The Religion and the Media blog “will be dedicated to updates, news and analysis of a wide range of issues relating to religion and the media”. The critique of the media’s treatment of religion is especially welcome in a country like the U.K., where liberal sneering or feel-good reductionism usually substitutes for informed commentary or analysis. 

In Religion and the Media’s inaugural post, from 24 January 2012, James Crossley explains:

This new blog is going to be dedicated to all things media and religion, usually with some connection to issues relating to media freedom, linked as it is with the Centre for Freedom of Media at the University of Sheffield. In addition to news and updates, there will be regular analysis from a variety of people both linked to the Centre in someway and guest bloggers.

Professor James Crossley, International Biblical Scholar, Vienna 2007

James Crossley was recently appointed to a Chair in the Biblical Studies Department at the University of Sheffield. His title of Professor of Bible, Culture and Politics reflects his ongoing interest in the reception and effect of the Bible in society, in particular in late capitalism and under the global impact of neoliberalism. Among the books which he has authored or edited that reflect this particular research interest are Jesus in an Age of Terror: Scholarly Projects for a New American Century (BibleWorld; Sheffield: Equinox, 2008), Judaism, Jewish Identities and the Gospel Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maurice Casey (BibleWorld; Sheffield: Equinox, 2010); and Jesus in an Age of Neoliberalism: Quests, Scholarship and Ideology (BibleWorld; Sheffield: Equinox, forthcoming May 2012). Crossley also publishes widely in New Testament studies, including an important recent philological contribution concerning the semantic range of things able to be done with the human “fist”, in “Halakah and Mark 7.3: ‘with the hand in the shape of a fist’” (New Testament Studies 58 (2012), 57-68).

Rush Hour – The Postgrad Radio Show is live streamed on the interwebs, here. A podcast of the session is to come.
Update – Listen here:
The first part of the interview with Katharina Voelker. The part focuses on her research about contemporary interpretation of the Koran.

Second part of the interview with Katharina Voelker. She talks about the ups and downs of her PhD journey, and all the unexpected challenges and little problems along the way.

Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd

The focus of this thesis is on presenting and analyzing the thought of three contemporary Muslim intellectuals on the theme of Quran interpretation and the application of Islam to Muslim societies. These three scholars are Faziur Rahman Malik, Muhammad Arkoun and Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd. Their thought will be analyzed with special regard to their understanding and treatment of historical criticism, text critique, Sachkritik, the notion of revelation and the possibility of understanding God’s will and its application …
- Katharina Voelker, Religion, University of Otago

David Attenborough will be on the tele this week in New Zealand, in a series that sounds like it could be an expose of Presbyterian social life in Dunedin: “Frozen Planet”.

h/t: Barry

Caroline Blyth and Robert Myles

The Australasian sector of the global Bible, Critical Theory and Reception Seminar is coming to New Zealand in 2012.

Robert Myles and Caroline Blyth (University of Auckland both) have offered Auckland as the venue for BCT&R, which will probably be staged in August from 1-2 September 2012. More details to come when available.

The Bible, Critical Theory and Reception Seminar has been running in Australia and New Zealand for over a decade, and in the United Kingdom since 2011. The Seminar showcases the cutting edge in the study of Theory and Reception in relation to biblical studies. In a worthy attempt to short-circuit daytime and evening conference activities, the venue for each BCT&R Seminar is a local pub. Robert Myles, queer theorist and Jesus scholar, has promised to carefully investigate, over a course of some months, possible locations for the 2012 Australasian BCT&R Seminar. I put in my vote for upstairs at the Empire.

Next year’s meeting will be held jointly with The Systematic Theology Association in Aotearoa New Zealand (STAANZ), at Laidlaw College, Auckland, on 9-11 December 2012.

Original St Matthews Christmas Billboard

Vandalised St Matthews Christmas Billboard: Arthur Skinner (Catholic Action) makes it appear as if the Virgin Mary is shocked at animals proceeding two-by-two out of her eternally intact vagina

Arthur Skinner’s unusual alteration to the Christmas billboard appears to be unintentional, rather than a work of artistic creativity. TV3 reports Skinner ranting, “Everyone knows instinctively, you don’t muck around with God’s mother. This is devil’s work. This is luciferian. The attack on the blessed virgin.” Stuff reports that Skinner called church vicar Glynn Cardy the day he cut the poster to tell him he would “roast slowly in hell” for the billboard.

As Eric commented in respect of a similar rant by Family First’s Bob McCoskrie against St Matthew’s 2009 Christmas billboard,

There is a long-standing tradition in Christianity to immediately condemn any connection between Jesus and sexual activity of any kind. Whether this is due to a perceived need to defend the ludicrous doctrine of the virgin birth from critique (is the NT wrong?) or simply another aspect of the long historical tradition that claims the elevated, the divine, or the righteous are not subject to the same bodily weaknesses and urges that the rest of us are endlessly plagued with (for Deane’s thoughts on this, see here and here), remains an open question.

St Matthew in the City billboard, Christmas 2011

Now that’s nicely done.

If that weren’t fun enough, St Matthew’s are also running a caption contest for this one:

This billboard portrays Mary, Jesus’ mother, looking at a home pregnancy test kit revealing that she is pregnant. Regardless of any premonition, that discovery would have been shocking. Mary was unmarried, young, and poor. This pregnancy would shape her future. She was certainly not the first woman in this situation or the last.

As in the past it is our intention to avoid the sentimental, trite and expected to spark thought and conversation in the community. This year we hope to do so with an image and no words. We invite you to wonder what your caption might be.

Enter the caption contest here.

Here’s the interesting blurb for the latest book by political philosopher Andrew Levine, In Bad Faith: What’s Wrong with the Opium of the People (November, 2011):

“In this fascinating book, Levine combines an insightful analysis of important nineteenth-century thinkers who puzzled over why religion persists with a critique of twentieth-century liberal theologies as they have developed in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Levine argues that liberal theologies are intellectually flawed. They provide a means for those who cannot give up on religion to retain pale shadows of the traditions with which liberal believers try to remain in contact. Those shadows, Levine contends, are untrue to what liberal believers, in their hearts, already know.”

— Elliott Sober, author, Did Darwin Write the Origin Backwards?

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, some of the most important and influential heirs of the Enlightenment tradition—Ludwig Feuerbach, Emile Durkheim, Sigmund Freud, and Friedrich Nietzsche—wondered, implicitly, why belief in God persists and even flourishes among those who should and in some sense do know better. Looking at aspects of their thinking through this prism provides fresh insight into their work, while advancing understanding of the puzzlement they addressed.

In this book, Andrew Levine reflects on the explanations proffered by these authors and on their very different explanatory strategies. He concludes that, for all their many differences, their respective explanations share a common core and that they are driven by a similar (largely unelaborated) normative commitment. On Levine’s account, believers today believe in bad faith—in other words, they evince a fundamental intellectual inauthenticity. If only for this reason, they merit reproach, even in the comparatively rare instances when their “faith perspectives” do more good than harm.

From the standpoint of this normative standard, Levine reflects on the liberal turn in the so-called Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), arguing that a condition for its possibility is the waning of genuine (authentic) conviction. On this basis, Levine depicts liberal religion as a vehicle of exit for those who at some level acknowledge the untenability of the beliefs they profess while not yet being able or willing to face this reality squarely. He argues that liberal religion is therefore a transitory phenomenon, albeit one that has survived for a long time and that is not about to expire soon.

Levine then faults the religious left on this account, arguing that even in those historically rare conditions in which bad faith motivates welcome political engagement, it is nevertheless infirmed by its deep inauthenticity.

