Tag: Thought

  • Would killing me make you right?

    You’ve gotta be kidding me… I read a commentary piece from David Warren the other day, in which Warren tried to explain the “right way” of winning in Iraq. Warren likened the war in Iraq to fighting the Nazis in WWII. I’m confused that people still think that this is a simple fight delineated on political lines, rather than ideological ones.

    And it’s more than just Warren that sees the current Middle East conflict in such a division of black and white. The NATO mission in Afghanistan and the US war in Iraq are charging ahead with their missions to “colonize” the Middle East, in spite of the vigorous opposition from the local militants.

    The obvious problem here is that for the locals, political boundaries don’t seem to matter. In fact, the lines appear to be blurred along cultural and religious boundaries instead. Warren and other traditional military strategists appear, at least to me (an ignorant non-combatant), to be fighting a traditional war against a non-traditional enemy. And what’s worse, I don’t feel confident that current military strategies, at least the way they are conveyed through the media, are showing much of an understanding of this non-traditional enemy either.

    The NATO mission in Afghanistan seems to understand this dynamic, as their current offensive, dubbed Operation Baaz Tsuka is attempting to peacefully convince the enemy to reconsider their plans. Dealing with Afghanistan’s tribal problems is long overdue and no easy, peaceful solutions currently exist, but it’s good to see that NATO is attempting to curb the damage being inflicted by the Taliban through less confrontational military means (as much as possible).

    The US in Iraq, on the other hand, faces a much more severe challenge. It has been documented time and again that the US led mission in Iraq has been shown to “‘not be in conformity with the [UN] Charter’ and many legal experts now describe the US-UK attack as an act of aggression, violating international law.” It’s no wonder the Middle East is hostile towards the US, considering the arrogance and bullying attitude that the US has been showing towards the Iraq situation.

    According to the BBC, “many of the insurgent attacks attributed to foreign jihadis have a sectarian element in that they have targeted Shias with the aim of provoking wider violence between Iraq’s religious communities.”

    A recent article in the December 2006 issue of Christianity Today further outlines the sectarian conflict playing out in the Middle East. The article, entitled “Garlic, Dracula and Al Qaeda”, outlines the problem of religious extremism which is currently fueling this international conflict between the East and the West. I don’t mean to diminish the complexities of global politics, but it is quite clear that without extremism, it would be possible to have rational religious discourse without the fear of offending people and sparking riots, protests and worldwide violence (Remember the Muhammad cartoon fiasco of earlier this year? Or, how about the fatwa against Salman Rushdie).

    Religious extremism is attempting to subvert our individual freedoms through violent censorship and intimidation. This abuse is so abhorrent that it is difficult, if not impossible, to rationally defend the faith for which these individuals are fighting. I think it would be fair to say that if the only method of coercion available to religious extremists is violence, then that side has already lost the argument. Violence is a failure of an individual to rationally articulate reasons to support one’s opinions. Thus, it is shamefully obvious that those on the side of fanaticism are fighting a self-defeating battle with themselves when violently imposing their views on others.

    Although I don’t explicitly support the current military efforts going on in the Middle East, I have to say that I am at least a little impressed with the ideological recognition and strategic adaptations that the NATO led forces are applying to the Afghanistan mission. At the very least, it’ll prove to be a better template of striving for peace than the hammer that the US is applying to Iraq.

    Unfortunately, this still leaves plenty of global hostility towards the West that currently exists in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. I think that it is important to peacefully right past wrongs, offer forgiveness on both sides and work towards lasting rational dialogue and relationship building. This requires all sides to be more understanding and respectful of one another.

    And for goodness sake, let’s hope that the US administration will soon learn to be a little more respectful of human rights and freedoms when attempting to impose their values on people in other lands.

    Todd Dow

  • Some DaVinci Code Factual Weaknesses

    I know, I know… the DaVinci Code has been out for a while now. But, I recently re-read the book and feel the need to comment on it, just for the record. So, here goes…

    Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code offers some interesting speculations and fictions, mixed in amongst a smattering of facts to make the story-line almost plausible. I don’t have the time or the space to go through all of the historical inconsistencies tonight, so I’ll focus on a relatively small area for this post. For those that want to follow along, I’ll focus on some of the comments made in chapter 55. Some of Brown’s “theories” parallel a line of thinking that has been popularized by relatively recent books like “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” by Michael Baigent and “The Pagan Christ” by Tom Harpur. To the average lay reader, the facts cannot be withdrawn from the fiction. But, to a Christian scholar, the lies become evident fairly quickly. Let’s give some of Brown’s fables a look and see what we can find.

    First, a minor philosophical point needs to be made. “The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God.” Brown goes on to say that the Bible has undergone numerous “translations, additions, and revisions,” It is important to note that the New Testament actually did not go through numerous revisions. In fact, many of the books of the New Testament were originally collected as letters that were sent to various Christian Churches. Revisions were not made to these letters over time. Archeological research and ancient documentation comparison has proven that the New Testament is extremely accurate when compared to fragments that date from the late first century and second century.

    Next, Brown’s commentary on the creation of the Bible is historically impossible. The New Testament as we know it today was fairly complete by the end of the second century, which is one hundred years prior to the life of Constantine, who Brown suggests was responsible for collecting and collation of the final New Testament. And, the final works that were included in the New Testament were readily understood, in the first and second century, to be written during the “period of incarnation”, that is, by someone who could have been alive during the time of Jesus. Thus, the final canon was considered the “canon of truth”. The formal canonization came at the Council of Hippo in Africa in 393. The Synod of Cartage in 397 listed the New Testament books in the order that ours are in today. And, the final canon was reaffirmed in 419 at the Council of Carthage. The Gospels and Paul’s writings were never disputed. Some books were debated, but they were not debated based on political motivations. They were debated based on their Catholicity and value to the truth of the Church. This conflicts with Dan Brown’s version of events considerably. Why doubt Brown’s version? With two councils and a synod separately documenting the same list, it makes it quite difficult to ignore this evidence. Councils and synods were convened for special purposes and their findings were documented quite meticulously. It would be quite difficult to forget these results, especially when considered against one another and against the multiple sources that exist to attest each individual council or synod. So, the overwhelming evidence supports the version that I provided above.

    Rome’s official worship does not appear to be sun worship, but instead, it was a collection of pagan religions. And Constantine definitely wasn’t the head priest. He was a military leader who rose to power through battle. And, history has recorded two conversion experiences, both of which occurred during the battle of the Milvian Bridge that led to his ascension to Emperor of the West. Further, Christians were not warring with the pagans. The pagans were martyring the Christians, but this does not, in any way, suggest violence on the part of the Christians. Brown does develop quite an interesting speculative story here though. Although the evidence doesn’t support it, the evidence doesn’t conclusively disprove this portion either. But, the historical record that exists for this period already contradicts Brown’s version. Seeing as the historical version I outlined above has more evidence to support it, it would make sense to support that version of the facts instead.

    Brown suggests that Constantine tried to reign in a growing religion. The facts just aren’t there to support that theory either. In early 300, Christians numbered less than 10% of the general population. By 350, over 30 years after Constantine took power, this number had risen to 50 or 60%. This in no way suggests that Constantine was playing catch up. In fact, it suggests the opposite: that Constantine’s conversion prompted the growth of Christianity.

    Brown’s transmogrification is even sketchy. Tom Harpur takes this idea quite far in his book The Pagan Christ. The similarities in the symbols and stories between Christianity and ancient myths are quite striking. But, that doesn’t automatically mean that Christianity lifted its message from other religions. Sociologists of religion will point to the similarities and say that the later faith is a forgery of the former. But, that discounts all of the evidence in support of Christianity, including the eye witness accounts documented in the Gospels and in Acts, along with the commitment of the martyrs to follow the faith that they experienced personally even when threatened with death.

    And the final statement regarding Constantine shifting the Sabbath to Sunday doesn’t work either… history shows that by the time of Constantine, most Christians were already following Sunday as their day of religious observance.

