|
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| think, question & grow |
|
| |
There was a story on NPR last week that really ruffled my feathers. The title of the program is "Camp Offers Training Ground For Little Skeptics" and the story is about a kid's camp called Camp Inquiry. Here's a brief snippet:
Chloe and a dozen other campers begin discussing God, the planets and humanity's place in the universe. But at Camp Inquiry, which has a secular humanist focus, God takes a back seat to reason. Of course, the camp schedules familiar camp activities like hiking, swimming, and arts and crafts for kids ages 7 to 16; but the thrust of the camp is to teach children to think skeptically about everything, including religion and the supernatural.
This got to me on so many levels. First, it pushed my "I gotta defend my faith" button, then my "I'm a skeptic too" and finally my "stupid Christians" buttons.
One of the kids said that "as soon as someone mentions faith in an argument, the argument is over ... faith and the scientific method can't be combined in the same argument." That's so right. So why do we argue it? One of the father's who is an atheist while his wife is Christian had this to say, "as soon as they read Richard Dawkins, I win." Is that what this is all about; I'm right so you're wrong, us versus them?
We gotta stop drawing lines like this. I've gotta be able to question the existence of God, have doubts, be a skeptic, even be an atheist some days. I need a place where I can be myself; to think, question & grow. This is Camp Inquiry's motto, couldn't it be the church's as well? |
|
| To leave a comment or start your own blog: |
 |
or |
 |
Already a member? Login |
|
|
|
|
Ken |
 |
August 11, 2008 at 5:48pm |
|
Hi, Kim. I share your discomfort at the way discussions of faith and science have become so filled with venom and a desire for victory. I note this tone in both Christian and outspokenly atheist circles (and most especially in blogs of both camps).
I think that while there is a real divide among Americans on these questions, the terms of the debate, and its tone, have been driven by the political machinations of operatives for conservative candidates. Many strategists see the wedge between churchgoers and non-churchgoers as key in defining their candidates against their opponents. These disparate, but well-funded, image creation campaigns have, since the late 70's, created a ready-to-hand language by which those citizens who fear liberalism can keep its ideas at a distance. Likewise, particularly in academic and activist circles, these campaigns have spurred the development of a counter-narrative, by which religion is seen as central to problems in civil society, identity politics, and struggles over sexuality and freedom of expression.
The problem is three-fold:
1. The rhetoric has replaced any significant on-the-ground understanding of each other's lives histories and experiences as churchgoers and non-churchgoers.
2. The diversity of outlook and intent and cosmology in both scientific and religious circles, which in fact is as rich and productive as the culture as a whole (just as many progressives and conservatives in science and in ministry as in the towns they work in), is being unhealthily ignored.
3. Finally, from the point of view of people who seek social justice and freedom of expression, it is clear that successful movements and moments in American history for that effort have ALL involved coalitions of academic progressives, Jewish social activists, and liberal Christians - so the hate is truly corrosive to progress on a number of fronts.
I suggest one general remedy: talking to people we disagree with, in a spirit of love and acceptance, with no quest for victory. This will lead we know not where, but certainly away from the toxic stalemate we find ourselves in. |
|
|
Well, ya know, I definately support thinking, questioning, and growing.
And, drat, I didn't mean my waistline -- though even a week in Honduras didn't cause me to "waist away" (I can hear the groans!). Indeed, a steady diet of beans, rice, tortillas, and fried plantains is not quite The Zone that Dr. Sears had in mind -- even with some pollo alongside.
I have heard the argument that science and religion cannot co-exist. At that point I wonder: "What planet are you from?" Surely not the same one I wake up each morning to, praising its Creator. The one with waterfalls and rainbows, a zillion varieties of plants, animals, and minerals, and too many stars in the sky to count. The one with plenty of room for discovery and intelligence -- the excitement and drive of humankind to know more -- and the unabashed ackowledge that humankind is mortal, flawed, and limited.
Yeah, I hear the argument. It sounds to me like "the Earth sucks so much no God would have created it that way". But when I read Genesis, I read that what God created was very good. That God uniquely gifted man with the ability to think, question, and grow without protecting man from his/herself may appear to be flawed. How delightful it would be to be perfect little angels in complete harmony! Not.
No, what makes it perfection -- to me -- is God's Grace. That God didn't just set this thing in motion, and then forget about it. That he didn't take an even ten days with no rest, or work overtime, and then spend the rest of eternity pulling strings. God is no helicopter parent.
God's Grace is the parachute we need to land with after we fall. And apparently, we seem to get a thrill out of taking leap after leap, trusting in that parachute -- or maybe not.
Jumped without it? I'll pray for you, but not cry for your arrogance.
Anyway, back to the either/or argument. Never been a fan. I am an "and" person. I believe God has communicated pretty strongly that we should be "and" people, not either/or people. I think of God as a Big God -- a ginormous God -- absolutely beyond our comprehension. So, it doesn't bother me a bit to fit into his creation both the known and the unknown, science and mystery, the explained and the unexplainable, head and heart.
God is Great! And what he has gifted us with, is very good. The debate, to me, is quite unnecessary, and just a silly distraction. Science vs. religion?
I dig both. |
|
|
Laura |
|
August 30, 2008 at 9:55pm |
|
| I've never knew God without gnats, trees, flowers and DNA. So maybe I'm not a good one to jump in here.. but... Kim.. I do think that an ego-driven need to be right is a large part of the whole thing... and I mean whole in a whole kind of way... from Christian exclusiveness to atheism to all the fabulous ways of in-between. Rigidity is ... but... how can I speak of experiencing God in the ways that I know him... without tapping into a stream of understanding that.. seems... to deny logic. I am once again in crisis-friend-counseling mode with Gustav barreling down on New Orleans.. I can so speak of nature and God and faith, .. trust and love.. in these times.. not from doctrine so much as from experience of God's love... I wish.. deeply and truly I pray ...that I was a better messenger for God... that I could take my one little mustard seed size amount of faith and share the whole of what that means with those that so need it... for all the doubts and all the mind.. things... that isn't what my heart knows... it's not a mind thing.. Kim... it's not about being a skeptic, or a doubter, or an analyzer... it's simply about loving... that's what our kids needs to know and feel.. as well as what we need to be reminded of... often.. :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
back to top
