I’ve only watched the first video, but I have real problems with it.
First, he dismisses the issues of the existence of God and the historicity of Jesus in a sentence each. I didn’t expect a 10-hour discussion of the fine points of each, but he does seem to expect that these questions aren’t an issue. I’m reminded of the “yada yada yada” episode of Seinfeld.
Second, he talks about scientists who are “believers” and implies most are. That’s simply not true. In a 2009 Pew poll, only 33% of scientists believed in “God,” and another 18% believed in some vague “higher power.” He spends a fair amount of time talking about Francis Collins (DNA sequencing, NIH) and strongly implies he became a Christian because of logic and rational thought. But nothing could be further from the truth–here’s a quotation from Collins’ book, “The Language of God”–
“My moment of commitment came one autumn day while I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains. It was a beautiful afternoon and as I rounded a corner I unexpectedly saw a frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high. The remarkable beauty of creation was overwhelming. I could no longer resist. I fell on my knees and asked Christ to be my savior. My days of willful blindness towards God were gone. The search was over.”
An emotional moment; nothing rational about it. And of course (if you knew the real reason for the conversion of Collins) the implication is that if a scientist of the stature of Collins is converted by pure emotion, not logic and rational thought, then you need to be converted by emotion too.
And then of course there is the conclusion to episode 1: “What your point of view is is as important as anyone else’s….” Well, it may be important to “you,” but if I’m discussing nuclear physics, I don’t think my “point of view” is just as valid as a nuclear physicist’s. But of course that does fit in with a Protestant outlook–everyone’s point of view is equally valid and no one knows “the truth,” esp. those old guys in robes. It also bothered me that this statement is presented as exactly that, a statement or conclusion rather than a subject to be discussed.
Several of you have stated that as facilitators, you have to explain certain parts. What if the facilitator doesn’t do that? And it’s presented in a Catholic church and publicized from the pulpit? That certainly gives it a sense of an official stamp of approval. Would a few footnotes here and clear really counteract all the subtle misleading stuff that’s in the video? Someone (presumably all those in the program) without a background in philosophy and/or theology might simply let all the implications and subtle points just slide by.
Thoughts?
