Timesonline article on Arab intellectual and religious influences on western civilization.

When Baghdad opened its gates as the new capital of the Abbasid Caliphate, the prime site in the city was occupied by the royal library. Both the city and the library, completed around 765, were built by Caliph al-Mansur, who devised a method for measuring the circumference of the Earth and was second in a long line of Abbasid caliphs who valued thought and learning above all else. The Abbasids created, shaped and developed one of the most rich and fertile periods of science in human history.

The library was officially called “the House of Wisdom”. It was a monumental structure, accommodating translators, copyists, scholars, scientists, librarians and the swelling volumes of Persian, Sanskrit and Greek texts that flooded into Baghdad. Not surprisingly, it became a magnet for seekers of knowledge from across the Muslim empire.

Haven’t viewed this yet, but it certainly looks good. David Brooks and E. J. Dionne discuss the theologian Richard Neibuhr. (Another Speaking of Faith episode)

TV show looks at the intersection of religion and sexuality, and how gays and lesbians reconcile their faith within their religious communities.

From MindHacks.com:

The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine just published a recent, and, presumably, slightly tongue in cheek article, drawing parallels between psychiatry, clinical psychology and traditional religious practices.

I really like this NPR program. I subscribe to the blog. I always learn a lot from the broadcasts.

From the Washington Post, some multimedia links to interviews and overviews of religious services and events.

From The Atlantic:

For all the advances and wonders of our global era, Christians, Jews, and Muslims seem ever more locked in mortal combat. But history suggests a happier outcome for the Peoples of the Book. As technological evolution has brought communities, nations, and faiths into closer contact, it is the prophets of tolerance and love that have prospered, along with the religions they represent. Is globalization, in fact, God’s will?

Haven’t updated in a long time. I’ve found some sites and stories that are interesting. Will be posting them shortly.

I’m struggling to find questions for my PHIL 500 class forum. I don’t want to have the class devolve into a theological slugfest. Here are some ramblings courtesy of a medium Americano at my local Peets.

If Hick is right, or if we accept Hick’s view about all religions being a product of human imagination, we might “easily” resolve the problem of evil question by simply refomulating our notions of evil, God, and goodness. My sense is that this is what DZ is addressing layer by layer, or rather, concept by concept.

But if we can refomulate our conceptions in order to defang the “problem” of evil, doesn’t that lead to the risk of obliterating the prospect of a stand-alone, ontological god or divine reality?

Maybe I’ve given human imagination too much authority and power here.

Perhaps the Divine Reality (or Hick’s Ultimate reality) allows us to play in our theological and philosophical sandbox(es). What difference would it make to “OMNI” (to switch dieties for a moment)?

I’m not sure where I stand on this. I suppose my view is that these philosophical arguments have no purchase on me, and that since they do not persuade me one way or the other I would probably come down on the side of the constuctivists (in my sense of the term).

I suppose my view would make any “sandbox decision” irrelevant. My belief or non-belief is immune from other people’s formulations.

As a philosopher though, I really worry about this immunity. It doesn’t seem to be something I can hold consistently. As I often say in class, “Gators don’t let other Gators believe in or act upon any old belief.” Why should religious Gators be immune from challenges? Challenges to their … what? Sanity? Rationality? Consistency?

The consistency demand leads us back to the problem of evil issue.

So what’s my forum question?

Maybe: Can we reformulate our way out of the problem of evil?

Or: What does it mean — ah — here’s the point. We can reformulate all we want. Is it going to change any ontological facts on the ground? Or does Buddhism offer a model here? The Buddha doesn’t say that bad things don’t happen to good people. Part of the way of handling the “bad things” is to reframe the event or our expectations of ourselves, others, and the cosmos.

If I don’t set myself up for suffering by understanding the fundamental impermanence of existence, does this mean I can live a relatively balanced, “evil-free”? life? No. That doesn’t seem right either.

Well, there’s a question in there somewhere!

Second question: What is evil? Is it real, i.e., ontologically or metaphysically real? Is it only a human phenomenon? Do gorillas or antelopes encounter “evil”? Is evil something we generate by or with our thoughts and/or actions? Or is evil something “out there” completely separate from any human enterprise?

I’d better stop while I’m ahead!

I followed a little bit of David Plotz‘s blogging the Bible on Slate. Here’s Plotz’s discussion of both the weird and enduring aspects of the Bible. (The clip starts about 20 minutes into the bloggingheads and stops after this segment.)