Science

Thinking about C.S. Lewis and today's emerging prophets of transhumanism

Thinking about C.S. Lewis and today's emerging prophets of transhumanism

Are there any C.S. Lewis enthusiasts in the house?

How about people who, well, detest the famous Oxford don and Christian apologist?

It is my hope that this think piece (pounded out during a two-week road trip) will appeal to both.

Right now, I am about to finish reading — for the 10th time, or something like that — the Lewis “Science fiction trilogy.” It ends with “That Hideous Strength,” a head-spinning mix of science fiction, Arthurian legend and a blistering satire of stuffy, insular, corrupt, boring elites in British higher education (in other words, the world in which Lewis lived until his death in 1963). It’s the narrative fiction take on his prophetic “The Abolition of Man.

I do not want to give away the plot, of course. But the big idea is that elite there’s that word again) scientific materialists, in a quest for their own brand of immortality and desire to modify the human person, turn to the occult and, well, the Powers of Darkness. You may never hear the term “head,” when used to describe the leader of a school or movement, again without thinking of this book.

So what would Lewis think of this haunting feature from Suzy Weiss at The Free Press? Here’s the double-decker headline:

The Tech Messiahs Who Want to Deliver Us from Death

They see death as a software error — and they have a plan for fixing it. But should they?

The overture:

Kai Micah Mills is going to freeze his parents. 

“They’re both going to be cryopreserved, regardless of their wishes,” Mills told me. 


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Newsworthy question (again): Does God exist? The latest twist in the perennial debate

Newsworthy question (again): Does God exist? The latest twist in the perennial debate

Early on in the 21st Century -- which turns out to be a thorny era for organized religion -- the “New Atheism” replaced past skeptics’ polite colloquies with fundamentalist-style attacks that demeaned believers as pretty much fools and knaves.

Some radicals even wanted to prevent parents from training children in their family’s religious faith (without imposing the same demand on atheistic families).

Religion writers will recall the so-called “Four Horsemen” of this much-publicized mini-movement in the popular press: neuroscientist Sam Harris (author of “The End of Faith,” 2004), biologist Richard Dawkins (“The God Delusion,” 2006), cognitive studies scholar Daniel Dennett (“Breaking the Spell,” 2006), and the late journalist Christopher Hitchens (“God Is Not Great,” 2007).

Though it hardly qualifies as the start of the New Anti-Atheism, a recent book answers that quartet with a more gracious but similarly popular style that ponders God’s existence in brass-tacks terms rather than abstruse philosophical theorems. Turns out to be a highly intriguing and readable project worth media consideration.

As the subtitle signals, the author of “Atheism on Trial: A Lawyer Examines the Case for Unbelief” (InterVarsity Press) is no theologian or philosophy professor but an attorney. And not any old attorney.

W. Mark Lanier has appeared on various Best Lawyers lists for his successes as a class-action litigator in some of the biggest product liability cases of our time (click here for details), involving prescription drugs, baby powder, artificial sweeteners, metal-on-metal hip implants and more. Out of court, Lanier teaches an adult Sunday School class at Houston’s Champion Forest Baptist Church and has amassed one of the nation’s largest private libraries on religion.

Lanier offers a courtroom-style case of the sort that wins verdicts, asking his readers as jurors to consider logic, common sense and circumstantial evidence from real life.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

The Associated Press turns crisis pregnancy centers into 'anti-abortion' sites and that's that

The Associated Press turns crisis pregnancy centers into 'anti-abortion' sites and that's that

There comes a time when some journalists feel they must dissent from the prevailing winds of their occupation, and I’ve finally reached that point.

My concern comes from a piece in the National Catholic Register on how new terms describing abortion handed down by the Associated Press –- the standard bearer for American journalism –- have made this new normal something I can no longer follow.

The Associated Press or AP, for those of you not employed by news organizations, sets the correct titles and grammar for work in American journalism. Everyone follows whatever AP decides something should be called, using the evolving standards of the Associated Press Stylebook.

Until now. Typically, AP leaders have tried to avoid taking sides in the abortion and gender debates. However, their most recent rules makes it quite impossible for some journalists — including myself — to cover this complicated topic the way AP insists that we cover it.

