Stand to Reason Videos

Stand to Reason has a library of short videos featuring Greg Koukl addressing various apologetic issues on YouTube.

Korea's Shameless Shamans

From a fascinating article in today's New York Times about the revival of shamanism in Korea:

There are an estimated 300 shamanistic temples within an hour of Seoul’s bustling city center, and in them, shamans perform their clamorous ceremonies every day. They offer pigs to placate the gods. They dance with toy guns to comfort the spirit of a dead child. They intimidate evil spirits by walking barefoot on knife blades.

“We used to do our rituals in hiding,” said Ms. Yang, who performs two or three rites on a busy day. “Our customers kept it secret from even their own relatives. Now we have no shame performing in public. I can hardly take three days off a month.”

Korean shamanism is rooted in ancient indigenous beliefs shared by many folk religions in northeast Asia. Most mudangs are women who say they discovered their ability to serve as a mediator between the human and spirit worlds after emerging from a critical illness. They believe that the air is thick with spirits, including those of dead relatives, a fox in the hills behind a village, an old tree or even a stove. These spirits interact with people and influence their fortunes.

So when tradition-minded Koreans are inexplicably sick or have a run of bad luck in business or a daughter who cannot find a husband, they consult a shaman.

Its syncretistic and cultural flexibility is credited with the practice's longevity:

“In our latest survey, we found 273 categories of gods venerated by Korean shamans. If you look into the subcategories, you find 10,000 deities,” said Hong Tea-han, a professor at Chung-Ang University in Seoul who researches shamanism. “Korean shamanism is a great melting pot. It never rejected anything but embraced everything, making endless compromises with other religions and social changes. That explains why it has survived thousands of years.”

There are shamans who venerate Jesus, the Virgin Mary, even Park Chung-hee, the late South Korean military strongman. Under the pro-American military governments of the 1970s, there were shamans who took Gen. Douglas MacArthur as their deity. When MacArthur’s spirit possessed them, they donned sunglasses, puffed on a pipe and uttered sounds that some clients took for English.

An Atheist Interviews Himself

Prompted by repeated questions about his atheism, David Gleeson imagines himself being interviewed by a representative theist in American Chronicle: Part I Part II Part III

On Faith

Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham and Washington Post writer Sally Quinn are the moderators of a new online discussion of religion and its impact called On Faith (HT: The Pearcey Report).

Given that people like Al Mohler, Daniel Dennett, Marcus Borg, Karen Armstrong, John Dominic Crossan, Sam Harris, Rick Warren, and Brian McLaren are among the panel of 50 leaders and scholars who will be participating in the discussion, the conversation is sure to be lively. The moderators pose questions to which panelists respond. Readers are invited to express their thoughts on the question and comment on the panelists' answers.

Here's the first question: "If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?"

Faith and Reason at Harvard

Educators at Harvard have proposed a new requirement for its undergrads - "a course focusing on the interplay between reason and faith—whether in wars of religion or debates over stem cell research."

"A Recipe for Religious Intolerance"

That's what Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, calls the Bible in this interview with Salon. (HT: The Revealer)

Barack Obama on Religion and Politics

Illinois State Senator Barack Obama (D) recently delivered the keynote address at a conference sponsored by Call to Renewal, a faith-based movement to overcome poverty in America. He candidly expressed his wrestling with the relationship between his politics and his professed Christian faith, including internal turmoil stirred by Alan Keyes's claim toward the end of his 2004 campaign that Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama:

Now, I was urged by some of my liberal supporters not to take this statement seriously, to essentially ignore it. To them, Mr. Keyes was an extremist, and his arguments not worth entertaining. And since at the time, I was up 40 points in the polls, it probably wasn't a bad piece of strategic advice.

But what they didn't understand, however, was that I had to take Mr. Keyes seriously, for he claimed to speak for my religion, and my God. He claimed knowledge of certain truths.

Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, he was saying, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination.

Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, but supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.

And so what would my supporters have me say? How should I respond? Should I say that a literalist reading of the Bible was folly? Should I say that Mr. Keyes, who is a Roman Catholic, should ignore the teachings of the Pope?

Unwilling to go there, I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response in such debates - namely, I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can't impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois.

But Mr. Keyes's implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me, and I was also aware that my answer did not adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and my own beliefs.

From his address, it seems that Senator Obama's is relativistic when it comes to religious claims. All are valuable and valid to the extent that they offer their adherents community, meaning, and moral guidance. I'm pretty sure that the senator would be quick to add "for me" to any assertion he made about Christianity being true. Nevertheless, his address raises critical issues about how we engage in moral discourse in a pluralistic society and why the demand that religious beliefs be excluded from those conversations is historically unprecedented and practically impossible:

But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Senator Obama has always struck me as a reflective, intelligent, and judicious man. I'm glad he's thinking and talking about these matters and hope he will continue to do so.

UPDATE 6/30/06: Al Mohler identifies an internal contradiction in Senator Obama's position in his post Secularism With A Smile.

Einstein on God and Ethics

Last week American Public Media's weekly radio program Speaking of Faith began a two part series called Einstein and the Mind of God. "Part one...takes Einstein's science as a starting point for exploring the great physicist's perspective on ideas such as mystery, eternity, and the mind of God. Part two[to be aired Dec 15]...delves into Einstein's Jewish identity, his passionate engagement around issues of war and race, and modern extensions of his ethical and scientific perspectives." Visit the site to listen to part one and preview part two.


I'm grateful to the member of our congregation who informed me of this weekly program and I look forward to listening to future shows. If you're in the U.S., check the station guide to find out where and when you can listen too.

