|
From CHRIS CRESSWELL, Christchurch
[MB, ChB, MRNZCGP, Member of Scientific and
Medical Network. -Ed.]
Just a
few thoughts on the refreshing The Anatomy of Joy by Donald Stowell.
I was worried
as I read that he was escaping into rapture and minimising
the importance of earthly suffering. This approach (which I
believe Marx interpreted as "religion is the opium of the masses")
leaves the world to be destroyed at the hands of the
greedy. I am glad Stowell wrote
"He has understood the purpose of life
as an adventure into Love which causes him to find ways of furthering
the work of Christ on earth to mitigate
the mighty miseries which man inflicts upon man, and help his fellow
men to perceive the
Kingdom of God."
I am not a theologian but I doubt that
Christianity can be described as The
only fundamentally joyous religion.
My understanding is that at least
Sufism, younger and perhaps further up the evolutionary tree than
Christianity, is a very joyful faith, with ecstasy being central to its
practice.
I also question
Stowell's
belief in an end point in the evolution of humanity (similar to
Teilhard's Omega Point). I believe it is more likely that God and
humanity will continue to evolve together forever (if we can solve the
threats to our existance). Why consider God static and finite?
Chris
Cresswell
Christchurch |
From
Rob McKay [Methodist
minister]
Dear Sir,
I read
with interest the
article, "The Anatomy of Joy", by Donald Stowell, and would like to add
another little gem on the subject of 'joy' from The Book of Mormon:
"Adam
fell that men might
be; and men are, that they might have joy"
2 Nephi
2:25
Naku noa
Na
Rob McKay
|
|
Patrick
Furlong Assistant Producer, Optomen Television "Neurotheology"
I'm currently making a television program in the UK
linking ideas of religious experience and science. I was very
interested in discovering your website and wondered whether
you'd be at all
interested in our ideas. You'll be aware that scientists have already
discovered that
certain parts of the brain appear to be activated during
religious
experiences - the temporal lobes being particularly important. Such
observations
have now spawned a whole new scientific discipline of
neurotheology which
attempts to look at spiritual and neurological matters together.
In our programme we are going to examine the
neurological processes inside the brain during a more intense religious
experience
such as a deliverance or exorcism rite. Such an experiment
will also allow
us to compare religiousand scientific approaches to psychotherapy.
I wonder if these are areas you are at all
interested
in. Having read your website I think they may well be.
Kind
Regards
Patrick
Furlong
|
From: Dr Bruce Nicholls
SCIENCE AND FAITH FORUM
Here in Auckland
for the
past year we have sponsored a Science and Faith Forum of 7-8
university professors and scientists and the same number of
theologians. Our
distinctive is that we claim the be evangelical, upholding the
historic orthodox faith. We have founded a publishing company, Telos
Books. So
far we have published 4 monographs; I am sending you one for your
interest.
This year our Forum
is
focussing on Creation Theology and the care of Creation. We are
sponsoring a conference in Auckland Univeristy February 16-19, 2005 on
this theme.
I leave this
Thursday for
Europe and the Middle East on writing and editing assignments and
return on October 31st. Our Telos address is inside the monograph,
God's Books,Genetics and Genesis by
Dr Graeme
Finlay.
With warm greetings,
(Dr) Bruce Nicholls
|
From JAMES GASSON
The article 'The Anatomy of Joy',
I think to be an example of poor thinking. I comment on some quotes
below (quotes are in no particular order).
Essentially, I think that the author has failed to make a case for his
views. Readers may agree with some of the author's views,
but they are unlikely to be convinced by anything they don't agree
with, so are unlikely to to find new insight.
The
Bill of Human Rights has been adopted by every member of
the United Nations (excepting South Africa) and this thing has
never happened before. History does not
repeat itself. Never before have so
many nations decided to work
together for mutual benefit or contributed
towards a corporate effort to feed the hungry,
clothe the naked and heal the sick.This is the work of
Jesus Christ and it is a matter for great joy.
The Bill of Human Rights includes a number of documents,
notably the Universal Decleration of Human Rights. These are the first
2 articles:
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one
another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of
the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or
territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust,
non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
The first article, in brief, outlines a view on the origin of morality.
Morality is the synergy of reason and conscience. Religion isn't
required. Further, the second article specifically states there is an
entitlement to rights regardless of (among other things) a person's
religion. Nowhere does Christianity warrent a specific mention. It
seems to me decidedly odd to claim this document in the name of
Christianity.
I quote Aldous
Huxley again, this time from Ape
and Essence:
"Joy? But joy was
murdered long ago. All that survives is
the laughter of demons about the whipping posts, the howling of the
possessed as they couple in the darkness. Joy is only for
those whose life accords with the given Order of the World.
For
you there, the clever ones, who think you can improve upon that order, for you, the
angry ones, the disobedient, joy is fast becoming a stranger. Those who are doomed
to reap the consequences of your fantastic tricks will never so much
as suspect its existence.
This idea is a common thread running through the three great
monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).
Morality excludes the possiblity of reason or conscience.
True morality is based solely on blind faith in 'the given Order'.
It's quite opposed to the message in the Declaration.
The Declaration, surely, in this view, is a product of 'the clever
ones'.
