(link to Seattle Times Article here)

Nightline” debate to take on Satan in Ballard church

By Janet I. Tu

Seattle Times staff reporter

The debate over whether Satan exists is hardly going to be settled in a 30-minute television show.

But that’s not stopping a rather curious lineup from debating that question for ABC’s “Nightline.”

The debaters: megachurch Pastor Mark Driscoll of Seattle; alternative-medicine author Deepak Chopra; a former Las Vegas escort who founded Hookers for Jesus; and a former Pentecostal preacher who was branded a heretic for saying everyone — not just Christians — could go to heaven.

The four are gathering Friday at Mars Hill Church in Ballard, where Driscoll is preaching pastor, to tape the segment, which will air March 26.

The topic has gotten a few responses of “Say what?” Why, now, is “Nightline” discussing Satan’s existence, and why were these particular people chosen to do so?

For one, the topic can be particularly relevant in troubled times such as these, when people are looking for explanations for economic chaos.

For another: “There’s always an interest in these topics,” said James Goldston, the show’s executive producer.

Not to mention potentially great ratings.

“Every time we’ve done one, the response has been pretty dramatic,” he said.

It’s the latest in a series of “Face Off” debates “Nightline” launched two years ago, bringing together prominent people to debate hot topics. The first one — on the existence of God — is still abcnews.com’s single most commented-upon story, Goldston said.

The idea of doing a debate on Satan came about, in part, through conversations the show’s staff had with Driscoll when doing a profile on him.

ABC also had done stories on Chopra; Annie Lobert, the founder of Hookers for Jesus, which preaches a Christian message to women in the sex trade; and the Rev. Carlton Pearson, an Oklahoma pastor who went from preaching before 6,000 to leading a couple hundred after he rejected traditional Christian beliefs about heaven and hell.

“We went for the most interesting voices we could find,” Goldston said.

All of which makes T.J. Wray, co-author of “The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil’s Biblical Roots,” sigh in exasperation.

“Why don’t they call professionals — the people who write this stuff?” asked Wray, an associate professor of religious studies at Salve Regina University in Newport, R.I.

It’s unlikely a debate of this type can get into the complex theology and history behind Satan, she said.

Still, the topic is timely.

“Historically, when times are difficult, Satan increases in popularity. People begin talking about him,” Wray said.

“When things are going well, Satan is kind of on the periphery. But when things go wrong, people ask: ‘Why are things the way they are? There must be some evil force in the world.’

“Satan provides a language for us to speak about evil,” she said. “That’s been his historic role.”

For his part, Driscoll believes a literal spirit being named Satan exists and is at work in the world for evil and injustice.

The Bible speaks clearly and repeatedly of Satan, he said.

And “in my own pastoral experience, I have witnessed such great evil and injustice so often that no answer but the existence of a real enemy to good and life makes any sense to me.”

The lineup of debaters, Driscoll said, helps ensure “this is not just an academic debate but also a practical discourse.”

Driscoll and Lobert will be taking on Chopra and Pearson.

Pearson does not believe in Satan as an actual being and discourages people from doing so because “it makes us helpless, paranoid and frightened.”

Human beings themselves create evil and “stupid stuff,” he said. To blame Satan takes away personal responsibility.

“I’ve heard: ‘The devil made me do it.’ Don’t put that on the devil,” Pearson said. “You made that stupid decision yourself. Let’s talk about why you made it.”

In any case, said Wray, the university professor, “to debate this issue is futile. No one’s going to emerge the victor. … It’s the topic that never goes away.”

Curiously absent? Skeptics, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists… or any other sort of doubters.

This should be interesting, though.

The following represents the views of a single SSU member, and does not necessarily represent the views of the SSU as a whole

UPDATE: LDS Church Responds to Big Love

Big Love to feature the Mormon Temple Ceremony, TV Guide

Well, this is certainly unprecedented.

The Mormon temples are considered the most sacred of spaces on Earth. Within the temples, several “saving ordinances” are performed, which are required to enter the highest levels of the Celestial Kingdom, including the Endowment and marriage sealings. It is a significant breach of Mormon law to discuss details of the temple ceremonies outside of the “Celestial Room” within the temple, and the church defends the secrecy of these details passionately, claiming that they need to be confined within the temple due to their highly sacred nature.

