Go
In its own words: "SoMA is a magazine devoted to dissecting matters of the soul — the sacred and the profane, the ridiculous and the sublime. We don’t think of religion primarily in terms of churches or institutions. We side with the theologian Paul Tillich who understood faith, and indirectly religion, as “ultimate concern.” He saw faith as a movement toward the unconditional, or God, the “ground of being” that eludes theistic thinking. Thus, religious vitality can be found in things that aren’t overtly religious, such as a “secular” films, art, and literature. Similarly, explicitly religious beliefs, symbols, and systems easily become rigid and lose their meaning, turning idolatrous. As Tillich said, religion itself is paradoxically one of the great threats to the religious life. As an ongoing autopsy of religion and culture, SoMA seeks to illuminate the difference between authentic and inauthentic faith, not because we consider ourselves experts on the subject — we don’t — but because we need to keep reminding ourselves that there is a difference. Our faith depends on it."
Go
In its own words: "The New Criterion, now co-edited by the art critic Hilton Kramer and Roger Kimball, was founded in 1982 by Mr. Kramer and the pianist and music critic Samuel Lipman. A monthly review of the arts and intellectual life, The New Criterion began as an experiment in critical audacity—a publication devoted to engaging, in Matthew Arnold’s famous phrase, with “the best that has been thought and said.” This also meant engaging with those forces dedicated to traducing genuine cultural and intellectual achievement, whether through obfuscation, politicization, or a commitment to nihilistic absurdity. We are proud that The New Criterion has been in the forefront both of championing what is best and most humanely vital in our cultural inheritance and in exposing what is mendacious, corrosive, and spurious. Published monthly from September through June, The New Criterion brings together a wide range of young and established critics whose common aim is to bring you the most incisive criticism being written today."
Go
There's no "about" page, so how about a sampling of content: A huge banner ad for Bill Maher's film, Religulous. As for articles: "Muslim Diapers: When you gotta go, you gotta go." "Phallus Faith: Prehistoric Pagan Penis Pretty Pissed." "Scientology: Xenu is my homeboy." "Anton LaVey: The One True Satanist." "Orlando, Israel: Holy Shit, it's Holy Land!" "All about the Mormons? Find out why Mormons are such pussies." There's a host of interesting links in the "Blasphemy Box", and you can find out all about "Big Important Religions". From the Daily Babel, "Christianity began in the year 0001; coincidentally, the same year a
carpenter’s wife named Mary had gotten mysteriously knocked up.
Figuring that he could be worse off than taking sloppy seconds to the
Creator, Joseph hung around until the birth of her baby, whom she named
Jesus." I think you get the gist. Irreverent, satirical skewering of religion from self-styled skeptics.
Steven Nadier (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux: Oct 28, 2008), 320 pages.
Go
In the spring of 1672, the German philosopher and mathematician
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz arrived in Paris on a furtive
diplomatic mission. That project was abandoned quickly, but Leibniz
remained in Paris with a singular goal: to get the most out of the
city’s intellectual and cultural riches. He benefited, above all, from
his friendships with France’s two greatest philosopher-theologians of
the period, Antoine Arnauld and Nicolas de Malebranche. The
interactions of these three men would prove of great consequence not
only for Leibniz’s own philosophy but for the development of modern
philosophical and religious thought. Despite their wildly different
views and personalities, the three philosophers shared a single,
passionate concern: resolving the problem of evil. Why is it that, in a
world created by an allpowerful, all-wise, and infinitely just God,
there is sin and suffering? Why do bad things happen to good people,
and good things to bad people? This is the story of a clash between
radically divergent worldviews. But it is also a very personal story.
At its heart are the dramatic—and often turbulent—relationships between
three brilliant and resolute individuals. In this lively and engaging
book, Steven Nadler brings to life a debate that obsessed its
participants, captivated European intellectuals, and continues to
inform our ways of thinking about God, morality, and the world.
