Sunday, April 1, 2012

A question for Palm Sunday: Whose Son is he?

Richard Dawkins is refusing a debate challenge from William Lane Craig, a fundamntalist academic  at the Sheldonian Theater in Oxford

I think Dawkins has anointed himself as the "Atheist Pope." The jacket for God Delusion modestly described Dawkins as "the world's most prominent atheist." "The world numbers about eight billion individuals and climbing. What a terrible burden it is for Dawkins to be the foremost atheist among the eight billion.

That being said, when it comes to the slaughter of innocents in Canaan, I tend to agree that this was inexcusable barbarity. I remember watching a History Channel program on ancient generals two  or three years ago which recorded Joshua's slaughter of women and children in Jericho after "the walls came tumbling down." I was appalled. When I discovered that Joshua was acting on a divine command, I decided that I could not worship such a God. I was deeply saddened when a Jewish friend of mine gave the human reasoning behind that: Leaving the women and children alive would have resulted in the leaving the seeds of idolatry to blossom and grow. That came to mind a year or so later, when on another History (or Military Channel rebroadcast) I heard a Himmler speech to the German Generals as WWII ground to its close and the Third Reich was collapsing. “We had to kill the children,” he said, “because they would grow-up to seek revenge upon us killing their parents.”

Much of  Bible is rationalization for human endeavors. Of course, that argues against it not being history. Some of its history is sad.

But I highly recommend the direction of religion which is the basis of Richard Wright’s “The Evolution of God.” Jesus challenged the Pharisees” “What do you think of the Messiah [Christ], whose son is he?” Wright is somewhat dismissive of the universality of Jesus message adopting the “Paul did it view.” But I think the last paragraph of his book sums up not only the direction of religious thought, but of Christianity itself:

“Though we can no more conceive of God than we can conceive of an electron, believers can ascribe properties to God, somewhat as physicists ascribe properties to electrons. One of the more plausible such properties is love. And maybe, in this light, the argument for God is strengthened by love’s organic association with truth—by the fact, indeed, that at times these two properties almost blend into one. You might say that love and truth are the two primary manifestations of divinity in which we can partake, and that by partaking in them we become truer manifestations of the divine. Then again, you might not say that. The point is just you wouldn’t have to be crazy to say it.” *

Amen, Mr. Wright, amen. Wright is using the mysteries of quantum mechanics as an analogy to God and love. But, in my view it isn't just an analogy, its' an essential truth. Here I stand: Human conscience is a quantum phenomenon. Love is a "quantum entanglement” where two quantum entities develop a relationship that is independent of time and space. Einstein called the concept which as been scientifically demonstrated "spooky."

Einstein called it spooky, I call it love. 

*(Wright, Robert (2009-05-20). The Evolution of God. Little, Brown and Company, Kindle Edition.)

No comments: