nice guy jesus

was with a friend trying to find some to talk to about jesus at sydney uni, and ended up chatting to this girl who had founded her own religion (membership = 1). what frustrated me most in the conversation was her inability to see the complete arbitrariness of a system that takes a foundation of pop-buddhism, part new-age-spirituality, and the nice-guy jesus who said some things that the gospels are just trying to distort.

it's not at all an uncommon thing, but i really don't know how to get through to this kind of person. C.S. Lewis' famous quote came back into my head as i've been reflecting on the conversation:

... you must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

quote originally from Mere Christianity, this one in From Narnia to a Space Odyssey, a conversation between Arthur C. Clarke (who could be classed as believing in 'scientism') and C.S. Lewis (who rejected the claim that science answered all of life's problems). book edited by Ryder W. Miller, iBooks, N.Y., 2004.

Vale Arthur C. Clarke

checking the tv guide, i noted with sadness that Arthur C. Clarke has died.

i have much to say on him, see here, here, and here. in his writing he has greatly shaped the way i think of science fiction versus science fact, and he has given me much cause to think, with regards to his humanistic thinking.

i am especially fondly reminded of the Asimov-Clarke interaction, particularly manifest in the Asimov-Clarke Treaty, whereby Asimov would dedicate his books, "from the second-best science fiction writer, to the second-best science fact writer."

a recent collection i picked up, Report on Planet Three: And Other Speculations (1972), showed just how broad his interests and areas of expertise were. the way he describes the richness of his life in his adopted home, Sri Lanka is particularly colourful.

he is someone i would have loved to meet.
i'll wrap up this post with his three laws (an obvious act of one-up-manship to Asimov),

1. "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
   
2. "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."
   
3. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

laws cut and pasted from here

the science of religiosity

a colleague alerted me to this article from ninemsn, entitled Trendy spiritualism 'breeds unhappiness'.
this backs up Arthur C Clarke's thoughts that i mentioned several months ago here, that it may be "better to be un-sane and happy, than sane and un-happy. But it is best of all to be sane and happy."

however it is interesting to see the afore-mentioned article taking this thinking on.
although the tack it takes is slightly different, saying not simply that it is better to be un-sane (ie religious), but that it is better to follow a "real" religion, ie not a made-up one.

how many times do you talk to someone who says, "i don't like to think of God like that - for me, he's more like this..."

but not just saying that this is irrational, the article wants to talk about religious belief from a health point-of-view.
indeed, the article says, reporting on a Queensland* study,

Young men who held non-traditional religious views were at twice the risk of being more anxious and depressed than those with traditional beliefs.

the author of the study goes on to say that,

"This study suggests that new forms of religiosity demand further research attention to understand the extent that religious change is linked to population mental health and social behaviour among younger generations."

now i don't want to string too long a bow here, but does Romans 1:18-32 have anything to add to this research? perhaps not, but it's definitely a thought-provoking article.

* the north-eastern-most state of Australia

un-sane

With all the discussion about the philosophical reasons for Christianity, i thought i'd share these afore-alluded-to thoughts from Arthur C. Clarke (i basically re-read the book and couldn't find it, till i realised it was in a post-script!).

for the ignorami, Clarke is the author of 2001 A Space Odyssey, 2010, 2061, 3001, as well as countless short stories, science-fact as well as fiction novels. a very thoughtful guy.

but anyway, here is the quote, his final word, as it were, finishing off the odyssey series:

Finally, I would like to assure my many Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish and Muslim friends that I am sincerely happy that the religion which Chance has given you has contributed to your peace of mind (and often, as Western medical science now reluctantly admist, to your physical well-being).
Perhaps it is better to be un-sane and happy, than sane and un-happy. But it is best of all to be sane and happy.
Whether our descendants can achieve that goal will be the greatest challenge of the future. Indeed, it may well decide whether we have any future.
Arthur C. Clarke
Colombo, Sri Lanka
19 September 1996

From the Valediction in his 3001 The Final Odyssey

the question remains for those who may be un-sane (ie a religious believer of any shape or form) and un-healthy - why?

i still like his books tho...

s(un)shine

a question i've raised once before (here) has asked itself again, courtesy of a new film, sunshine.

without giving too much away, this film is set in the not too distant future, in a world where they've discovered that the sun is cooling down a little, and they need to "zap" a little more life into it!

so my question is to what extent will we (humanity, God's image bearers) be witnesses to the destruction, collapse of the physical universe?

this idea of the dying sun is not a new idea (arthur c. clarke thought of it yonks ago, and my recollection is that j.g. ballard also mooted the idea half a century ago), it is simply a device for bringing cosmic catastrophy into the present (much like that asteroid film with that guy and the girl and the father and stuff).

the waning sun postulated in the film is one thing, but:
what of the bomb-race that looks like it's getting a second-wind?
what of the disastrous state of the evironment?
what of the increased ability for those who would do great harm to many, to accomplish their desires?

at what stage is enough going to be enough? will ther ever be any of us around to see that day when evil will be completely vanquished?
OR, might there be a similar pattern to the death and resurrection of Christ?

ie, all that is evil - conquered. all that is good - gone.
then, bursting forth, the Lord, with (to quote Jude quoting Enoch) ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

that would include, i guess, doing their very best to destroy this good world that we have been given stewardship over, perverting this good creation for their own wicked ends.

but then again, i wonder, might it ever get that far?

*no points for guessing what i've just been preaching on!