Comments on: Malcolm Gladwell on the Future of Religion

By: greenfrog

greenfrog — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:08:29 +0000

Correction — twenty-something, not thirty-something.

By: greenfrog

greenfrog — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:07:10 +0000

True — musically, our worship services seem stuck in the mid-1800s concepts.

It would be interesting to imagine what sorts of hymns might be gathered if D&C 25 were issued today to a thirty-something woman, rather than in 1830.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:01:03 +0000

I’m impressed by the consistency that leads Greenfrog to make “rock and roll” plural, but I’m puzzled about his statement that rock and roll has become part of the worship service himself. Not in the LDS church.

Re: Charles’s reference to a study cited by O’Reilly. I’m not sure that being cited by O’Reilly proves that something is untrue, but it certainly increases the odds.

By: queuno

queuno — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:41:18 +0000

Me, I’m just waiting for Malcolm Gladwell’s 15 minutes to end.

As for ID, I think that Matt Santos’ speech on Sunday night was probably the most lucid discussion of ID I’ve heard in weeks…

By: aaron

aaron — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:57:43 +0000

I think gladwell’s argument centers on the framing of debate. ID is an example of some religionists making an old idea (creationism) new in the language in which its approached and defended (ID). This seems supportable, but really ID is too new to expect it to be a major turning point in the way evangelicals, or the religious, frame their debates. If ID fails, one could expect a different approach on other issues. If it works, who knows but we’ll see a completely medicalized language for pro-life groups.
The christian rock ‘n’ roll, on the other hand, doesn’t relate to debate in society as much as it seems a reflection for the way that all the commodities of global neo-liberalism are not uniform but altered to serve localized processes of self-expression.

By: Clark

Clark — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:47:03 +0000

Seth: However, you can’t deny that the two worlds have had a history of almost constant antagonism towards each other ever since astronomers started suggesting the earth wasn’t the center of the universe. This is mostly due to the implementation of both science and religion at the hands of flawed humans. Yeah, I probably would dispute that. Until this century, I think it undeniable that most scientists were deeply religious and often their science was guided by their religion. Probably one of the best historians and philosophers of science to read on this is John Hedley Brooke. I wouldn't deny in the least that there have been conflicts. But the relationship between science and religion is much more complex than I think most people realize. (And certainly far more complex than what most people get taught in school) A good one to start out with and well worth buying is Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. It's a collection of papers but really is very interesting at perhaps clearing away some of the FUD that both sides in the current debate have placed on the issue. Seth: Science is premised on the idea that ultimately, everything in existence is discoverable, knowable, and pliable to human endeavor I don't think that accurate. Science has no claims on whether everything is knowable or not. That's the domain of philosophy and many philosophers of science (as well as scientists) would deny that claim. Indeed some of the most dominant strains of thinking about science would be quite antagonistic to such a view. Chris, I don't deny Dawkins has a background in science. That doesn't entail that he represents science.

By: Chris Grant

Chris Grant — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:56:48 +0000

greenfrog writes: “Thirty years ago, rock and roll were reviled countercultural threats to the stability of society and family. Today it’s become so assimilated that it’s part of the worship service itself.”

Christian rock is over thirty years old. (Petra, for example, released its first album in 1974.) The use of electric guitars and drumsets in Christian worship services is also nothing new.

By: Chris Grant

Chris Grant — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:40:45 +0000

Clark writes: “I don’t think science has an ‘ongoing quest to discredit religion.’ At worse it thinks when something is demonstrably true it ought be accepted.”

No, at worst it thinks that things that are false are demonstrably true.

“Don’t confuse popular writers such as Dawkins with science.”

The “popular writer” Dawkins is an Oxford-trained zoologist who has held faculty positions at Berkeley and Oxford and is currently a Fellow of the Royal Society and is Oxford’s Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science.

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:37:42 +0000

I’ll have to disagree with Gladwell. I believe we will see more polarization between the secular world and the religious. Evangelicals that are in the business of church will embrace the secular models of the world as more people become a-religious, otherwise they will fail to maintain their numbers.

The real problem is that of organizations like the ACLU that champion non religious minorities and chase religion from public discourse. This will continue as long as the public discourse (via the media) marginalizes the religious conservatives and bolsters support for organizations like the ACLU.

The Media is increasingly secular. A recent study mentioned on O’Reilly shows the US population at about 10 % non relitious but the media is disproportionatly 30% non religious. If this trend continues the media (being the only voice Americans have) will be anti religious which will marginalize the vast majority of the population.

The sudden surge in religious interest can be seen in having a president who is wears his faith outwardly. Leaders that support faith will encourage cultures to have more faith. Events like 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq also raise religious awareness among the public and create a greater need for religious discourse.

But we should not confuse the feeding of this public need by the secular media as a trend where the media supports religious positions, it is primarily an opportunity to make money by supplying the public demand. It has nothing to do with where their support lies.

By: greenfrog

greenfrog — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:12:10 +0000

It seems to me that Gladwell’s point is not that there are not on-going debates among serious-minded persons about the respective positions of evolution by natural selection and intelligent design, nor about the respective positions of reverence and rock and roll.

He is observing the way the river’s course shifts and how the river flows.

Thirty years ago, rock and roll were reviled countercultural threats to the stability of society and family. Today it’s become so assimilated that it’s part of the worship service itself.

Twenty years ago, evolution was a vile assault on all things good. From the pulpit of a classroom where I sat at BYU, it was decried as Satan’s key deception, leading us, via our egotistic intellects, straight down to hell. Today, there is nary a suggestion of a 6000 year old earth at BYU.

Sure, when we look at the point where the river runs against a rock, there is lots of real turbulence.

But move the perspective up a bit higher, and the eventual course of the river isn’t hard to discern.