    This very cursory overview of the “purported facts” presented by Brown shows the weakness in Brown’s historical accuracy. Although a great work of fiction and a really fun read, The DaVinci Code is nothing more than that: a great work of fiction.

  • Forgiveness

    It’s a tough question… could you forgive someone who did you wrong?

    A story in today’s news caught my eye:
    Forgive Iraqi captors, former hostages plead.
    Three former hostages urge forgiveness for Iraqi captors.
    Spare Iraqi kidnappers, Loney pleads.

    James Loney, Harmeet Singh Sooden and Norman Kember, three members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams, were taken hostage in 2005 and were freed 117 days later in March 2006. The three spoke at a press conference on Friday, arguing that although their alleged captors were wrong in their actions, they do not deserve the death penalty if convicted.

    Loney was quoted as saying, “We have no desire to punish them. Punishment can never restore what was taken from us. What our captors did was wrong. They caused us, our families and friends great suffering. Yet we bear no malice towards them and have no wish for retribution.”

    Loney was further quoted as saying, “By this commitment to forgiveness, we hope to plant a seed that one day will bear the fruits of healing and reconciliation for us, our captors…and most of all, Iraq”.

    Difficult stuff… what would you do? How would you react? I, for one, would have a difficult time forgiving someone for such an offensive deed. I would like to think that I would be able to have mercy and to forgive, but that’s easy to say from the comfort of my peaceful life. And, I think it would be even more challenging had this happened to one of my close friends or family members. But again, my sheltered life prevents me from understanding the anger, pain and frustration that must accompany such a difficult ordeal.

    That being said, I think that Loney, Sooden and Kember’s gentle voices speak to an ideal that comes with much reflection and a great deal of commitment to furthering peaceful dialogue with a group that, rightly or wrongly, feels that they are defending their freedom. I know that this won’t sit well with many who have suffered at the hands of Islamic violence, but there is some value in at least considering a peaceful response. Without forgiveness, there can be no peace. On either side. But, with justification for anger on both sides, forgiveness is difficult to achieve.

    I don’t want to trivialize this situation, but consider the basic ways in which conflict is resolved. Consider two children fighting on the playground at school. I don’t know about your experiences, but for me, a solution that I’ve seen applied time and again is to have both children apologize for their contributions to the fight, to shake hands and agree not to continue fighting, and then to encourage healing and friendship between the two kids.

    Why can’t these same principles be applied on the larger world scale? Is the violence any more complicated? Not really… one side has done the other wrong. The justifications might be more complex, but does it make the actions any more correct? When is it right to kill? Especially in the name of peace? There are some serious contradictions to any argument that uses “killing” and “peace” in the same solution. And I’m not alone in that thinking.

    I’ll leave the door open to further discussion on this one… I’ve said enough for one day. But I’ll revisit this again soon.

    What are your thoughts? Could you forgive? Do you think forgiveness is a virtue? Or, do you think that forgiveness a weakness?

    Todd Dow

  • How I handle criticism…

    Something interesting happened this past week: I received my first hate mail as a result of my blog postings. It seems that my 4 part series on atheism raised a few eyebrows. I received two comments to my postings.

    As an aside, I have chosen to moderate my comments, but only for the purpose of censoring offensive content. I don’t believe in censoring thought, but I also don’t see any place for purely offensive statements that contain no relevant or coherent arguments.

    So, I posted one comment and I deleted one comment. The deleted comment was nothing more than a sentence filled with swear words. The one word that could have been posted was the word “ignorant”. So, if the person that attempted to post that comment on my site is reading, well, rest easy because now I’ve shared your comment that you thought I was ignorant.

    I dislike conflict, and thus, I was at first taken aback by the hostile nature of the two comments I received. But, upon further review, I was relieved to know that my blog is reaching some people. Right or wrong, I’m trying to share my thoughts. And, it’s perfectly fine to agree or disagree. I have no problem with respectful dialogue. But I don’t think it is fair to have to tolerate an abusive situation.

    So, if you have comments, by all means share them. But, if you’re just going to be rude and vulgar, then don’t expect your comment to be approved on my site. If you have something valid to say, then I’ll post it, regardless of whether I agree with your statements or not.

