- Dec 9, 2005
- 10,489
- 5,212
- Country
- Montenegro
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Frankly, I love Fr Tom. I wish his voice was still a living voice. He goes off-base in a couple of places, in my opinion, but by and large, is a solid Orthodox voice. (I was disappointed in his final podcast, on remarriage in the Church, but that’s a topic that could go into the divorce thread I started a couple of months ago, if I get around to it.)
Some years ago, I listened to his podcast series on Darwin and Christianity. I started on episode 11, about death, and was immediately hooked. I listened through the last episode, #17, and started again from the beginning and listened all the way through. My object here is to periodically post responses as I listen again on points where I don’t simply agree (although there are plenty of things on which I do).
I just started again, with another ten years in the Church under my belt, with episode one.He says a lot of true things, and if it sounds like I disagree heavily with him, as someone who has come to firmly disbelieve in the narrative of human evolution (something distinct from observed changes) as compatible with the Faith (whereas he is more open and accepting of that narrative), it is on these few points, and not everything. He is right about the violence of Christians of the past, for example. It was never Christian to burn anyone at the stake. In fact, he emphasizes that the violence is physical, and not merely a metaphor for “strongly attack”. But then he turns around and attacks Fr Seraphim Rose for “violently” attacking that narrative, and saying that his followers (and by implication, Fr Seraphim himself) are guilty of using their intellect for everything but being humble before God. It was a bit shocking, and somewhat self-contradictory, that Fr Tom himself admits the issue is terribly complex, and even encourages people to watch Ben Stein’s “Expelled” (a great documentary which Stein undermines by putting in sensational footage of Nazis periodically into the film. I felt peeved, on two points - one was the use of the word “violence”, which he had just strongly condemned as a physical evil act, and then using it to characterize Fr Seraphim’s strong disagreement with the narrative of human evolution, and the second was on the dismissal of the admittedly complex opposition to the narrative. Fr Tom’s podcast struck me as somewhat self-contradictory, though I understand that he was trying to be open-minded and fair.
WHAT WOULD BE COMPLETELY UNINTERESTING:
A person posting his own opinions without considering either what I or Fr Tom have to say. Quoting Fr Seraphim in context on the topic is fair game, though.
Some years ago, I listened to his podcast series on Darwin and Christianity. I started on episode 11, about death, and was immediately hooked. I listened through the last episode, #17, and started again from the beginning and listened all the way through. My object here is to periodically post responses as I listen again on points where I don’t simply agree (although there are plenty of things on which I do).
I just started again, with another ten years in the Church under my belt, with episode one.He says a lot of true things, and if it sounds like I disagree heavily with him, as someone who has come to firmly disbelieve in the narrative of human evolution (something distinct from observed changes) as compatible with the Faith (whereas he is more open and accepting of that narrative), it is on these few points, and not everything. He is right about the violence of Christians of the past, for example. It was never Christian to burn anyone at the stake. In fact, he emphasizes that the violence is physical, and not merely a metaphor for “strongly attack”. But then he turns around and attacks Fr Seraphim Rose for “violently” attacking that narrative, and saying that his followers (and by implication, Fr Seraphim himself) are guilty of using their intellect for everything but being humble before God. It was a bit shocking, and somewhat self-contradictory, that Fr Tom himself admits the issue is terribly complex, and even encourages people to watch Ben Stein’s “Expelled” (a great documentary which Stein undermines by putting in sensational footage of Nazis periodically into the film. I felt peeved, on two points - one was the use of the word “violence”, which he had just strongly condemned as a physical evil act, and then using it to characterize Fr Seraphim’s strong disagreement with the narrative of human evolution, and the second was on the dismissal of the admittedly complex opposition to the narrative. Fr Tom’s podcast struck me as somewhat self-contradictory, though I understand that he was trying to be open-minded and fair.
WHAT WOULD BE COMPLETELY UNINTERESTING:
A person posting his own opinions without considering either what I or Fr Tom have to say. Quoting Fr Seraphim in context on the topic is fair game, though.
It seemed like they were saying "We are Scientists. You must obey us because this is Science speaking!"
