Relationship Between Science and Religion Topic of Public Lecture at the University of Dallas

Posted on February 7, 2008 by David Mendez.
Categories: Events, Science, Technology, Things of Interest, Philosophy, Religion, Theology.

University of Dallas Press Release 

Vatican Astronomer Guy Consolmagno to Deliver Address on March 6

(Irving, Texas – Feb. 6, 2008) – The University of Dallas will sponsor a public lecture by Guy Consolmagno, S.J., distinguished scientist and major interpreter of the relationship between science and religion, on Thursday, March 6, 2008. The lecture, “How Scientists Think About Religion,” will be held from 3:30 – 5 p.m. in the Gorman Lecture Center, Room A, on the University’s Irving campus located at 1845 E. Northgate Dr. in Irving. The lecture is free and seating is limited.

“Bro. Guy is both a first rate scientist and a man committed to living the faithful, reflective, religious life of a Jesuit brother,” said Dr. William Frank, professor of philosophy at UD and lecture organizer. “He is a living witness of the compatibility of scientific inquiry and Christian faith. It is an important part of wisdom to understand that compatibility of faith and reason.”

Consolmagno has been an astronomer at the Vatican Observatory since 1993 and is currently the curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Castel Gandolfo, one of the largest in the world. He has coauthored five astronomy books: Turn Left at Orion (Cambridge University Press, 1989); Worlds Apart (Prentice Hall, 1993); The Way to the Dwelling of Light (U of Notre Dame Press, 1998); Brother Astronomer (McGraw Hill, 2000); and God's Mechanics: How Scientists and Engineers Make Sense of Religion (Jossey-Bass, 2007). He has also published more than 100 scientific papers.

Consolmagno obtained his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Earth and Planetary Sciences from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his Ph.D. in Planetary Science from the University of Arizona. After taking his vows as a Jesuit brother, he studied philosophy, theology, and physics before his assignment to the Vatican Observatory.

The public lecture by Consolmagno, sponsored by the University of Dallas Departments of Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, is part of a three-day visit to the University of Dallas. In addition to the lecture, he will be leading discussions in selected classes and meeting with students and faculty.

tags: Astronomy   religion   Science   Theology  

Book Spotlight: After Aquinas | Versions of Thomism

This guide to the work that has recently appeared on Aquinas reflects the 1990s revival of interest in his work. The author brings together a range of views that hitherto have appeared in many different books, articles, and periodicals.

 After Aquinas

By Fergus Kerr
Published 2002
Blackwell Publishing
Thomists
264 pages
ISBN 0631213139

Found Here:  

tags: Analytical Thomism   Aquinas   Existential Thomism   Fergus Kerr   history   Philosophy   Thomas Aquinas   Thomism  

Christianity Today Q&A: Barack Obama

Posted on January 23, 2008 by David Mendez.
Categories: Worldviews, Politics, Islam, Things of Interest, Religion, Theology.

In this piece Obama clarifies his beliefs as well as some clarification as to whether he was a muslim or not. It seems that religion and immigration will be the deciding factors in this election. The Q & A was conducted by Christianity Today and it is found here: Q&A: Barack Obama

Here is a quote:

 Evangelicals have come to believe often times that Democrats are anti-faith. Part of my job in this campaign, something that I started doing well before this campaign, was to make sure I was showing up and reaching out and sharing my faith experience with people who share that faith.

tags: Church   Democrats   faith   Islam   Muslim   Obama   Politics   State  

1 comment.

Slate.com has more discernment than some of our churches?

and not Churches Fried Chicken…

Article Here

"I'm not called to explain every minute facet of Scripture or to expound on deep theological doctrines or disputes that don't touch where people live," he writes dismissively in Become a Better You. "My gift is to encourage, to challenge, and to inspire."

If this is the depth of anything evangelical, then that is why we have failed so miserably to convince anyone of the truth of the Gospel. What they think when they hear the word "Gospel" is nothing but a modified yet complex form of snake oil and prosperity business.

