why so angry

I know almost nothing about the two speakers booked-for-but-now-banned-from the Powerstation in Auckland.  What I do know is that a lot of people are angry about them, their message (whatever it is), and the prospect of them having a platform to share it.

All this anger actually piques my curiosity.  It makes me want to find them on YouTube and learn what they are about.  It doesn’t make me want to ignore them.  I wonder if the angry protesters realize this?

Agree with them or not, if you resist them with too violent of language (or venue-cancelling maneuvering?) you will make a victim out of them and effectively help create a platform for them.

Another thought is this.  My Dad always told me that in an argument, the one getting angry usually has the weaker position.  If these banned speakers have such bad ideas, shouldn’t it be easy to calmly (and succinctly) show where their logic goes astray?  The anger just makes you look defensive.

naturalistic dualist?

I knew I’d have to blog about this one. I just got back from the latest TANSA (Theology and the Natural Sciences in Aotearoa) meeting at Laidlaw College.

The Speaker was Dr. Peter Wills, who, it turns out, is a naturalist (I also met and had a nice talk with a lady who shared that she no longer professed faith, so this was no Christians-only affair). Nicola, the chairperson for TANSA, opened with a lovely quote from theologian Michael Welker to give expression to the ‘T’ in TANSA, as Peter would handle the ‘N’ (couldn’t help but smile to myself seeing boxes of ‘Hell’ pizza behind this ‘godless’ scientist ;D ). Continue reading “naturalistic dualist?”

dialogue

Had another really enjoyable discussion forum today at the Shore Campus of AUT, where I was one of three faith leaders (Christian, Muslim and Buddhist) who presented on the subject of an ‘after-life’.

Not only do I enjoy there discussions for the respectful tone they maintain (normally!  One meeting with some humanists had a little bit of heat in it!?), but also the opportunity to compare and contrast belief systems and understandings, finding – as always – points of agreement and points of disagreement.  There was significant overlap between the Christian and Muslim (both, broadly speaking, Abrahamic religions) perspectives, and even some common points across all three – and of course, there were some very distinct points for each perspective as well.  Very enjoyable, and proof that holding firmly/passionately to a belief or truth-claim does not mean not being able to listen and discuss with differing points of view.