A Brief Exercise in Comparative Religion

Peter Bogert of Stronger Church asks some interesting questions.

Forcing My Religion?

STR's Steve Wagner recently pointed readers to a compelling response to the frequently-raised accusation that those who contend for a particular moral position in the public square are seeking to impose their morality on others. Follow the link and check it out. I concur with Steve that it's a thing of beauty.

A related charge is that Christians, in trying to persuade others of the gospel, are guilty of forcing our religious beliefs on our hearers. In addition to having answers to such criticisms, it's equally important to be prepared to ask the right questions of those who level that charge. Questions are wonderful teaching tools whose power, I fear, we don't appreciate nearly enough. Just look at how deftly Jesus used interrogatives to instruct as well as to expose the false assumptions and impure motives that laid behind his detractors' arguments.

The following is a transcript of an online exchange in which I posed some questions to someone claiming that it is wrong for religionists to "force" their beliefs on others.

KP: So you believe that people shouldn't force their views on others?

Chaotic: Yes, I BELIEVE that, though I still don't consider it a BELIEF

KP: Then what do you consider it?

Chaotic: I also believe you shouldn't talk with your mouth full, but its not a belief, sorry, I don't have a word handy for what I would call it.....courtesy perhaps

KP: Both cases are prescriptions as to how people should conduct themselves, no?

Chaotic: In my opinion, yes.

KP: Then they have to do with ethics in some sense, don't they? They are beliefs as to how people should act. They are components of your ethical system.

Chaotic: I suppose they are. Let me rephrase myself: Since it is my belief that attempting to force your belief on others is wrong, attempting to force your beliefs on me is an infringement of my ethical system.

KP: Are you saying I shouldn't infringe on your ethical system?

Chaotic: I can't control your actions

KP: Can I control yours?

Chaotic: No.

KP: Then how can I force my beliefs on you?

Chaotic: It is your RIGHT to force your belief on me but that doesn't mean I have to listen.

KP: So you're saying both that I shouldn't force my beliefs on you AND I have the right to do so?

Chaotic: Yes. A bit of paradox, eh?

KP: So, in other words, I shouldn't exercise my rights?

Chaotic: I have the right to do a lot of things I shouldn't (at least, shouldn't in my opinion).

KP: So really, you're trying to limit my freedom. Who are you to force your beliefs on me?

Chaotic: Nice try. Actually that's not what I said at all. I'm merely saying if you wish to force your beliefs on me, I am obliged to ignore you because I don't believe you should. But you can talk to yourself all day if you like.

KP: You're telling me that I have the right to do something but that I shouldn't exercise it. How is that not a limitation of my freedom? And why shouldn't I use it? What is the basis of that "shouldn't"?

Chaotic: I am telling you, according to my beliefs, you shouldn't. But that doesn't mean you can't.

KP: But how can I force my beliefs on you when you've already said that I can't control what you do? What exactly does it mean to "force my beliefs on you"?

Chaotic: You can ATTEMPT to force them on me.

KP: But I never can, right?

Chaotic: No, I suppose not.

KP: So really, what you were saying is that people shouldn't do what they can't do.

Chaotic: Semantically speaking, yes. Since we are being so technical, I should say that I meant "attempt to force beliefs" from the start.

KP: But if I think people should try to force their beliefs on others (whatever that means) then it's OK for me to do so, right? After all, there's no standard outside ourselves to which we must conform and by which we can judge each others' actions, right?

Chaotic: Right. It's ok for you to do that, though I disagree with it.

KP: So really, within the framework of your system, "People shouldn't...." translates into "I don't like it when people.....," right?

Chaotic: Crudely.

KP: Didn't mean to be crude. Just wanted to get down to the brass tacks.

Chaotic: Well, we're all brassed out

KP: So, why do you use the language of moral imperative to express your personal likes and dislikes?

Chaotic: I made an error in semantics earlier. That is the bare bones of it. I wasn't expecting to have it surgically analyzed. I was just trying to say " I don't like it when people try to force their beliefs on me." But it came out, "People shouldn't force their beliefs on me."

KP: I think it came out that way because that's what you truly believe although it's inconsistent with your professed relativism. No one lives consistently with relativism nor can they. Our actions, and at times our speech, betray us. I think you're more of an absolutist than you think.

Chaotic: Thanks for the character evaluation

KP: Am I wrong?

Chaotic: Couldn't tell you exactly. You say I'm more of an absolutist than I might think. I obviously can't give you an objective analysis of what I am compared to what I think I am.

KP: That's a good point. Do you think you're a consistent relativist, then?

Chaotic: I don't think I am a consistent anything. Tell me why you think I am or am not a relativist.

KP: Well, I think you espouse relativism based on your presentation of your ethical beliefs. I know that you're not a consistent one, however, because you are created in the image of God and He has revealed Himself in part through the workings of your conscience as well as by the standards by which you judge others. No matter how you try, you can't be other than what you are as an image-bearer of God living in His world.

Chaotic: Of course, that is simply your belief. I consider myself Humanist, though I know I do not live up to that every day.

KP: When you make statements about what people should or should not do, as though appealing to some objective standard of ethics, you're leaving your worldview and borrowing from another. There is no basis for such assertions on your presuppositions. At most, your philosophy allows you to say what you don't like people to do. You can't say anything about anything but your own inner world.

Chaotic: Agreed. Alas, I am not perfect, I needed you to point that out too.

KP: I just wanted to show you that your worldview reduces to relativism and subjectivism. Ultimately it ends in skepticism.

Chaotic: Probably.