Now let me tell you what I really think. :)

Oh, and for those of you that think that doctrine is not that important:

Chris Wallace introduced Joel Osteen as a teacher of “Personal growth and positive thinking” – buzzwords that make biblical thinkers wary but exploring that must wait for another time. Before long, the discussion turned to presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee and the controversy concerning Romney’s Mormon beliefs. It was then that the supposedly Evangelical pastor of America’s largest congregation declared that Mormons are Christians and that Mitt Romney is himself a “Christian.” Here is the transcript. (1)
 
 

Wallace: “Is a Mormon a true Christian?”
 
Osteen: “Well, in my mind they are. Mitt Romney has said that he believes in Christ as his savior and that’s what I believe. So, you know I’m not the one to judge the little details of it. So, I believe they are. And so I, you know, Mitt Romney seems like a man of character and integrity to me and, ah, I don’t think anything would stop me from voting for him if that’s what I felt like.”
 
Wallace: “So, so for instance when people start talking about Joseph Smith, the founder of the church and the golden tablets in upstate New York and ah, God assumes the shape of a man; do you not get hung up in those theological issues?”
 
Osteen: “I probably don’t get hung up in ‘em because I haven’t really studied ‘em or thought about ‘em. And ah, you know, I just try to let God be the judge of that. I mean, I don’t know, I certainly can’t say that I agree with everything I’ve heard about it. But, from what I’ve heard from Mitt when he says that Christ is his savior to me that’s a common bond."…

tags: churches   discernment   Joel Osteen   Mormonism   religion   Word of Faith  

Mitt Romney’s Speech & Mormonism

Posted on December 7, 2007 by Ray Ciervo.
Categories: General, Politics, Worldviews, Cults Watch, Religion, Things of Interest, Apologetics.

The confusion of our faith and politics affords us continuous errors. After listening to Mitt Romney’s speech, some people are impressed. He compared himself with JFK and his speech when he ran for president. JFK made the point that he was not a “Catholic running for president. He was an American running for president who happened to be a Catholic. Romney followed suit. He claimed he is not a Mormon running for president, but an American who happened to be a Mormon. His major appeal was to the Christian right. Although Romney didn’t say anything controversial, he did obscure some very important facts about his Mormon beliefs. I don’t believe he was trying to be deceptive, but he used terms that would “acceptable” to Christian listeners. He referred to the “founding fathers” which is an acceptable buzz word for Christians. He definitely got in line with the Christina arguments for a moral society. But, there were some tricky points in his speech which may go unobserved or uninterpreted.

First, let’s lay things out in a more apparent way. Mormonism began as a cult and has grown into a “folk-religion.” It may well be that Mormonism is America’s folk-religion. When Joseph Smith received his “revelation” it was to announce that the church had altered the Scriptures, had left the religion of the apostles and prophets and that he was chosen to restore it. He was the undisputed leader of the new cult that broke away from traditional Christianity. Smith was an authoritarian leader that banded together his followers who sought a place to carry out their new revelation. Mormonism refined its beliefs through the years, at least the ones that were clearly offensive, like bigamy.

Some Christians were impressed that Romney declared that he believed Jesus to be the Son of God and the savior of mankind. This is very Christian-like. However, Mormons have said that for a while. Jehovah witnesses will say similar statements. What Mormons will not say is that Jesus Christ is God’s unique Son. Nor will they say He is God, the Son. Mormons have always asserted that Jesus is the Savior of Mankind, but they do not believe that he died for you personally. His redemption is kind of a corporate redemption that is only available to those who walk the Mormon path. They also believe that Jesus was pre-existent as a “spirit baby” and the brother of Lucifer. We don’t have space to go into the “special under garments” nor the need to get married in the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City. Mormons do have some different beliefs than orthodox Christians.

It’s amazing what some Christians will accept. To many the statements Romney made sounded authentic. But, this is where the confusion lay. Because someone is a Mormon doesn’t make him a bad candidate for president. Nor, should it be the test whether he will be a good president. Mormons are moral, for the most part. However, I can’t categorically say that any Christian candidate will be moral either. If morality is the issue, we ought to make that the issue. There was a muddying of the waters in Romney’s speech that may pave the way for him to become the Republican candidate. The problem will be if he’s accepted because of his allusion to Christian beliefs.