Christian Joy is a
very mysterious thing to non-believers :-
“Blessed
are you when men hate you, and when they
exclude you and hate you and cast out your name as evil on account of the
Son of Man!
Rejoice
in that day and leap for joy, for behold your
reward is great in heaven.”(Luke 6.23).
I think this more worrying than mysterious.What could be the good of
finding joy in hate?
A
case can certainly be made out that Christianity “is the only
fundamentally joyous religion”
I suspect this is prodominatly a Christian view.
The
thinkers, prophets and priests did their best according to their mental
and spiritual equipment, but none of it was complete and much of it was
bungled. For example, it was thought that God wanted human sacrifice,
and later on that he would enjoy animal burnt offerings and would
enjoy the smell of roast meat.
The author seems again to claim that a moral person is one who does
God's will. But then he seems to assume that anything he
personally disapproved of couldn't be God's will.
If the author does assume this, then God's will could be of no
practical value to him, as he is going to place his own views first in
every case.
Wanting
to prove that God exists is as absurd as to
assert that he does not; our assertions and
our proofs will not create him,
nor
will they suppress him.
In the same manner, wanting to prove anything could be said absurd, as
no proof changes what it asserts. Essentially, the author encourages us
to form a belief without reason, but this is a perilous occupation.
Anyone in the habit of believing what they are told without question,
surely risks forming false, and possibly dangerous beliefs. And, in
fact, the author has suggested as much himself.
People who use the word “God” should be able to say what they mean by
it. There are many who use the word and do not mean anything by
it because they have rejected the archaic meaning which they have
been taught.
Too often in the
religions of the world it has been
attempted to account for creation as the work of a
greatly enlarged human being who is a spirit who
is somewhere “above” and in a place called “Heaven”.
(The author seems to be describing Christianity specifically,
rather than "the religions of the world" generally, as he suggests.)
Yet we can still say that God is Love - if by love we mean
that energy
which draws together things which otherwise would be separated.
The author has talked in favour of clear arguments.
Also, he is annoyed at people using the word "God" in the orthodox
sense. Much as I disagree with the orthodox concept of God,
however, I wouldn't argue with the use of the word "God" in the
orthodox sense. Surely orthodox Christians had the word "God" first. If
by "God" the author means energy,
and if the author had wanted to clarify his views, he might have, for
instance, refered to his concept as "God-energy";
and his views as "neo-Christian", or simply have refered to his
interpretations of "the teachings of Jesus" (I think this would have
been far more sensible, placing importance in the teachings of Jesus
does not make you Christian, Muslims place importance in the teachings
of Jesus, and Jesus himself was Jewish). In any case, something
is needed to clarify the discussion, as it is, the author used the
words "God" and "Christian" both in the orthodox senses, and for his
own meaning, with the result that it is often difficult to tell which
he is referring to.
|
From Anthony Buckley, UK, on ADDICTION
September 15, 2004
I always feel
better for reading your inspiring words.
I do feel there is an understandable muddle around that word
'Addiction' due to the complexity of the subject. It makes me
wary of bringing morality into the topic, except in a completely
different sort of way.
Multiple Scelerosis sufferers may now legally be prescribed
cannabis to reduce pain & increase mobility in the UK. There may be
eventual addiction, but that is a secondary effect in the reduction of
suffering. Equally, the
depressive, schizophrenic and those with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's
disease may reach some level of addiction from the drugs they must
take, but this is preferable to the suffering caused to themselves and
others.
It is clear that
one reason someone may take 'addictive' drugs is to
ameliorate genetically-caused faults. There is also strong
evidence that some of the drugs which attract widespread social &
medical disapproval (alcohol & tobacco) are initially adopted by
some with genetic faults who find that it reduces their mental
suffering.
One study says that 40% of the World's population has less-than-perfect
genes (so almost half of us are 'Mutants'!) And one can expect that
figure to rise until there is a 100% realisation that 'none of us is
perfect'.
When Our Lord commands us to 'love one another', it has to be warts an'
all. We aren't told how many units of red wine Jesus might have drunk
each week. We only know that he conducted the miracle at the wedding
and was also accused of being 'a winebibber' by his critics.
There is such strong scientific evidence now on things which were once
termed 'moral weaknesses' that it is no longer possible to judge
anyone: One finding is that two-thirds of people who attempted to adopt
smoking when it seemed a socially-desirable practice (when much of the
British Royal Family smoked) found no benefit whatsoever, so
hardly-ever smoked if they could avoid it - yet, for others, it
compensates for a genetic neurological problem which prevents normal
amounts of dopamine getting to the brain - thus most present-day
smokers Need to smoke!
For those who
receive no benefit from smoking, it's incredibly easy to deal with any
chemical or psychological addiction. I know this because I stopped for
5 months and was determined that I would never smoke again. The
experience taught me that my brain deteroriates significantly and
dangerously when I don't smoke. I am now taking advice from
a scientist who is striving to compensate for the
genetically-caused neurological lack by instead administering
less-harmful chemicals which attempt to have the same effect as smoking.
The phrase "Judge not that ye may not be judged" becomes ever-more
relevant as we understand the Physical-Chemical restrictions into
which each child is born.
Just a few thoughts
God Bless, Anthony
|
![[globe]](earthani.gif)