Finally, a defender of the secularisation thesis in some modified form - if only to counter all the monstrous and pious bullshit that Rodney Stark has been penning in his senility.

Outside of the clear and simple pleasure of watching a master doing what he does best (and my criticisms here aside, Clarke was a master of hard science fiction, undoubtedly one of the all-time greats), what strikes the reader (at least this reader) about this early collection is Clarke’s persistent tendency to overestimate both the significance of new technological developments and the pace of scientific advancement.  Even the simplest developments hold the power to alter the world fundamentally, and almost always for the better.

To take but a single example, in the gripping and disquieting story ‘Rescue Party’, the development of the helicopter brings about the end of almost all the great cities, which seems laughable decades later (indeed, when faced daily with the average automobile driver’s lack of skill and discretion, the thought of the helicopter as ‘universal transportation’ is enough to cause nightmares). Since the story was written in 1946, urbanisation has continued apace and more and more rural land is dedicated to massive farming and ranching operations built on the model of heavy industry, with all of the environmental and social costs that this threatens. Far from the rural idyll that the helicopter brings to the Earth in ‘Rescue Party’, the helicopter remains of limited use and did little or nothing to curb the explosive growth of the cities which began with the Industrial Revolution and has continued with only a few and rather minor counter-trends, and these are confined largely to the Anglo-European world and the wealthier of its colonies.

Viewed from the vantage point of Clarke’s eternal post-World War II optimism, the future for scientific development is bright.  Clarke simply assumes for the sake of these stories that the exploration of space would continue and that progress towards the planets was inevitable.  It would also be accomplished by very little conflict and even less bloodshed.  The solar system was as ripe for exploration and colonisation as the New World was centuries earlier.  On this point, for all of his vision, Clarke was perpetually blinded by his British colonial ideologies, whether he was aware of them or not.  This is crystal clear in the story ‘Songs of the Distant Earth’ (and to a lesser extent ‘Breaking Strain’), which re-enacts the British encounter with the South Pacific in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and which subtly but unmistakably reinforces the myth of history as progress.

This, it turns out, is a symptom of a larger problem with the stories in The Sentinal.  At the same time that he is making huge, counter-intuitive leaps about the effects of new technologies, Clarke’s view of culture and history is strangely anaemic.  This particular blindness, in which Clarke is by no means alone among science-fiction writers, is coupled with a curious lack of imagination in the cultural and social sphere.  For he is unable to imagine a world that is fundamentally different from our own, or at least the world as Clake saw it from the former British colony of Sri Lanka, where he spent much of his life.  The Sentinel‘s stories exist in a future that looks a good like the present.  The sense of cultural, political, and economic inertia present in these stories is stunning. Clarke imagines little political upheaval and fails to anticipate developments such as the end of the Soviet Union only two decades after the last story here was written.

Clarke’s tendency towards prophetic hyperbole is thus rooted in his failure to understand that technology is at least partially cultural. Clarke’s failure, then, beside his blind belief in the inherent value of technological development, is his inability (or his simple refusal) to understand that technology, quite removed from its scientific side, is also immersed in human culture, which influences and even determines its use and reception.  Given that the Clarke who wrote The Sentinel – and Clarke was a complex, sometimes contradictory man wrote or co-wrote literally hundreds of books and stories which do not add up to a fully coherent ideology of philosophy of history – can not imagine a world without the United States, Britain, the Soviet Union, consumer capitalism, and an independent mass media, his view of technology was similarly limited.

He also imagines that governments will continue to fund science for the sake of science, though he does realise that at least some of the motivation behind the golden age of space exploration was political and military.  This prediction, which is never made explicit but is present in each and every story in the collection, has also failed to materialise, largely given the limited resources governments now give to pure science and the ever more persistent demand that science and technological development serve some kind of purpose – usually economic – rather than serving the interests of disinterested knowledge.  Clarke fails to anticipate the cultural and economic forces that have brought space exploration to a near standstill or limited it to uninspiring and wasteful projects like the International Space Station. According to the timeline Clarke imagines in 2001, and in the story ‘The Sentinel’, which provided the kernel of the larger novel, there was to be permanent bases on the moon in place by the mid 1990s.  Instead, the Apollo programme has been relegated to a footnote in Cold War history ripe for re-appropriation in popular culture texts like Michael Bay’s jingoistic, neo-fascist film Transformers: Dark of the Moon.