Big Love, the HBO series about a family within a polygamous sect (an offshoot from what is known as the Mormon church), is going to be airing an episode which will show the details of the ceremony, from the ritual attire to the rituals themselves. 

I’ve never watched Big Love, but I’ll be tuning in to this one. Having gone through the Mormon Endowment ceremony, I’m curious to see how accurate the portrayal is. The advertisement (link above) shows the temple clothes of a woman, and it seems spot on… with the exception that the apron ought to be green, not blue. 

I have highly mixed feelings about this, however, which may be a remnant of the Mormonism I was raised with. It was this very ceremony that, due to it being almost entirely foreign in style from the rest of the church, shook my faith to the point that I was able to investigate the church rationally. It is now my opinion that the church has its members go through the ceremony either immediately before serving a mission or getting married as a retention technique.

So… how do I feel about this?

Legally:

I am definitely of the opinion that HBO and the team of Big Love are well within the law. It would be a horribly oppressive act and in complete violation of the First Amendment for the government to step in and censor the broadcast, as some LDS folks are currently advocating. The legality of the situation is hardly questionable – the right to offend is a fundamental piece of free speech.

Effects:

HBO may have awakened a slumbering giant here. In November, the US (and California in particular) witnessed the ability of the LDS Church to politically mobilize, to devastating results. Without question, this will instill vitriol within the Mormon community, the likes of which have never been seen. HBO is broadcasting one of the most sacred of Mormon rituals to a wide audience, and hardly in a sympathetic light at that. 

In a sentence, HBO just “pantsed” Mormonism, and like anyone who just got “pantsed,” they’re going to be embarrassed, hurt, and pissed.

If I were still Mormon, I would find myself entrenched in a new battle. Prop 8 envigorated and energized the youth of the church politically, and that was an indirect affront. This could give the same a banner to wave, a new and more righteous cause, and will further reinforce the persecution complex that has been fostered in the church since its inception. This will further “prove” that the powers of the world, driven by mammon (Babylon, Satan, take your pick), are out to destroy the church.

Morally:

The question of the morality of broadcasting the sacred ceremony of someone else’s beliefs is a tricky one. Honestly, I have many conflicting opinions regarding it, and I’m not entirely certain where I stand. Immediately and nearly simultaneously, I can’t help but think:

- Go for it! Perhaps if the absurdity of their faith is brought to light, it’ll marginalize and retard the growth of the church.

- This is inappropriate – there’s no reason to slaughter another man’s sacred cow unless you’ll die of starvation otherwise. 

I’ll expand more on this as I chew on it, but I think I’m leaning toward the latter right now.

What are your thoughts?

We had a good discussion about heaven and hell and how the concepts of eternal reward and punishment appeal to an early stage of moral development. One of the concepts we discussed was the history of the concept of hell. One of the scholars who has written about this subject is Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton. She is an expert on the Gnostic literature and has written multiple books on the subject, including Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas and The Gnostic Gospels. The books that touch on today’s subject are The Origin of Satan and perhaps Adam, Eve and the Serpent. For those interested in a little video, Charlie Rose interviewed Pagels back in 1995 about The Origin of Satan, and you can watch the video here. The Pagels segment begins at 31:08.

I also mentioned a Yale course about the Bible that is available online. That course is available here, and I would highly recommend these lectures if you are interested in a basic university level introduction to the Hebrew Bible but don’t have the time or interest to take an actual course.

The following represents the views of a single member of the SSU, and does not necessarily represent the views of the SSU as a whole.

Cross-posted from the blog Figuring Shit Out

To a lot of liberal Christians, evolution has become, dare I say, almost a point of identity. Even the Catholic Church has reaffirmed it’s view that evolution is totally compatible with faith and that Intelligent Design is a cruel sham of a belief. A lot of Atheists are keen to encourage this because anything that gets liberal Christians on our side and away from the Fundamentalists is a good thing. Unfortunately, I’m about to take a massive piss into this font of goodwill by stating that I think the belief that evolution is compatible with faith is based on a misunderstanding of evolution that is so prevalent even Atheists are guilty of perpetuating it.