In the past, for example, journalists argued about calling activists on one side “anti-abortion,” as opposed to “pro-life,” while those on the other side were given a label they welcomed, as in “pro-choice.” That second label evolved into “pro-abortion rights.” We will come back to that.

Now this. From the Register:

The Associated Press (AP) issued new guidelines advising reporters not to use the terms “crisis pregnancy center” or “pregnancy resource center” but to instead refer to centers that offer pro-life counseling and support as “anti-abortion centers.”

Reporters should “avoid potentially misleading terms such as pregnancy resource centers or pregnancy counseling centers,” because “these terms don’t convey that the centers’ general aim is to prevent abortions,” according to the AP’s Abortion Topical Guide.

The changes were made last November but are just getting publicized now.  And these centers –- PRCs --aren’t just there to prevent abortions, which anyone who walks into one soon discovers.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: 60 Minutes visits Lourdes and asks (some) very good questions about 'miracles'

Podcast: 60 Minutes visits Lourdes and asks (some) very good questions about 'miracles'

Back in the 1980s, I wrote a profile of a remarkable Episcopal priest in Colorado who was approaching his 100th birthday. He had been raised in pre-World War II Japan — the son of a samurai.

As a young man he became terribly ill and slipped into a coma. At one point, doctors said he flatlined — but they were able to restart his heart. When he awakened, he reported having a near-death experience in which a man in white robes told him that he would live and that there was much work for him to do.

The young man knew almost nothing about Christianity, other than a brief exposure to the New Testament in an English-language class. Nevertheless, he truly believed that this man was Jesus. This led to his conversion, the priesthood and a journey to America. During the war, the U.S. government put him in an internment camp — a painful episode in a long and amazing life.

Now, here is a question linked to this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). Was this man’s transformation during his NDE a “miracle”? That was the term he used when he described it.

Actually, his vision took place during a life-and-death medical drama that was unusual — but these things happen. Was there a way to test his claims in a laboratory? No. Near-death experiences happen.

What is a “miracle,” anyway? This brings us to a recent 60 Minutes report that, on the CBS website, was given this headline: “France's Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes — Where 70 medical miracles have been recognized by church officials.”

This must-see-TV report ventures into complicated territory where faith, science and centuries of church tradition overlap. The best thing about it is that it allows people to share their beliefs as well as information that, well, can be studied in a laboratory. The visuals are stunning, as thousands of pilgrims visit the site seeking healing for infirmities of body, mind and soul.

The Roman Catholic Church has, in the 160-year history of Lourdes pilgrimages, studied thousands of reports about miracles linked to the shrine. This brings us to the heart of this report:

Stories of inner peace and acceptance don't meet the bar for the Office of Medical Observations, and with just 70 medical miracles recognized in 160 years, you'd have better odds playing the lotto. Yet, thousands of faithful line up at the baths and at this grotto — where the first miracle is said to have occured.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

NYTimes editors ask, 'When does life begin?' and (bravo) include religious and legal responses

NYTimes editors ask, 'When does life begin?' and (bravo) include religious and legal responses

You never know what newsroom professionals will decide is a “holiday” story, of one kind or another.

For example, major publications have through the years run a wide variety of bizarre and even offensive stories that were, somehow, supposed to be linked to Easter. That season is problematic since it is so explicitly Christian, as in the faith’s most important holy day.

Christmas is a different matter, since the season is a cultural steamroller at the level of pop culture, big business and church-state warfare (a drag queens and you are on A1, for sure). Toss in the need for valid year-end features and lots of staff taking vacations and things can get pretty complex for editors.

All of that was an introduction to what I think was a totally valid Christmas-Yearender feature that ran at The New York Times with this big-issue headline: “When does life begin? The question at the heart of America’s abortion debate is the most elemental — and the most complicated.”

Talk about a complex, yet absolutely essential, topic to address after the fall of Roe v. Wade, and it’s absolutely essential that the editors assigned this one to the religion desk. That made sense because it’s impossible to draw a bright red line between the spiritual and legal issues in this debate. As if that isn’t enough, a reporter then has to deal with valid debates on this issue among scientists, and religious leaders (think popes) commenting on those debates.

Thus, this is a story that will draw few cheers from activists on either side of America’s abortion wars. That’s a compliment, with this kind of story. Here is a large chunk of its summary-thesis material:

When does life begin?

