Dennett’s main thrust seems to be that religion is obviously the biggest threat to reason in the world today. Not only that, religion, according to Dennett (professor of Philosophy at Tufts University), is the biggest threat to all of existence:

There is an unbalance in the framing of this resolution, and Robert Winston has the worst of it. He must try to allay a host of concerns, an unending task, while – as everyone knows all too well – in a single cataclysmic day my side could be proven by one fanatical act, not that anyone would be left to cheer my victory. Not just rationality and scientific progress, but just about everything else we hold dear could be laid waste by a single massively deluded “sacramental” act. True, you don’t have to be religious to be crazy, but it helps. Indeed, if you are religious, you don’t have to be crazy in the medically certifiable sense in order to do massively crazy things. And – this is the worst of it – religious faith can give people a sort of hyperbolic confidence, an utter unconcern about whether they might be making a mistake, that enables acts of inhumanity that would otherwise be unthinkable.

Robert Winston disagrees:

The problem with his interesting views of the possible evolutionary basis of religious belief is that he seems unable to treat the beliefs and feelings of believers seriously. Might not God disapprove of this much more? Like many evangelical preachers, he repeatedly seems to claim to be open to the sincerely held views of others. Yet, in Dennett’s world, humans are divided into “brights” or believers – and if you are not a “bright”, you disagree with his point of view because you are intellectually inferior, closed-minded or too scared.

Winston goes on to argue that the mistake of the modern sciences is presuming a certainty about the universe that only science can bring. But certainty, says Lord Winston, is the exact same kind of problem that religious zealots have. Both Dennett and bin-Laden believe they know it all, and their philosophical presuppositions, while leading to radically different lifestyles, are essentially related.

I want to note first of all the wording of the question, “Is Religion a Threat to Rationality and Science.” It does not require a careful examination to conclude that this question is tailor-made for people like Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins. It begs the question by assuming that religion is basically irrational. The question, then, is whether religion presents an active threat to reason. I would strongly disagree with the presumption, and argue that it comes from Kierkegaardian philosophy and not from theism itself. If Kierkegaard was correct in his division of the man into categories of existence (aesthetic, ethical, and spiritual), then it does follow that a nebulous spirituality ultimately trumps all reason. If reason is existentially lower than spirituality, logic exists only as a lower way of life.

It should be obvious that this is exactly the kind of religion that Dennett is arguing against. But what should be noted is that Dennett responds to this type of “leap of faith” not by unifying the whole man in a rational, complete manner, but by offering his own naturalistic divisions. Dennett simply switches Kierkegaard’s men around and claims that the Rational Man lives existentially higher (and also more ethically) than his dogmatic colleagues. Dennett wants you to believe that faith in something outside a completely closed universe is evil because it is ultimately less than man should be.

People like professor Dennett are really at a disadvantage when it comes to this debate, because they are constantly aided by questions like this which presume the larger issue to be solved. Dennett doesn’t see that the real rub between religion and science is where they meet to form the whole man (natural + metaphysical). If he did, he might be able to better discuss a solution. But by presuming a anti-Kierkegaardian, naturalistic reality, he compounds the problem.

This ultimately leads his argument to one serious flaw: His argument completely disintegrates based on the existence of religious people who do not fit his radical caricature. If religion, as Dennett is arguing here, is existentially low and harmful to the really real (reason), then we should not expect to see any devout persons who at the same time use their reason or are not fanatics. Yet there are many such people out there (the author would count himself among them). How would Dennett explain this? He would probably argue that proper sociological training has abetted the true nature of their beliefs; but how can he prove this rather defaming statement? It seems culturally elitist at best (for what would be considered “radical” in the modernized West might very well be “ordinary” in, say, Ethiopia), and completely ad hominem at worst.

Andrew Sullivan says it is only “incumbent” on the media to give equal coverage of all the good things Wright’s ministry has accomplished. I agree; the only problem is, the media doesn’t do that with weirdo evangelicals like Pat Robertson. I don’t think I’ve seen Mr. Sullivan, Time Magazine, or any other major news outlet devote an article to the great things the 700 Club has done for people. Mr. Wright would be a first, and a fair question is why does he deserve to be a first?

