The Unfettered One

Miracles

2009-10-09T12:26:00.000-07:00

The following is from my late professor, D.Z. Phillips’ work, “The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God”. I quote this long paragraph, as an example of one his teacher’s ability to think differently (i.e., philosophically) about religious issues.

In the discussion of a purported miracle, it seems that the only choice we have is either to explain it away naturalistically, or to establish that it is the result of higher causal powers. Now and again, however, one comes across examples that escape this stranglehold. [Peter] Winch discusses the various reactions which ensued when, in a church in a southern US state, a statue of the Virgin Mary was seen to weep from time to time. The case became celebrated, discussed on television, etc. The disputants divided along now familiar lines. On the one hand were those who claimed that the phenomenon could be explained easily in terms of deception, condensation and the like. On the other hand were those who denied that there could be a naturalistic explanation of the weeping statue. It was being caused to weep by higher powers. Winch was disgusted with both sides of the debate. What had the considerations adduced to do with veneration of the Virgin? Quite apart from these disputants, however, was a woman who simply said, ‘Why shouldn’t the Holy Mother weep over the sins of the world?’ She showed no interest in explanations. Her question is a religious response, and to understand it one would have to pay attention to religious categories of thought in which veneration of the Virgin plays an important part. No doubt such a woman may turn out to be too trusting. She may be fooled in many ways. But the losses or dangers are not all on one side. Those interested only in condensation, trickery, etc., will never see the Virgin weep; for example, weep despite the trickery (p. 17).

Phillips, recalling his teacher, Peter Winch, says that we’re caught in a “dominant naturalistic interest in the world, and what it asks of us by way of explanations and empirical evidence (p. 16). But, using the story of Moses and the burning bush, Phillips points out that “Moses’ initial reaction to the bush which burns without being consumed, is to approach it to find out what is happening (ibid.)” Phillips adds:

But, in the story, it is precisely that quest for explanations that is forbidden by God speaking from the midst of the bush. Moses is told to take off his shoes for he is on holy ground. In our culture, it has become almost impossible not to ask Moses’ initial question, and to pursue it by every explanatory means at our disposal (ibid.).

Holy ground.

How unwise it is of us to think causally, sterilely, scientifically, about all matters religious.

An Atheist

2009-10-05T10:18:00.000-07:00

If you have ten minutes, please watch the following video on Doug Mataconis' blog, entitled "The Arrogance of Clergy and Organized Religion". He's an atheist with some interesting political views, which are refreshingly outside the box.

Unfortunately, his scope of knowledge of Christianity seems somewhat limited. For example, he mentions nothing about Orthodox Christians in this clever tirade against organized religion; he rails against the particularly western dogma of Penance, and seems sadly to have glommed on to the doctrine as if it were the primary and constant experience of all Christians. He misses the various "grammars" of prayer as they fit into the varieties of religious experience, to use the title of William James' excellent book.

And yet, my primary question is for my Eastern Orthodox friends. How would you address this man? Does he raise any points that hit close to home? Are there any Orthodox bishops in America vying for power who fit into Mr. Mataconis' criticism of religion? If so, should one be honest about it to those outside the Church? Should one warn potential converts if it's the case, or let them discover it later even if they lose their Faith as a result? As always, comments are welcome!

Religion Clause: Jediism Founder Accuses British Supermarket Chain of Religious Discrimination

2009-09-22T11:29:00.000-07:00

Howard M. Friedman, in his blog this morning, Religion Clause: Jediism Founder Accuses British Supermarket Chain of Religious Discrimination
presents us with the founder of a new religion based on the Star Wars mythos. After my initial reaction, (yes, I laughed), I began looking at some information on this and other new religious movements.

Upon reflection I came up with some questions, which I now pose to those more knowledgeable than I:

1. If one has no interest in any of the tens of thousands of religious denominations, sects, or various off-shoots of religion, what's wrong with starting another, and gathering some 500,000 people of like mind?
2. Is there some measure by which we can say, "Oh, that isn't really a religion, just a bunch of crackpots." What would that measure be? British law sure thinks it has such a measure!
3. What's the difference between this Jediism group surrounding itself around various interpretations of the Star Wars books and movies and the Evangelical bible-church groups that spring up seemingly daily?

Anyone's help would be greatly appreciated!