Romney’s hurdle is to garner support from the Christian voters – he’s looking for the conservative right’s Christian voting block. Pundits like Pat Buchanan have given Romney’s speech high marks. But Pat Buchanan is the poster child for Libertarian Christianity, not exactly the center of the stream. Buchanan aside, the other apologists have not have not sounded off. They’ll be others who criticize what he said, more than I have.

Here’s what Romney did in his speech. He alluded to a pseudo-Christian faith in his statements about Jesus. He then picked up the argument of fighting the secular left. This was a smart move, very smart. The knee-jerk Christians, whose faith has been politicized, will rally right behind him. Not a bad political move, not at all.

Here’s the downside of it for Christianity: Romney becomes president and people look at Mormonism in a new light. Mormons can’t be that bad, look at Mitt. Romney will secure Mormonism as America’s folk-religion. Mormonism is spiritual enough to satisfy many.

I know people will misunderstand my next statement. However, I’ll try to make this as clear as I can. I don’t have a problem with Romney running for president. Nor do I have a problem with him becoming president. But please, leave my Christianity alone. It’s muddy enough with all the press it gets. It’s muddy enough with the politicized mumbo jumbo of pundits who don’t understand the Scripture and use it for their own political prowess.

Aside from my own consternation about my faith, this ought to be interesting to watch as it plays out. Romney’s ploy to talk about his faith will prompt a response from Mike Huckabee.  This ought to make things interesting, really interesting in the coming months.

tags: Christianity   Joseph Smith   Mitt Romney   Mormonism   presidency   Pseudo Christian faith  

1 comment.

What the church needs now, is love, sweet love…

No amount of theological enquiry, seminars or admonition could get one over the starboard bow like media can - and funny media at that. These two videos pretty much describe the state of the prosperity crowd now a days, including those meddling is soft porn prospertiy gospel.

AND

No Tag

Sin and the Issue of Illegal Immigration

Posted on October 24, 2007 by David Mendez.
Categories: Ethics, Conferences, Events, Culture Watch, Things of Interest, Theology.

There was a panel discussion on Immigration from a Theological Perspective at the University of Dallas last night. I applaude their efforts at being an insitution that at least tried to address this issue from a theological point of view. There were some good ideas as well as some pointed questions but overall the event went well. However, I wanted to write to some of the participants about an issue that I think should be considered when dealing with the illegal immigrant situation. Below was my email:

Folks, I first want to appreciate the effort that was done to take on this monumental and sticky topic. I know that we did not know what to expect, seeing that this issue has been a hot agenda at the local level. The event was well planned and efficiently moderated with few hiccups, if any. As a Hispanic and a beginning student at the school of ministry, I felt proud to see that the school opened up its door to deal with such topics.

I wished that I had to opportunity to share this but I wanted to be conscious of the time and make room for some of the more seasoned folks to chime in. With that said, I just wanted to mention something that was somewhat, but not explicitly, mentioned during the presentation. It is the basic but essential issue of sin. I know that this word does not amount to much in our postmodern world because we have euphemized it to death. However, a basic understanding of this word tell us a lot about who God us and who we are. Before I develop this notion a bit more and how it relates to the immigration issue, let me say that I was very pleased to hear words and phrases such as “human rights,” “the moral law,” and “made in God’s image.” Much to the emotional upset of some, this at least established a solid platform from which we could see and deal with Immigration, from a Theological Perspective.

Nevertheless, let me relate an experience I had when I first received the press release of this event and how this will tie with the above topic. I decided to circulate this to several “Christian” circles to see if anyone was interested in attending. I then received a response from one gentleman who was a Christian researcher of some kind and proceeded to tell me that “These people are just people who placate illegal immigration.”  “I speak with experience.” “I do a Cable show exposing illegal immigration and have gone through it all with these people, especially the Churches.” “The "Alien Resident" argument doesn't apply here.” He then proceeded to direct me to one of his “cable shows” on the internet that “exposed illegal immigration.” The video did not mince words and at times seemed a bit vitriolic and borderline hateful. Moreover, the show aired a clip of another show where the gentleman there was going to “tell it like it is” and proceeded to call all illegal immigrants “filthy cockroaches.” To be honest, this disturbed me deeply – that those within our camp would have such a horrid description of illegal immigrants. It was futile to engage in any reasonable conversation with someone who had such a terrible social, and psychological bent of hatred and disrespect.

