You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'religion' tag.
It’s not uncommon to see bible verses being cited in pop culture–like the guy who used to go around to sporting events with the rainbow wig and the John 3:16 sign. (“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”)
The most recent example was on the cover of this week’s Sports Illustrated. Tim Tebow, the Heisman-winning quarterback for the U. of Florida, is the son of evangelical missionaries and is very serious about converting us unwashed heathen. I noticed that written in the middle of Tebow’s eye-black under each eye was the verse citation Phillipians 4:13 (“I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.”)
It’s always the loony-tune right that get in the news for being Christian. Just once I’d like to see some athlete scrawl Matthew 19:24 on himself (“And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”)
Wow. A spectacularly interesting article by David Brooks on two issues upon which I am largely uninformed: religion and neuroscience. In his article “Neural Buddhists”, Brooks posits that the arguments between scientists and the religious will not be the current spat over the existence of God. The argument will pit advocates claiming scientific proof of the universal tendency of man toward a generalized spirituality and orthodox religious folks still claiming the need for their particular brand of religious worship. Brooks states that in the future the holy writings and practices of all major world religions may just be defined as “cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits.”
Science is increasingly able to study and identify the physical evidence of moral and ethical transcendence in humans, which in its distilled essence looks more like the ethical underpinnings of Buddhism than anything else. Brooks predicts a future where science actually argues on behalf of the mysticism of universal love, leaving current believers of orthodox religious practices to argue that they aren’t some sort of Model T Ford and have value as a way to experience the infinite.
I guess. As a lapsed Episcopalian who took history and sociology of of science courses to get out of my college science requirement, I’m guessing this is what Brooks means. So break out the prayer flags and chant om, we’re all Buddhists now (or not.)
