THE AUDACITY OF MODERN SCIENCE

Some of the most audacious (and ridiculous) comments are coming these days from otherwise respected scientists and academics. I’ve just finished reading a 2013 book called “The Science Delusion” by Curtis White. Here’s a part of my review of the book.

“From a Christian perspective, one may cheer from the sidelines as one anti-faith mentality is thoroughly and wittingly dismembered, but then, we must shake our heads at the stubborn refusal to consider the possibility of a Creator God as the answer to the supposedly unanswerable questions posed in the book. Art is put forward as our best approach to the unknowable metaphysical aspects of life but, ironically, in a discussion of what it means to be an "I", the author fails to even mention the God who identified Himself to Moses as ‘I Am’
 

This book strongly challenges the philosophical self-limitations of science and the deterministic idea that we are all basically just very complex machines, but it fails to break free of a different kind of self-limitation, the idea that humanity must find its own way to explain its own existence without reference to God. The author accuses science of ruling out any knowledge outside its own but, really, he does the same thing by ruling out, in effect, the knowledge of God.”

So the book is a rather audacious attack on the audacity of science. (How could I resist doing a blog about that?!? I hope I didn’t come across as audacious in my review!)

To be clear, we are talking here about neuroscientists, evolutionists and molecular biologists who have been making grandiose claims that their scientific disciplines are on the verge of explaining things like human thought, creativity and personality. Richard Dawkins talks about ‘memes’, which are basically the cultural equivalent to genes. In other words, we inherit a set of genes that determine how tall we will be, what colour eyes we will have, etc, and we also inherit a set of views and values (memes) that determine our culture and personality. Why is this audacious? Because it’s presented as fact (or so highly probable that we may as well present it as fact) when it’s actually nothing more than sheer imagination.

The great obsession of science is to be able to explain everything – yes, literally everything! But, by ignoring the evidence for God (eg, in the brilliant natural design that we see everywhere in the world) on the basis that they will someday be able to explain these things without reference to God, these modern scientists only demonstrate their own foolishness.

(By the way, if you can't read the slogan on Dawkins' shirt, it says "RELIGION - together we can find the cure."

THE DEFINING POWER OF A NAME

I was astonished to read an online article this week about names that are banned in Saudi Arabia. The list of mostly Arabic-sounding names also included ‘foreign’ names like Linda, Alice, Elaine and Sandy.

Then, yesterday, there was an article in the Herald Sun about names that have been rejected in Victoria by Births, Deaths and Marriages. To be honest, I hadn’t even realised that B,D & M had authority to do that.

But it makes sense.

What parents, in their right minds, would name their child Lord or Prince or Fireman Sam? Sadly, one of the responsibilities of government continues to be protecting citizens from their own stupidity.

Other names that B,D & M rejected, as listed in the article, were Glory Hallelujah New Covernant (sic), Princess Diana and Anarchy. One couple apparently wanted their baby to be called Wonderful Beautiful. Umm, really? That might be ok when the child is a babe in arms, but how is that child going to cope at school, not to mention later in life?

Reminds me of that old Johnny Cash song “A Boy Named Sue”.

Some really bad names were given to babies in Bible times as well. Think Ichabod, which meant ‘no glory’ or Beriah, which meant ‘in trouble’, or Nabal, which meant ‘fool’ or ‘dolt’. Isaiah called one of his sons Mahershalalhashbaz, which meant ‘they hasten to the booty, swift to the prey’. But we can’t blame Isaiah for that one; he was only obeying God. The boy with the unfortunate name was a prophetic message to the nation.

Jacob’s wife, Rachel, dying in childbirth, wanted to call the child Benoni, which means ‘son of my sorrow’. Fortunately for the newborn boy, his father overruled, calling him Benjamin, 'son of my right hand'.

The audacious, ridiculous names that some parents give their children only serves to highlight the importance of our names. Parents should consider several factors in naming their children. Pretentious, unconventional or embarrassing names, even sometimes names with absurd spellings, can become a heavy burden, leading, in the worst cases, to resentment and alienation.