Those who say race has nothing to do with this have their heads six feet in the sand. Wright is getting preferential treatment because he is so heavily entrenched within the “Black religious experience.” Note Sullivan’s choice of words: “intemperate,” rather than the favorite adjective of the Robertson attack squad, “intolerant.” One means a guy just gets too angry sometimes; the other means he’s a jerk with bad beliefs. I think either of those words would do fine, but they need to appear on both sides.

Either this kind of talk, coming from a white evangelical or a black community leader, is wrong and hateful, or it isn’t. I think it is, so why equivocate on terms?

The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He’s drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It’s a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he’s been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

Let me repeat what I’ve said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

With Rev. Wright’s retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright’s statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.

First up, there is the “About Us” blurb.

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

First of all, I’m not too keen on the fact that “Unashamedly Black” comes before “Unapologetically Christian.” Statements of faith are typically made with utmost care and attention to detail. There is no reason to not think that was the case here, and consequently, I challenge the theology of ANY church which would put a temporal, physical descriptor ahead (and always capitalized) of the word “Christian.” I’m sure Pastor Wright would agree that it is very possible to have a black gathering which is not Christian. It is not the blackness nor the whiteness  nor the whatever-ness of a congregation that makes it a church: It is Christ. To that end, I think the opening sentence indicates a faulty view of the nature of the church.

Second, I would be very curious to hear what a “Black religious experience” is. Is the church implying reveals himself differently to different races? The Bible clearly disregards racial distinction before God:

And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.–Revelation 5:9

Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.-Acts 10:34-35

The idea that God differentiates between racial ethnicity in revealing himself (which is what I would consider a “religious experience) is clearly foreign to the Bible. There is no “Black religious experience” or “White religious experience” or “[Insert Color] religious experience.” God accepts, through Christ, any person of any race that will come to Him.

As such, I have to severely question whether or not Pastor Wright’s vision for a “Black worship service and ministries” severely disregards the Bible’s call for impartiality. If God does not see our colors, why should the church? There is no legitimate, Christian answer that can be given. It all has to be chalked up what definitely appears to be a form of racism, however subtle, in Trinity United Church of Christ. After all, we would rightly chastise any congregation for defining itself as part of the “White gospel” or endeavoring to provide “white ministries.” I see no reason for an exception in the case of TUCC.

All that to say this: I have serious doubts regarding the integrity of Trinity United Church of Christ as a New Testament church. It seems to me that TUCC baptizes its members more into a culture than into the gospel. I see no mention of Christ and His redemptive work. I see rather the social gospel, working within racial discrimination. This is not a church founded by Christ.

That said, this does NOT disqualify Barack Obama from public office. I’ve said before I would vote for a Mormon like Romney, and I wouldn’t have an immediate problem voting for someone from a place like this. What this analysis hopefully does is put to rest any debate over whether or not TUCC is an accurate picture of a New Testament church. I think the unavoidable answer is no, it is not.

Need one say more?

Southern Baptist Leaders Take Unusual Step of Urging Fight Against Climate Change
NEW YORK (AP) — In a major shift, a group of Southern Baptist leaders said their denomination has been “too timid” on environmental issues and has a biblical duty to stop global warming.

The declaration, signed by the president of the Southern Baptist Convention among others and released Monday, shows a growing urgency about climate change even within groups that once dismissed claims of an overheating planet as a liberal ruse. The conservative denomination has 16.3 million members and is the largest Protestant group in the U.S.

The signers of “A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change” acknowledged that not all Christians accept the science behind global warming. They said they do not expect fellow believers to back any proposed solutions that would violate Scripture, such as advocating population control through abortion.

However, the leaders said that current evidence of global warming is “substantial,” and that the threat is too grave to wait for perfect knowledge about whether, or how much, people contribute to the trend.

“We believe our current denominational resolutions and engagement with these issues have often been too timid,” according to the statement. “Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed. We can do better.”

No one speaks on behalf of all Southern Baptists, who leave decision-making to local churches. Yet, the signatories represent some of the top figures in the convention.

Among them are the denomination’s president, the Rev. Frank Page of South Carolina; two former presidents, the Rev. James Merritt of Georgia and the Rev. Jack Graham of Texas; and the Rev. Ronnie Floyd of Arkansas, who helped conservatives solidify control of the denomination in the 1970s and 1980s.