    Todd Dow

  • Should atheists have children? – Part 4

    So… where does this leave the atheist?

    I see two options available to the atheist. The atheist can either live a life of nihilism, suffering under a burden of meaninglessness, pushing the stone up the hill every day for the rest of existence, believing that all of the effort is for nothing. Alternately, the atheist can convince himself or herself that their life has meaning in some way. This meaning would be internally defined, which would lack any external validation. Thus, it would lack objectivity. And thus, it would be considered deceitful to the individual. I don’t know which is worse, living a life of meaninglessness, or lying about it to oneself.

    The question now becomes, is there a moral and ethical responsibility for an atheist to alleviate suffering in the world? Peter Singer, in Practical Ethics, argues that there are numerous reasons to act morally. He cites reason [Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, Second Edition, New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pg 318.] and self-interest [Singer, pg 322] as two reasons to be ethically responsible. To this list, I would add compassion as another reason. There is no shortage of reasons for the atheist to be morally and ethically responsible. The only difference between the religious and the atheist viewpoints is in one’s motivations. Regardless of the motivation, the results are often the same. The atheist is just as likely to be morally conscious of one’s neighbour as a Christian would be. Actually, Bertrand Russell, like many other critics of Christendom, argues that religion has been historically responsible for some of the greatest atrocities ever recorded. The Crusades were religiously motivated, as were the attacks of September 11. Atheists would be the first to point out the moral inappropriateness of either of those activities.

    Thus, the atheist is just as capable as a Christian to determine right from wrong. Therefore, the atheist is just as morally obligated to protect their children as a Christian would be. By extension, it would only make sense for an atheist to protect his or her children from suffering. This presents a paradox, as the atheist is unable to live a life free of suffering. As I concluded earlier, either the atheist is suffering from an existence stuck in meaninglessness or the atheist is lying to him or herself about their meaninglessness. Looking out over this vast meaninglessness is reckless. The atheist is ill equipped to answer what purpose there is to living life any longer. Why not just quit life now? If life is meaningless, then what’s to stop the atheist from crossing the line now? Wouldn’t suicide be easier than living one more day in the suffering torment of meaninglessness? Life appears to be in vain. For the majority of atheists, the abyss has not yet been contemplated. Instead, many atheists (the masses) simply disregard the abyss. They ignore the fact that they have nothing to live for. These atheists simply go through life pretending that everything is fine. They lie to themselves, trying to convince themselves that their life has meaning. That is worse than accepting one’s fate and still struggling onwards in spite of the futility.

    The clever atheist could counter by asking if the Christian is lying as well, simply masking the nothingness that surrounds the whole religious experience. This argument is simply deferred back to the earlier discussion pertaining to the metaphysics of our reality. Both the atheist and the religious practitioner are equally suited to argue their case. The difference is that the atheist chooses nothingness or a self-imposed purpose in life, whereas the religious practitioner chooses an external, pre-ordained purpose. Both the religious and the atheistic worldview are valid choices, based on the evidence presented to support either argument, but only the latter choice leaves the believer with a purpose of hope.

    This decision is ultimately one of hope… Is the atheist able to instill a sense of hope into a child, or would an atheist be ill equipped to prevent a child from needless suffering in the world? Horrible, horrible actions could happen to a child regardless of whether that child’s parents were atheists or Christians, so the responsibility for bringing a child into a world where evil exists is equally burdensome to either one. However, the moral and ethical responsibility that the atheist fails is in providing hope to one’s child. The atheist is poorly equipped to protect a child from the eventual view of the abyss that the atheist is confronted with on a daily basis. It is one thing for the atheist to accept the burden of pushing the stone up the hill, like Sisyphus. It is yet another for the atheist to introduce this meaningless existence to his or her child. That goes against the moral and ethical responsibility to alleviate suffering in the world, which is especially applicable to one’s children. Therefore, unless a parent is able to perceive meaning in life, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to bring a child into an existence that lacks meaning. Lack of meaning is, as we saw with Sisyphus, the worst kind of punishment that one could inflict on another.

    Todd Dow