The easy part of evolution to understand is the mechanistic aspect, the “how” of evolution. Mutation happens and features get evolved and some things become more popular because they lead to increased survival and this is how we have the natural world we see around us. Based on an understanding of this how, it’s perfectly plausible to then believe the why comes from God. God works through evolution and gives it a nudge once in a while at the right points. Evolution is just a cog in God’s plan. Of course, this is an unfalsifiable assertion so it falls outside of the domain of science. The scientists are happy, the liberal Christians are happy, why make so much fuss?

But to understand why evolution had the profoundly explosive effect it did on the scientific world and why Darwin was named the most influential scientist of the past millennium by Scientific American, one must move past the mechanistic understanding of evolution and understand the teleological aspect of evolution: the why of evolution.

Imagine for a second that you rolled a pair of dice a million times and noticed that they added up to 7 roughly 1/6th of the time. Why did the dice land the way it did? Why 1/6th and not some other number like 1/3rd or 1/12th? If you were wholly ignorant about probability, then you could believe that God decreed that all dice rolls should fall to his accord and the reason for 1/6th was because it was pleasing to his eye. But what probability does is it not only explains how it is 1/6th, but also to boil the why down to *shrug*, that’s just the way it is. Fundamentally, the why of it is that there is no why, not only is the why not God, it’s not anything. What probability does is explain away the why.

The real impact of evolution was not that it explained the natural world, it was that it provided science with a path to explain it away. Why do birds fly and beasts walk? Why are we the most intelligent of all the animals? Why do we love and war and yearn for the stars? *shrug*, that’s just how the world is. Evolution showed how complex forms and intelligent beings could have arisen following the same natural laws that govern how dice roll and planets move and by doing so, it not only removed the need for an intelligent creator, it removed the need for anything. Even 200 years after Darwin this is the basic point of evolution that is still misunderstood and this is why evolution is far more of a dilemma to faith than most people will admit.

It’s important to note though that this process is far from complete. Darwin only put humanity on the first step towards this understanding and in the last 200 years, scientists have been steadily working away towards this goal. Our understanding of how is still gradually improving every year but none of this could have happened unless Darwin had the stroke of insight that there could be no why.

Is it possible to believe in evolution and still in God? Sure, but It would be akin to showing how you could bend a spoon via sleight of hand and still believing that Uri Geller is bending them with his mind. If that’s the way it’s done, then he’s doing it the hard way.

In commemoration of Darwin Day, I am posting a few links to resources about evolution.

UC Berkeley’s Understanding Evolution and Understanding Science websites

Website about evolution by the National Academies

A collection of articles about evolution by New Scientist magazine

Professor Ken MIller’s website about evolution, on which he argues for theistic evolution and against intelligent design; also see Jerry Coyne’s critique of two books arguing for theistic evolution, including a book by Miller

potholer54’s Made Easy series on YouTube (he’s currently working on a more school-friendly version of the videos that removes the statements critical of religious belief)

The PBS series Evolution, with its companion website

The NOVA program “Intelligent Design on Trial” about the 2005 Dover, Pennsylvania case about intelligent design

Other NOVA programs that relate to evolution are “Alien From Earth,” about the so-called “hobbit” fossils found on the island of Flores in Indonesia; “Ape Genius,” about the similarities and differences between humans and chimpanzees; “The Four-Winged Dinosaur,” about the evolution of birds; “Lord of the Ants,” about E. O. Wilson, an expert on ants and the founder of sociobiology

Richard Dawkins’s recent award-winning series “The Genius of Charles Darwin”

Carl Sagan’s 1980 series “Cosmos“: episode 2 is about evolution and some ideas about life on other planets

If anyone else knows of good evolution resources, please post them in the comments section.

Lucy is the name given to one of the world’s most famous fossils, a 40% complete skeleton of a 3.2 million year old Australopithecus afarensis. The current Pacific Science Center exhibit of Lucy will end on March 8, and we have the remarkable opportunity to see this skeleton while it is in town. The Associated Press reports that Lucy may not be out of Africa for some time, so this may be the only time we get a chance to see Lucy.

