This is a fairly intelligent comment from Brooks. Brooks ususally writes nonsense, and there's a fair bit of that here. But his point is probably right. He concludes that because brain science can now explain the state of religious "trancendence" the future of religion will be about "new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day."Brooks writes that "the real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It’s going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism."That's one possibility, and it is probably what will happen. Of course Brooks doesn't know his ass from his elbow when he talks about Buddhism, but what he seems to be saying is that people of a scientific world view will eventually accept that there is a feeling of sacredness, but reject that that feeling of sacredness is captured (either adequately or necessarily) by Christianity, Judaism, etc. What then will defenders of traditional religion--mostly Christians--say?
shantonuMay 13, 2008
This is a fairly intelligent comment from Brooks. Brooks ususally writes nonsense, and there's a fair bit of that here. But his point is probably right. He concludes that because brain science can now explain the state of religious "trancendence" the future of religion will be about "new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day."Brooks writes that "the real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It’s going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism."That's one possibility, and it is probably what will happen. Of course Brooks doesn't know his ass from his elbow when he talks about Buddhism, but what he seems to be saying is that people of a scientific world view will eventually accept that there is a feeling of sacredness, but reject that that feeling of sacredness is captured (either adequately or necessarily) by Christianity, Judaism, etc. What then will defenders of traditional religion--mostly Christians--say?
pkoninkMay 14, 2008
Brooks, have you been smoking the reefer? If you have, keep it up.
shantonuMay 14, 2008
Oh f**k, I meant to hit the "thumb up" button but hit the thumbs down button. And you can't "undo"it. s**t! I like your comment. :(