Why The Surprise?

Sunday's New York Times had an article on some churches' use of Halo during youth group activities that left me disappointed. It was the standard article on violence in video games with a religious twist thrown in to give it some flavor, but the end result turned out to be just as bland as ever. The one thing that struck me, however, was the author's apparent surprise that evangelicals would tolerate violence in their entertainment.

In my mind, this surprise permeates the subtext of the article. To begin with, the lede itself sounds like an opening to an opinion piece critiquing a behavior inconsistent with church doctrine: "First the percussive sounds of sniper fire and the thrill of the kill. Then the gospel of peace." Even the headline sounds out a caustic rebuke: "Thou Shalt Not Kill, Except in a Popular Video Game at Church." The rest of the article continues in a more neutral manner with quotes from both sides of the argument, but even here I felt like his bias was showing as the only argument he found for using violent video games all seemed to boil down to "The end justifies the means." Implicit in these "the end justifies the means" quotes is the possibility that the means are actually wrong.

But why this surprise at finding evangelicals supporting entertainment that has a heavy dose of violence? Since when have evangelicals been completely opposed to violence in every way, shape and form? Was not the success of The Passion of the Christ due to evangelical Christian support? There's a movie filled with violence, brutality, and gore. Of course, there was a point to the violence, so maybe the violence in Halo lacks meaning or purpose. However, the author points out that "the hero’s chief antagonists belong to the Covenant, a fervent religious group that welcomes the destruction of Earth as the path to their ascension." In other words, the purpose of the violence in Halo is wrapped up in a war for survival. Well, then no need to be surprised here that evangelicals see nothing wrong with the violence in Halo. The New York Times itself has repeatedly pointed to evangelical support for the "War on Terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now I know one version of Halo's multiplayer game involves the heroes shooting each other, but I'm not seeing how this is anything other than a virtual game of paintball. The guys in my church youth group would often get together to go paintballing, and there's no cry of outrage over that. Again, my purpose is not to put together a defense of playing Halo at church but merely to question why one would be surprised based solely on the grounds that it contains violence.

Searching Science For Meaning

On Oct. 3, 2007 a debate took place between noted atheist Richard Dawkins and Christian mathematician John Lennox. This reflection comes after having only listed to the start of that debate when both men gave a brief biographical account. Professor Dawkins made a statement that intrigued me: "I wanted to know why we're all here, what is the meaning of life, why does the universe exist, why does life exists? That's what drew me to science."

I wonder how those questions could have drawn him to science, or at least how science could have sustained such an attraction after a cursory introduction. They seem better suited for philosophy or theology rather than scientific inquiry. Proponents of Evolutionary Theory often state that science grants understanding of how life and the universe came into existence, but not necessarily why. Using this claim they denounce Intelligent Design saying that it answers the why question and not the how and is therefore not scientific. The question "why", as it relates to finding meaning within life and the universe, implies a reason or purpose which in turn requires some sort of being/agent behind it all, a primary mover if you will. Of course if there is no meaning to life, no reason why the universe exists, then the possibility that God does not exist opens up. However, if one is looking for meaning — that presupposes a creator with a purpose.

I have not finished the whole debate, nor have I read any of Professor Dawkins's books, but from the little of the debate I have heard, he has not given up on finding the meaning of life or knowledge of why the universe exists. He seems to think that science still holds these answers, and that, while not everything has been fully accounted for, science has made great strides in answering these questions using natural explanations. I am wondering how this is so given the previous paragraph. Science may have given us natural explanations on how the universe developed and came into existence, but I can't see how it can give us a reason for why it came into existence.

If science, or any discipline for that matter, is to even speculate at the reason behind the existence of the universe it is left with two broad options: 1) There is no reason. 2) For whatever reason its creator had. Either option does not present an obstacle to science. If there is a creator who created the universe with a purpose in mind, science can still try and investigate how that process worked. The scientific theory of evolution poses no problems for proponents of this second option. In other words Evolutionary Theory and Intelligent Design Theory can be both held at the same time, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Please not that I have refrained from plotting my own position on the continuum running from Theistic Young-Earth Creationism to Atheistic Evolutionism. That debate must be left for another blog and another time.

New Look, New Determination

So, it's been two years and two days since my last post, and yet I've decided to give it another go.  The first thing I did was completely revamp the look of the site as it looked dreadfully like it was created in 1999.  I'm fully aware this means this site has looked outdated since it's conception, but as Blogger's capabilities have grown, so have my CSS skills.  The new design is much more satisfying to me, but I will probably continue to tweak it for some time to get every last detail right.  Please feel free to leave suggestions in this post's comments section on how I can improve the site.

The second thing I did was decide that I will post a minimum of once a week.  This will, I hope, attract actual readers and produce meaningful dialogue.  Suggestions for topics are always welcome, but I have turned on comment moderation because I wish to maintain a high level of respect and decorum on this blog.  With all this in mind, I hope to have my first real post up in the next few days.