My critique on the Word of the Kingdom, propagated by Arlen L. Chitwood and John Herbert, can be found here.

The Templeton Foundation, an organization that promotes scientific research, poses this question: Does science make belief in God obsolete? One of the respondents, Steven Pinker, offers the following: “Traditionally, a belief in God was attractive because it promised to explain the deepest puzzles about origins. Where did the world come from? What is the basis of life? How can the mind arise from the body? Why should anyone be moral?” Only I have never known religion, let alone Christianity, to be primarily concerned with the first questions posed by Pinker. Certainly, the Bible provides an account of the world’s creation—which some take literally, some allegorically, and some figuratively—but it is not principally concerned with that matter. Rather, the righteousness of God and man’s need for redemption form its core. That “science”—somehow personified in the question—should render God obsolete is pedestrian. Real science is merely a method by which man observes the visible world. The invisible lies beyond its scope, and thus, it does not make God obsolete.

The question implies that at some point “God”—here I use quotation marks because one cannot speak of the real Deity as an object, nor is the question valid “if” God is real, for then the question is really stupid—was useful. How was “he” useful then at that time? Why is “he” not useful now? Was “he” ever useful? Science can’t answer those questions either. Those questions and the one proposed by Templeton are the concern of philosophers and theologians, not scientists, who with their tools cannot even answer whether God exists. Perhaps a better question is: Does God make science obsolete? Probably not. It’s more likely that none of these questions are valid.

People are interested in what scientists have to say about God, not because scientists can disprove God, but because people are interested in knowing if they can prove God. Once it is realized that scientists cannot answer that question (or the other), they cease to be interesting. That said, the dialog over at Templeton is interesting, for it is an issue which all humans must address: the existence of Deity.

The Templeton discussions can be found here: http://www.templeton.org/belief/

MSNBC is reporting that Saudi Arabia will not increase oil production as Pres. Bush has requested. As long as we are beholden to the large oil exporters, we will be their subjects. We need an advanced nuclear program now.

The Mercury News of San Jose has published this profound commentary on the Olympics and the famous Rule 51:

In a swirl of wind and snow, the Olympic torch Thursday reached the highest peak in the world - the top of Mount Everest.

Heavy symbolism. A powerful message.

Interestingly, the event came just a few days after the International Olympic Committee banned symbolism and messages. In a letter to national federations, the IOC decreed that all athletes must refrain from clothing, gestures and written or oral statements that demonstrate “political, religious or racial propaganda” at Olympic venues. The missive did not outline punishment guidelines for infractions.

Is a symbolic message appropriate at the Olympics? It is for the host nation. It certainly is for the corporate sponsors. But, by decree, not for the participating athletes.

The flurry of debate over politics and the Olympics will only get more intense as the Games approach (the opening ceremony is three months away). But for weeks, as anti-China protests on the issues of Tibet and Darfur mount, sparking backlash protests within China, we’ve heard that politics and the Olympics should not mix.

That concept is ridiculous on a couple of counts. The Olympics, ancient and modern, have always been infused with politics: The very torch run that has had everyone hyperventilating was begun in 1936 by the Nazi propaganda machine to promote Hitler’s dominance as the flame passed through areas he hoped to conquer.

Read the editorial here.

“Freedom of expression is something that is absolute. It’s a human right. Athletes have it.”—IOC president Jacques Rogge (last month)

We hear often about the “integrity” of the games, the International Olympic Committee’s anti-doping program, amateur sports and sportsmanship. What we won’t hear this summer are the athletes views and opinions on important issues. “Everyone concerned ... should also respect the personal rights of each individual athlete, which include both the right to express themselves and the right not to comment on political issues,” reads an IOC letter clarifying Rule 51, which outlines rules of conduct for athletes. This is a clever piece of writing, for it places blame on the one who speaks, as if others have a right to silence. Freedom of speech pertains to ones right to speak, not to another person’s right to silence.

The IOC insists that the games “are not a stage for different kinds of political statements about issues such as armed conflicts, regional differences, religious disputes and many others.” Yet the world is about issues. And athletes are part of that world. It is unreasonable to expect athletes to remain silent in the games when elsewhere it would be criminal. As Elie Weisel once stated, “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

A code of silence demeans the games and humanity.