Go
John on his motivation for the site: "I backed into what I’m doing right now. I initially wanted to explain to people who knew me why I rejected the Christian faith, because several people were surprised about this and they wanted to know. To do this I self-published my first book to explain my reasons. At that point in my mind I was done with the Christian faith. I fully expected to get on with life. Unexpectedly though, I got noticed as a former student of William Lane Craig’s. It hadn’t occurred to me this was important, but people on both sides took notice of it. So I began engaging in the debate online and found the Christian reasoning lame and offensive in the circles I frequented. I was personally attacked by these Christians. This challenged me to no end. It made me want to go for the jugular vein of the faith that justified their abusive treatment of me. I wondered to myself whether they would light the fires that burned me at the stake in a previous century when the church had the power to do so. This made me think about the many heretics who suffered at the hands of Christians because of this same mentality. I decided at that point I would not let their blood be shed in vain, so I took up their cause. It became personal with me."
Go
The impossible could not have happened, therefore the impossible must be possible in spite of appearances. ... Exactly! It is absurd — improbable — it cannot be. So I myself have said. And yet, my friend, there it is! One cannot escape from the facts.
"God by Design?" in God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, N.A. Manson, ed. (2003), pp. 93-4.
Go
It ought to be regarded as a major embarrassment to natural theology that the very idea of something like a universe's being "created" by some minded being is sufficiently mind-boggling that any attempt to provide a detailed account of how it might be done is bound to look silly, or mythical, or a vaguely anthropomorphized version of some familiar physical process. Creation stories abound in human societies, as we know. Accounts ascribe the creation to various mythical beings, chief gods among a sizable polytheistic committee, giant tortoises, super-mom hens, and, one is tempted to say, God-knows-what. The Judeo-Christian account does no better, and perhaps does a bit worse, in proposing a "six-day" process of creation.
Go
For two hundred years, the First
Amendment's guarantee of freedom of conscience, speech, and assembly,
as well as of government neutrality towards religious parties, has
enabled the diverse melting pot that is America to live in relative
peace despite our many deep differences. Today that founding principle
is being sorely tested by a proposed mosque to be built within a stone's throw
of Ground Zero, the "hallowed ground" where twenty-seven hundred
Americans were murdered by militant Islamists when they flew two
hijacked planes into the World Trade Center's "Twin Towers". Many sage
voices whom I respect, along with a majority of Americans, have stated their opposition to the mosque's
location. The reasons offered are several: 1)
Islamists have a tradition of erecting mosques at locations of decisive
victory over "the infidels" and the Park 51 Mosque, suspiciously dubbed The Cordoba House at
first, will be seen as such a monument by Muslims around the world; 2)
The mosque's imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, supports Sharia law, has declined to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, and called the U.S. an accomplice to the 9/11 attack; 3) The mosque
will be felt as "a thumb in the eye" by the many families and friends of the
victims of the 9/11 attack; 4) In nations where Islamists have jurisdiction, there is rarely any religious freedom to be had, and non-Islamic houses of worship are prohibited. Opponents of the mosque generally recognize that its erection cannot be prevented by legislative means. So, after the failed attempt to designate the location an historic landmark, some have suggested resorting to the creative use of zoning
laws or perhaps even enlisting New York City's powerful unions to refuse participation in its construction. Less insidiously, others have simply appealed to the mosque's backers to reconsider the location in deference to public sensibilities. I want to argue that not only should we tolerate the Park 51 Mosque as legally we must, but that we should embrace the mosque as a momentous opportunity to reaffirm and rearticulate our principled and pragmatic commitment to protecting disfavored minorities. There are many reasons for this, but one is primary: In one sense, we are all Muslims. Whatever our ideological affiliation, we too either have been, are, or may become a disfavored minority. Because we are all susceptible to the vagaries of popular opinion, tolerating minorities is crucial, most of all when it is hardest to do so. If my exhortation is disagreeable to you, please indulge me a little further, because our response in this matter is of the greatest import, especially in a time as diverse and divisive as our own.