Good names, however, help to create a positive identity. The message of the Gospel is uniquely expressed in Isaiah 62:2 – “The Gentiles shall see your righteousness, And all kings your glory. You shall be called by a new name, Which the mouth of the LORD will name.”

Jesus offers a new life and a new identity. When we become ‘Christian’, we have a whole new name to live up to.

CELEBRITY AUDACITY

Why does our society continue to celebrate celebrities who indulge in bold, audacious behaviour? Gossip columns in magazines and online are filled with stories and pictures about shocking things said and done by famous people. It might be a near-naked selfie, a cheeky outfit, a nasty tweet about another celebrity or an overly extravagant purchase. Things hardly worth viewing or reading about but millions of people will.

These things are audacious in the sense that they are brash and daring. They push the limits of decency. Music videos, by artists who want to be noticed, commonly feature scandalous and outrageous behaviour. It’s not new. Think Madonna, the Rolling Stones, or even Elvis in years gone by. But I think it’s definitely getting worse.

So what’s the problem here? And how can the Christian Church compete?

The following quote from my book “Our Culture in Christ”, p80, seems relevant.

“When it comes to appealing to the flesh, the world will always do a much better job than the church. If we’re trying to grab the attention of the world through worldly methods, we will run up against a major problem. The world entertains by sexual titillation, innuendo, violence, crudity and profanity, all things that do not belong in Christian witness… Christian [TV] programmers may be creative geniuses but there is a line that they cannot cross because… well… they are Christian… The problem is not that the Christian program is boring. The problem is that so many of the people we are hoping to reach are steeped in sin.

“Non-Christian songwriters and performers are not limited in their lyrics, their stage effects or their off-stage antics. They will always be more interesting to unsaved people. They routinely do and say things that would cause Christian artists to lose their ministries.”

So the problem is that Western society glorifies sin rather than honouring integrity and righteousness. The audacious behaviour of celebrities will not stop as long as there is a market for their shock tactics. We can’t change that but we can certainly pray!

ps: Apologies that this blog didn’t come out last week. I had a week’s holiday in beautiful Tasmania.

HOW LEGAL IS THE SYDNEY MARDI GRAS?

People who marched in Saturday’s Mardi Gras in Sydney may see the annual event as a celebration of diversity, or even compassion. This year, several groups have used the parade as a platform for political comment. And not just the ever-present push for the deceptively named “marriage equality”; all sorts of left-leaning political issues were highlighted.   

Media coverage of the event has been overwhelmingly positive. Of course it has! Anyone who dares to criticize the event is liable to be publicly slandered, pilloried and persecuted. Any public figure who dares speak anything other than celebratory praise for the gay lifestyle will be in danger of losing their job.

I decided to do some research on public decency laws because, despite the fact that I know the NSW Police appoint an officer each year to check on such matters, I wondered how some of the costumes (or lack thereof) can be deemed acceptable.

According to justanswer.com, Section 393 of the Crimes Act 1900, “A person who offends against decency by the exposure of his or her person in a public place, or in any place within the view of a person who is in a public place, commits an offence.” 

What would happen if a man appeared outside a school wearing nothing but a small cloth covering his private parts? What would security personnel in shopping centres or sports venues do with someone cavorting around in such a state of undress? In more personal situations, proponents of such behaviour could even (quite legitimately) be charged with sexual abuse.

I realize, of course, that people who deliberately choose to watch the parade cannot then complain about what they, or their children, might happen to see. My point is that the Mardi Gras actually celebrates and promotes things that would be illegal almost anywhere else.

Public decency laws often include exemptions for things done in the name of entertainment, and perhaps this excuse might be used to support the legality of the Mardi Gras parade. But who could deny that this event deliberately pushes the limits of public decency? Who determines what is acceptable and what is not?

It is not a celebration of diversity but a celebration of perversity.