In the months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it has become unavoidable, as activists and politicians try to squeeze concrete answers from an eternal question of human existence.

Lawmakers and judges from Arizona to South Carolina have been reviewing exactly which week of development during pregnancy the procedure should be allowed. Some states draw the line at conception, or six weeks or 15 or around 40. Many others point to viability, the time when a fetus can survive outside the uterus. The implication is that after the determined time, the developing embryo or fetus is a human being with rights worth protecting.

Over the summer, when lawmakers in Indiana fought over passing a law banning most all abortions from conception, Republicans argued at length that a fertilized egg was a human life, at times citing their Christian principles — that “human life begins at conception” and “God our creator says you shall not murder.” A Democrat pointed to another answer found in Title 35-31.5-2-160 of the Indiana code: “‘Human being’ means an individual who has been born and is alive.” A disagreement over abortion policy became a fight over what it means to be human, the tension between conception and birth, church and state.

Like I said, that’s just the start.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Life in a disenchanted world: Once upon a time, Christians used to write fairy stories

Life in a disenchanted world: Once upon a time, Christians used to write fairy stories

Demons appear on movie screens all the time, but poet Richard Rohlin is convinced he has actually seen them at work when counseling young people whose search for meaning has driven them deep into experiments with sex, drugs and the occult.

"The stories that I can't tell would curl your toenails," he said, speaking at the Eighth Day Institute in Wichita, Kansas. "If you think that these spiritual realities are not still with us, you are deluding yourself. ... The magic is coming back into the world. Something is happening and it is not an unqualified good."

The young people he works with in Dallas are not interested in sermons and detailed descriptions of why their lives are broken. But they are open to fantasies, myths and tales -- ancient and modern -- about unseen, spiritual realities that interact with their lives.

Millions of Americans know where to find stories about angels, demons, warriors, seers, giants, demigods and heroic kings and queens. They head straight to movie theaters and cable television, where they find entire universes of content offering visions of fantastic worlds. The last place they would seek inspiration of this kind is in churches.

The irony is that some of these works draw inspiration from the fantasy classics celebrated in the ecumenical Eighth Day Institute's annual fall celebration of The Inklings, a mid-20th Century circle of Christian writers in Oxford, England, that included C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien and others.

This year's lectures focused on Scottish writer George MacDonald, often called the "grandfather of the Inklings," who is best known for "Phantastes," "The Golden Key," "Lilith" and many other works. The festival included Celtic and folk musicians, along with workshops on topics such as "The Art of Making Mead" and "Publishing for the Moral Imagination."

The goal of MacDonald and The Inklings, noted Rohlin, was to reclaim an older vision of life in which physical realities corresponded to spiritual realities and nothing was considered purely material. The real divide was between "the seen and the unseen," not between the "spiritual and the material."

This worldview has been lost, even among many religious believers.

"Demons didn't stop existing, angels didn't stop existing, the saints didn't stop existing because the Industrial Revolution came," he said.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Sam Harris take jab at those who believe in heaven: Maybe listen to some ancient voices?

Sam Harris take jab at those who believe in heaven: Maybe listen to some ancient voices?

When cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin returned to earth in 1961, after the first manned spaceflight, Soviet leaders claimed he said: "I went up to space, but I didn't encounter God."

Venturing into similar territory, superstar atheist Sam Harris rocked cyberspace during a recent Triggernometry YouTube appearance in which he discussed Donald Trump, faith elements in "wokeness" and the flocks of Americans who insist on believing in heaven.

Political Twitter screamed when he said there was "a left-wing conspiracy to deny the presidency to Donald Trump. … Absolutely, but I think it was warranted."

But comedians Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster pushed back, asking if Harris was justifying moral relativism. Perhaps today's truth wars, the Triggernometry team suggested, were linked to a famous G.K. Chesterton quip: "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything."

During the ensuing discussion, Harris offered another viral soundbite: "Where is heaven, exactly, given that we have multiple telescopes up there beaming back tens of billions of years' worth of information?" Yet millions of Americans still embrace the supernatural claims of an ancient faith, including that Jesus will return to "raise the living and the dead."