Also backing the effort are presidents of three prominent Baptist-affiliated schools: David Dockery of Union University in Tennessee; Timothy George of Samford University’s Beeson Divinity School in Alabama; and Danny Akin of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina. More than 35 people signed the statement.

Supporters plan to collect more signatures for the declaration through baptistcreationcare.org and encourage congregations to advocate for environmental protection.

Even before Monday’s statement, religious activism on climate change had broadened beyond just liberal-leaning churches. The 1993 “Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation” became a guiding document for the Evangelical Environmental Network. The Rev. Rich Cizik, Washington director of the National Association of Evangelicals, became a prominent environmental advocate, trying to persuade conservative Christians that global warming is real. Polls of younger evangelicals found they considered environmental protection a priority.

But many of the most conservative Christians, including some Southern Baptist leaders, remained skeptical, and vigorously challenged evangelical environmentalists.

The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, backed by James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Charles Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship ministries, among others, said that while conservation is important, some environmental concerns “are without foundation or greatly exaggerated.” Last year, Dobson and other Christian conservatives unsuccessfully pressured the National Association of Evangelicals to silence Cizik on the issue.

The last Southern Baptist statement on global warming came at the denomination’s 2007 annual meeting, which approved a statement questioning the belief that humans are largely to blame for climate change and warning that increased regulation of greenhouse gases will hurt the poor.

Even so, Jonathan Merritt, a student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, began rallying denominational leaders to take a different approach. Merritt, 25, son of former convention president James Merritt, said a theology class had inspired him.

His professor had compared destroying God’s creation to “tearing a page out of the Bible.”

“That struck me. It broke me,” the younger Merritt said in an interview, “and that was the impetus that began a life change, a shift of perspective for me.”

The New York Times came out with an article today concerning the use of the death penalty that says it’s not.  More and more cases, the Times says, are coming before federal juries in the State of New York as prosecutors continue to request civic action.  The problem is, juries are refusing to sign off on the matter.  This sentiment has been paralleled by Supreme Court, which last year issued stays on behalf of all death row inmates, pending the adjudication of a Kentucky case stemming from this incident:

“Ralph Baze is on Kentucky’s death row because in January 1992 he used an SKS assault rifle to ambush a sheriff and his deputy when they arrived at his house to arrest him.

He shot the sheriff three times in the back. The deputy returned fire until he ran out of bullets. When the lawman tried to retreat, Mr. Baze shot the deputy twice in the back. As the deputy lay on the ground bleeding, Baze walked up to him and shot him in the back of the head.”

One must ask themselves the question: had the deputy been able to kill his assailant then, would it have been morally justified?  The answer is yes.  Justice demands retribution; he would have been justified in protecting himself.  And while some argue violence begets violence, it can also been an incentive to refrain from breaking the law.

For the wise parent does not spare their child the rod.  They teach them, rather, that their bad choices demand equally strigent punishments.   The consequence, in effect, becomes a deterrent for future bad behavior.  And younger siblings who observe the reformed behavior of the older are more likely to follow their example, both out of love and fear of retribution. 

While the death penalty is highly contested, it must still be an option left on the table.  The taking of life is a terrible thing, but if taking the life of a guilty man bears even the small hope of saving an innocent, so be it.  To remove the option altogether would be entirely irresponsible on the part of our Federal Government.  It would be an affront to justice herself.

I like to be upfront with my readers so any bias cannot be said was intended to mislead or misinform.  Therefore, I’d like to clarify a few issues.  Modernly, I identify myself with the Republican Party.  I did not actively support McCain during the primary season, but this November, my vote will be cast for him out of necessity rather than any earned allegiance.  Historically, however, I consider myself a Strict-Constructionist and, in some measure, a Jeffersonian-Democrat.  The federal government was enumerated powers by the Constitution for the sole reason that it was not to overextended the said powers; and that government is best which governs least.

All this being said, I hope that you enjoy the following week as much as I will.  Thomas Paine once theorized: “It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly correct…” and in consequence of such, I am counting on you, the reader, to promote and intelligent discussion on the issues.  Do not forgo your intellectual and political duty, and remind me not to forgo mine, either.

 God Bless.