Back to the event - while this did not have any of the marks of the above situation, there was a question or two that sparked the above concept of sin and the human condition as it related to illegal immigration. There were some great points that were raised as well as some challenging questions. But the issue I would like for us to introspectively ask is “what is the condition of my heart in regards to these issues?” Or better yet, “what is the real motivation for my strong opinion on this matter?” I think we (myself included) need to take ourselves to task and ask these penetrating questions when dealing with any issue that has to do with humans. It gave me a chuckle to hear statements like “what part of illegal immigration do you not understand?” I think that most of us understand illegal immigration very well but we are tied to the political, socio-economical, post 9-11 everyone across our borders is a terrorist, agendas that stagnate the congressional waters of our “legal system.” Nevertheless, a more fundamental question should be “what part of illegal immigration is an actual legitimate issue and what part of it is an emotional, or even (may I say?) sinful one?

I couldn’t of agreed more with some of the solutions proposed by Owen Ross as well as some of the more stringent ones proposed by members of the audience. I will also admit that this is a serious issue and that we need to fix and implement whatever immigration laws need to be in place in order to perpetuate the survivability of our country as well as the protection of our security interest in addition to meeting the most basic human needs (legal or illegal). Nevertheless, I will challenge each one of the readers that we be a bit more honest and ask if these issues are motivated by the above principals only or if his or her judgment has been clouded because we feel as though “our space” is slowly being consumed by these “illegals,” who deplete our resources and are erasing what we know to be “the American way of living.” Why am I saying this? Do I know the intentions of the heart? That would be a resounding no! Only God knows the true intentions of the heart and the last time I checked the closest thing to a throne in my house is called a commode. Nevertheless, I can speak from experience. Even I, as a Hispanic, Latino, Mexican-American or whatever I am to be called, have had these feelings with my own kind! I will admit my sin and territorial arrogance when I say that sometimes, just sometimes, I am not too happy with everything that comes across the border. But once I realized that, I asked myself, “is it really about a border per say?” I think that a more fundamental issue is at stake and you could call it by its subcategories such as arrogance, sectarianism, pride, or even racism. However, sin is at the root of all of it.

In some cases I would venture to say that if it were really about laws (a very much discussed thread at tonight’s panel discussion), then why don’t we see people protesting about tougher laws against speeding. You don’t see the multitudes going to congress by the droves declaring that it is so unfair that there are so many people breaking the speeding laws that we just need to impose tougher restrictions, heavier fines, sophisticated equipment, etc. If you think about it, speeding has also caused a lot of damage such as fatal accidents, children’s safety compromised, higher insurance premiums and so on. Nevertheless, since it doesn’t carry much of the emotional baggage that immigration does, we just don’t see it as an issue we care to talk about….unless, we get a ticket for speeding. I think that what I’m suggesting  is (I’m still working this out) that lets be careful of not letting our prejudices and violated comfort zones cloud our judgment when it comes to immigration policies. As was mentioned last night, there were many laws that were in place such as slavery and women’s status in society that just because they were laws didn’t mean that they were right. In fact, the bible tell us of a rich young ruler who kept all of the laws since he was a boy (Mark 10:18-21). However, Jesus knew his heart and since his vertical relationship was not in line, Jesus proceeded to expose him horizontally and see if he could at least give everything he had. The Bible says that he “went away sad because he had great wealth.” Let me steal this analogy and say that we might come up with a great and reformed immigration policy that will accomplish what is needed to fix this situation, but what after that? If the vertical is not in line with God, it doesn’t matter if we are successful. We have already failed on the inside.

No Tag