"You'd be surprised by the number of percent of sober, non-Bible-thumping people who would say 'yes' to that question," he said. "They might be Christian, they might be, listen, 'I love the Bible. It gives me a great moral framework. It gives my kids a great moral framework. This is the tradition I'm identified with. This is all super important to me' -- but that's kind of as far as it goes. Right? Like, I'm not going to make magical claims about flying saviors who are literally going to come down from … heaven."

While the Twitter masses raged, the French-Canadian iconographer and writer Jonathan Pageau recorded a video essay on his "The Symbolic World" channel about why materialists and religious believers keep debating the meaning of terms such as "heaven" and "earth."


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Plug-In: NASA's amazing space images, fighting in Ukraine and the top religion stories

Plug-In: NASA's amazing space images, fighting in Ukraine and the top religion stories

“Monsters are everywhere in the Bible — and some are even human.”

These are some of the religion headlines that caught my attention this past week.

To be honest, though, I haven’t paid as close attention to the news as I normally do.

As I previewed in the last Weekend Plug-in three weeks ago, I took off a week for vacation (I had a wonderful time seeing country shows with my sister and parents in Branson, Mo.). Then I took off a week for a reporting trip to the Chicago area.

But in the Windy City, I came down with what at first I thought were allergies. Eventually, I tested positive for COVID-19. The experience threw me for a loop. I finally tested negative Friday night. I’m feeling much better.

However, I have no doubt I’ve missed a whole lot of the best reads in the world of faith. Feel free to catch me up!

One thing I didn’t miss: those amazing first images from NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope. Think there might be a religion angle there? Enter the Washington Times’ Mark A. Kellner with this fascinating take:

The images raise issues for followers of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and affirm the thoughts of Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant, who in the 1700s imagined the possibility of galaxies beyond our own, says Harvard government professor Michael Rosen.

Religion News Service’s Claire Giangravé quotes Vatican astrophysicist Brother Guy Consolmagno:

“The science behind this telescope is our attempt to use our God-given intelligence to understand the logic of the universe,” Consolmagno wrote, adding that “the universe wouldn’t work if it weren’t logical.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Concerning 'good' faith and the Christian/pagan priest who believes Google AI is sentient

Concerning 'good' faith and the Christian/pagan priest who believes Google AI is sentient

Let’s start with some basics as we look at a recent New York Post story that ran with this headline: “Google engineer says Christianity helped him understand AI is ‘sentient’.

For decades, I have been arguing with people, mostly cultural conservatives, who say things like: “Journalists hate religion.”

This is simplistic. In my experience — first, while working in newsrooms, and second, while reading and writing about media-bias issues — many journalists don’t care enough about religion to work up a good batch of hate. They tend to be indifferent or apathetic, unless certain types of religious folks start interfering in politics, which is the true religion of many or most news professionals.

No, it’s crucial to understand that many reporters love certain types of religion and oppose others. Always remember the following passage in that Jay Rosen PressThink essay, "Journalism Is Itself a Religion.” Yes, this involves interaction with one of my “On Religion” columns, but I can’t help that, nor can I help that this is quite long. So, what is the religion of the press?

A particularly telling example began with this passage from a 1999 New York Times Magazine article about anti-abortion extremism: “It is a shared if unspoken premise of the world that most of us inhabit that absolutes do not exist and that people who claim to have found them are crazy,” wrote David Samuels.

This struck some people as dogma very close to religious dogma, and they spoke up about it. One was Terry Mattingly, a syndicated columnist of religion: “This remarkable credo was more than a statement of one journalist’s convictions, said William Proctor, a Harvard Law School graduate and former legal affairs reporter for the New York Daily News. Surely, the ‘world that most of us inhabit’ cited by Samuels is, in fact, the culture of the New York Times and the faithful who draw inspiration from its sacred pages.”

Yet here is the part that intrigued me: “But critics are wrong if they claim that the New York Times is a bastion of secularism, he stressed. In its own way, the newspaper is crusading to reform society and even to convert wayward ‘fundamentalists.’ Thus, when listing the ‘deadly sins’ that are opposed by the Times, he deliberately did not claim that it rejects religious faith. Instead, he said the world’s most influential newspaper condemns ‘the sin of religious certainty.’ “


Please respect our Commenting Policy