On most days, the PSC is open from 10 – 5, and admission costs $20.75, which includes regular exhibits as well as the Lucy exhibit. However, on Thursdays, after other exhibits close, the Lucy exhibit will remain open until 9 PM, and admission to the single exhibit costs only $12.00. If you are considering whether the exhibit is worth $12.00, there are more details at the PSC website.

On Thursday, February 12, we celebrate the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin. November 24 of this year will be the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. The Burke Museum, located on campus at the corner of 45th St and 15th Ave, will be hosting a celebration of Darwin’s birthday. This event is on February 12, from 6-9 PM. The following is from the Burke Museum website. All SSU members are encouraged to attend if possible as part of our Darwin Week.

Check out the January Scientific American. You can read it for free on the UW Library website. Many articles are also available from the Scientific American website.

Jan 2009 Scientific American

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215121559.htm

Neuropsych and religious experiences:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124156.htm

Religion and child sexual abuse:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215121559.htm

and for fun, one of my favorite science columnists:

http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/the-ten-days-of-newton/?scp=5&sq=religion&st=cse

oh, and how could I forget this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/us/politics/20warren.html?scp=8&sq=religion&st=cse

The following represents the views of a single member of the SSU, and does not necessarily represent the views of the SSU as a whole.

Cross-posted from the blog Figuring Shit Out

Several of the reactions to my most recent post that “No one is born atheist” contain some variant of the argument:

Since atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a god or gods, and babies are born without any supernatural beliefs or opinions whatsoever, children are clearly atheist until they engage in this ‘animistic behavior’ – 180andback

and

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity, nothing more. – Zaki

Sure, if you literally break the word down into a-theism then you can interpret it to mean the lack of a belief in a God but I don’t think this is a useful way to talk about atheism.

If I made the claim that “I don’t think dinosaurs exist” then your natural first reaction might be “Well, what about all those fossils?”.

If I went on about how Satan buried those fossils as a test of my faith, you could safely label me a-dinosaur as I’ve made an active assertion about how the world could be without dinosaurs.

On the other hand, if I simply choose to ignore your question about the existence of fossils, it would be more accurate to label me as a dinosaur denier. Someone who doesn’t want to confront the issue of dinosaur existence.

Furthermore, if I had simply never even heard of dinosaurs before and had no reason to suppose their existence, then it might be accurate to label me as a dinosaur agnostic.

In each of these three cases, I don’t hold a belief that dinosaurs exist but these three lack of beliefs are of a very different nature and calling them all a-dinosaurism confuses the issue.

It is not enough to claim that gods do not exist to become atheist, you must also provide a explaination that explains the evidence for the existance of gods. Any justifiable atheism must be at least about to adequately answer the following phenomena:

• Every single day, hundreds of faith healers across the globe cause countless miracles of healing
• I had a dream about my Aunt Marge dying and when I woke up, I got a phone call that she got into a horrific car accident
• Every time I go to the 5th floor of my office, I feel incredibly sad and lost. I later found out that someone had committed suicide on that floor. I had no idea it happened but I still felt the presence of his ghost.
• My friend had a terminal cancer and the doctors told her that it was incurable but when she prayed to God, it miraculously went into remission. The doctors all said they had never seen anything like it.
• When I rub my lucky coin 3 times in a clockwise fashion, I win much more at roulette
• I can feel God guide me in my life and feel his presence in my soul. It’s impossible for such a feeling to be faked

What’s amazing about atheism is that it can adequately answer these seemingly amazing phenomena in a purely naturalistic manner. However, the answers to these questions are neither simple nor obvious. Any answer requires a great deal of sophisticated understanding of both philosophical and empirical matters and it’s the ability to answer these questions that separates genuine atheism from a simple denial of gods.

Such a confusion does atheists and atheism no favors. Because this distinction is not made clear, most of the Christians I talk to believe that atheists are God deniers. Atheists are atheists because the implications of a God existing is so morally threatening that atheists must construct a psychological shield that justifies their immorality and secularism. The idea that atheists are actually capable of answering the preceeding questions is so astounding that it’s never even considered.

Atheists need to become much more clear about what atheism is and isn’t if they want atheism to be given the respect it deserves as an intellectual position. Atheism is not simply a denial of gods. Instead, it’s an active assertion that the universe can be explained better in the absence of gods.