Given Clarke’s often dismissive attitude towards organised religion – see Childhood’s End and The Fountains of Paradise for examples – his failure to acknowledge the failures of scientific prophecy is all the more striking. It also highlights the similarities between placing one’s hopes in the next step in scientific development and placing one’s hopes in the great coming of a saviour figure – as in Christianity, messianic Judaism, some forms of Buddhism, and countless other traditions – who will interrupt the course of history and bring about a new and better world.  Over the course of The Sentinel, Clarke simply ignores the marginal predictive value of his persistent overestimation of the power and significance of incremental scientific developments.  When one prophecy fails, he simply moves on to another tale of the partial redemption of the world by a new technology while never addressing the previous failure (it is worth noting that he did get some things – many things, in fact – right, including his invention of the concept of the geosynchronous communications satellite).

By simply ignoring the failures of his prophetic imagination, Clarke reminds me irresistibly of those Christians who have been convinced that the apocalypse was just around the corner (just as the gospels claim that Jesus promised some two millennia ago), despite the fact that this prophecy has been failing over and over again for centuries.  The fact that technology has failed time and again to live up to its promises, like so many religious prophecies, that it has failed to bring about greater social and economic equity, something we were promised would happen with the arrival of the printing press, the steam engine, the railroad, electricity, the telegraph, photography, the cinema radio, television, the personal computer, and, most recently, the Internet (or Web 2.0, which was to save us – again – from the inequities of the earlier technologies), is in itself interesting.

What is more interesting, at least in the context of religious prophecy, is how immune this belief in technological salvation is to historical realities and the complexity of human culture.  This points to a persistence of belief that is structurally very similar to the continued rationalisations of failed religious prophecy.  Even if Hal Lindsey’s identification of events in the 1970s and 1980s with the events of the Book of Revelation failed to accurately predict the beginnings of the end of times, this does not stop millions of people from believing precisely the same thing about more recent world events.

This is not a coincidence, of course, given how the structures of the Christian narrative of history persist and are transformed in the narratives of modernity, particularly in secular eschatologies like those of classical Marxism, the National Socialists, and all of those people that believe that technology is going to save us.  The real question I have here is how to begin to think more rationally about the true capabilities of science and technology, especially when the potential of both is limited so clearly and so persistently by economics and politics.  If someone like Arthur C. Clarke can get things so clearly wrong, why do we persist in waiting for the next technology, the one that is going to save us? Why do we continue on as if this were an inevitable fact?  I think some of this might be because most people, like Clarke, and unable to imagine a world that is truly, fundamentally different from our own.

In practical, this-worldly terms, if we are waiting for the arrival of that magical machine that will save us from all of our follies (many of them, of course, technological, like the internal-combustion engine) without coupling this with a serious and sustained effort to change the cultures that surround this anticipation and make it bear the burden of a dark and difficult future, we would be just as well to be waiting for Jesus (or Maitreya, the Buddha of the future in many schools of Mahayana Buddhist thought), who is coming along soon.

Any day now …

]]> http://dunedinschool.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/on-the-failure-of-scientific-prophecy/feed/ 2 asmithee2009 the sentinel Clarke539w http://dunedinschool.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/a-single-sentence-post-one/ http://dunedinschool.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/a-single-sentence-post-one/#comments Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:05:47 +0000 Alan Smithee http://dunedinschool.wordpress.com/?p=3405 ]]> Anti-intellectualism is cultural suicide.