming that they are obviously wrong, when the ideas are perfectly fine, if we accept their underlying axioms.

And there is the rub: are those axioms "true"? That is, do we see them holding up in reality? Are their logical consequences positive or negative? Are they observable or not? Are they consistent with other axioms used at the same time?

Too abstract? Here is an example: a beautiful article that recently appeared in The Onion.

You probably know that The Onion is a satirical online site that pokes fun at all kinds of things. So, you probably will smile at the extreme absurdity of what the "article" reports. But can you find the logical flaw in what they are proposing? I could not see any. The only reason why I find the article funny, as opposed to horrific, is that its consequences stem from a set of axioms that are totally opposite to my basic life axioms. I suspect that most people who read the article have the same reaction as mine, and yet...

And yet there are many of those same people who agree with the axioms on which the article is based. Planned Parenthood thinks nothing of participating in the destruction of millions of people, as long as they conveniently use the axiom "unborn babies are not people". Go try and prove that axiom wrong!

So, what are our REAL axioms, the ones on which we base our actions? Any thoughts?

Why don't you like math?

A new acquaintance: "What do you do for a living?"
Me: "I teach Math at RDC"
They: "I was never good at math", or "I hated math!"

When my wife states that she is a physician, she never hears back "I was never good at biology", or "I hated biology". So, why the animosity?

What's your personal experience, both direct and indirect? Why don't people like math?

Being "open minded-

Most of us claim to be "open-minded". What does that mean?

Probably, a definition on which we can all agree is that being open-minded means being open to different ideas and to different perspectives on life. But, is that how we apply the definition in practice, especially to ourselves?

When I look at how we put the concept into action, it seems to me that being open-minded, more often than not, means:

I agree with my own ideas, even when they run contrary to common current views. As for those who disagree with my ideas, poor people, they must change their mind or shut up, eh?

What do you think? Are you open-minded? In what way?

Who is a Christian?

"You Christians are so messed up, you can't even agree on who a Christian is!".

Fair comment, given the plethora of definitions swimming around. And that gets compounded by the common use made of the word for several centuries in the Western world, where a "christian", was simply a synonym for a person.

A colleague of mine once said that he thought a Christian is anyone who thinks he is. There is, perhaps, one perspective from which such a definition makes sense, but I am not sure what it would accomplish as a definition.

Here is the definition I consider, and I will tell you why. A Christian is a person who believes that:

1) God exists
2) Jesus is the son of God, one of the three Persons that constitute God
3) Jesus' incarnation, death and resurrection were accomplished for the forgiveness of our sins.

I use this definition because:
1) the existence and nature of God are at the very core of Christianity, hence condition 1 cannot be avoided;
2) the name of "Christ" is universally attributed to Jesus only, in recognition of His being (or claim to be) the son of God, so that 2 cannot be avoided; and
3) there is no Christianity without acknowledging the central role of Jesus' incarnation, death, and resurrection.
Any other condition, so far as I have found out so far - and I stand ready to be corrected - is part of theology, not of the definition.

Notice that I have excluded any intellectual understanding or active behaviour, as they may describe the stage of a Christians in her journey of faith, not his being one. Also, I am not saying that only Christians are good people, go to heaven or any such other thing. Those are topics for a different discussion, but I don't think they are part of the definition.

What definition do you use and why?

Interested in flipping your classroom?

Have you heard of the concept of a "flipped classroom?" It has nothing to do with changing furniture or hanging your students upside down. It has all to do with making better educational use of class time.

In a traditional class, student are provided with an introduction to a topic via, usually, a lecture, occasionally a more participatory activity. They are then left on their own to explore the topic and make it theirs.

In this different model, students are given information before class to introduce the topic and then spend class time in exercises, discussions, Q/A sessions and whatever else they need.

What makes this a novel method is the fact that students need the audio visual that comes from a lecture and in the past this could only be provided in class. But now we have technology that allows us to record a lecture and make it available to the students, thus avoiding the reliance on the (boring) textbook for the flipped model.

I have started trying it this year and it surely is a lot of work, but it is worth it. Class time is more enjoyable and profitable, old canards ("Did I miss anything") become irrelevant and students find it a very good tool.

Have you tried it? Have you heard of anyone who has? Whether yes or not, what do you think of the concept?

What is atheism?

In light of my previous post, I consider atheism as a religion, in that it is a system of beliefs about existence, reality and God. Sure, it denies the existence of God, but that is also a belief. And sure there are atheists for whom the question of God is important and others who could not care less. Still, it is consistent with the definition I use.

If it is not a religion, how would you describe it?

Remember, the questions I ask here are real, not rhetorical or sarcastic. I really would like to know other perspectives.

What is your definition of "religion"?

What started this blog was an interesting discussion that, starting from a totally different topic, ended up in a heated exchange on what is meant by "religion".

I realize that different people use different definitions, so I do not insist on everyone else using mine. Well, except to provoke my friends, but I will not do that here.

So, here is my definition, derived from the latin word "religo" which, I was taught in my Italian schooling, means "to bind together":

A system of beliefs regarding the nature of existence and, in particular, the nature of God.

I make a big distinction between "religion" and "belief" or "faith".

What's your definition, where did it come from and why did you choose it?