Peter Kazmaier

C. John Sommerville, a professor emeritus of history at the University of Florida, has written an engaging book entitled Religious Ideas for Secular Universities. As he looked back on fifty years of university life as both a student and a professor, he wondered at how much the mission and role of the university had changed in that time period.

“I thought I was finally able to see our universities the way American society does, as a good way of preparing us for our jobs, but not where we look to answers for our important questions.” [Page 3]

Sommerville amplifies this view on page 7.

“It seems that some time in the 1980’s accountancy became the queen of sciences. Universities are about money in a whole new way. They are now measured in terms of money – the size of their endowments, how much they can charge for tuition, and the return on that investment in the starting salaries of new graduates.”

Sommerville’s views lead to three questions:

1. Are universities becoming corporations?
2. If they are, is this a good or a bad thing?
3. If it is a bad thing, what can be done to reverse this trend? (continue reading…)

I recently had an opportunity to visit a friend of mine to listen with him to a lecture on the provocative topic of whether or not the Bible is beneficial and therefore should be kept or  deleted. Having listened to the lecture and wishing to write about it, I find myself in a quandary. On the one hand I owe the speaker good language since she traveled a fair distance to present her talk and she delivered her presentation with an amiable demeanor. Still I will have little good to say about the lecture, so taking a cue from C. S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man, I propose to simply call the talk “The Lecture,” and I will call the speaker Docilla so that I can confine my comments to the content. So what was my reaction to the talk?

First let me deal with the provocative topic: should the Bible be kept or deleted? I suppose this statement may be provocative hyperbole for “is the Bible still relevant or is it irrelevant?” However I received no clear indication that the title was not meant literally so let me talk to the title from point of view that “delete” really means delete. There are many book ancient and modern which I do not think either edifying or helpful, but that does not mean I would like to see them deleted. Even a badly written book can serve as an example on how not to write. Books that I believe wrong-headed or advocate destructive behavior can still raise important questions. My love of books, my desire for freedom, and my personal commitment to try to find the truth about important questions make me hesitant to destroy any book. Given my perspective, it was a surprise to me that several in the audience (perhaps 3-4 out of 25) had voted for deletion of the Bible. It was a surprise because I had great difficulty reconciling their view that the Bible was such an extraordinarily dangerous book that it ought to be deleted with my own investigation of the contents.

So what about the lecture itself? Had I given the lecture, I would have discussed the history of the Biblical texts and the scholarship surrounding the early manuscripts, the use of the texts by the early Christians and the eventual collection of the sacred Christian writings into the New Testament canon. I would have then gone on to compare and contrast good and bad behaviors that have come out of the application of the principles in these writings from the earliest days to the present.

Docilla did very little of this. It was impossible for me to understand where she stood on these basic questions or even to glean the key facts about the archeological and textual evidence for the historicity of the Bible from her lecture. Furthermore she spent a disproportionate amount of time on extra-biblical writings such as the gospel of Thomas.

Much of the talk centered on the theme that one cannot interpret the Biblical text (or any text I suppose) unless one has the right metaphor to unlock the meaning. I don’t deny that metaphors can be useful in gaining understanding. A metaphor is useful because we can take something concrete and use it to help understand something that is abstract. Yet much of what she described extracted arcane conclusions out of New Testament writings while ignoring what seems plain and straight forward.

On reflection, The Lecture was not a lecture at all, but rather one long story. I’m not completely sure if the story was a work of fiction or non-fiction and perhaps in the mind of Docilla that distinction is not very clear. I suppose there are many benefits to Postmodern thinking that treats everything as a story. But if our passion for story makes us lose sight of what is true and false, I think we have lost a great deal.

Thanks for reading,

Peter

With the advent of the deep recession we have just experienced, there has been a resurgence of the theme that capitalism has failed and is dead or at least. The discussion around this topic has caused me to re-think Capitalism and in particular to wonder what makes Capitalism work.

One explanation both for the success of Capitalism and it’s failures is that Capitalism is founded on greed, the most predictable of human shortcomings. But is this really true? (continue reading…)

At the first lecture of Get Over Yourself by Bruxy Cavey an interesting book by J. M. Twenge and W. K. Campbell entitled The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in an Age of Entitlement was discussed.

In summary, Cavey, while he acknowledged there were people who had self-destructive perceptions of themselves, argued that “self-love” and “self-affirmation” have become a panacea of our generation for almost all psychological ailments. Instead promoting this, in his words we should:

“…renounce the pop-culture pursuit of self-love. Forget trying to love yourself more. In fact, most of us would benefit from thinking about ourselves less, period. Start focusing on the needs and desires of others, especially those people who are on the margins of social circles.”

In response to this, I would ask:

• Is it true that our generation is overly focused on ourselves?
• If we are, is it a bad thing?

(continue reading…)

Disclaimer: This review contains content and plot information so if you plan on seeing this movie, you may wish to defer reading this review.

The Valley of Elah is a dark, troubling movie. Although I hesitate recommending it to others, I found it to be thought provoking.

So what was the movie about? (continue reading…)

I’m reading a thought-provoking book by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary entitled The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul. In Chapter 4, as part of a thoroughly referenced review of neuroscientist’s theories about Religious, Spiritual, amd Mystical Experiences (RSMEs) the authors discuss the interesting case of Michael Persinger’s “God Helmet.” (continue reading…)

When I was an undergraduate, I was told by a fellow student who knew that I was a Christian that a Professor of mine had said to this student that he (the Professor) did not really believe one could be a researcher in science and a Christian. Now do not misunderstand me. I am not writing to show another example of “anti-Christian bias,” but rather the contrary. I believe the Professor in question, if this hearsay is accurate, was expressing a personal conviction. (continue reading…)

Why do so many people read Science Fiction? Why do so many more watch movies with Science Fiction themes. This was discussed on a TV Special called Listen Up TV on Global Television yesterday. You can also see it online .

One of the key conclusions was that Science Fiction encourages a sense of wonder and even of hope.

At the end of the special, I had the privilege of being interviewed by Lorna Dueck about The Halcyon Dislocation and my motivation for writing it.

Thanks for reading,

~Peter

Links to other Science Fiction Blogs cited in this episode:

• Gabriel McGee – SF Gospel Blog
• John C. Wright – John C. Wright’s  Live Journal
• Robert Sawyer – Robert Sawyer’s SF Blog

It was about a year ago when a friend of mine asked what I thought of Peter Joseph’s movie, Zeitgeist . Zeitgeist is a movie that has been viewed by more than 50 M viewers and has propagated by viral marketing (i.e. one viewer after another emails the link to their friends because of its startling and controversial message). The movie itself is divided into three sections. The first part claims that Jesus and his life is a “recent” version of an astro-theological myth that has been replayed many, many times in the past. The second part claims that the 9/11 catastrophe was orchestrated by the United States, and the final portion makes claims about an international banking conspiracy.

Now let me say at the outset that I watched part 2 only once and never watched part 3, so I have no comments to make on these. So what are my thoughts on part 1?

(continue reading…)

THE HALCYON DISLOCATION has just been reviewed by Canadian Christianity :

February 2009

Peter Kazmaier: The Halcyon Dislocation (Wolfsburg Imprints, 2009) Peter Kazmaier is a man of many parts: a research scientist in industry and an adjunct professor of chemistry at Queen’s University, he also has patents on more than 100 inventions. Now he has written a science fiction novel which deals with power struggles at a university community which has been transported to a new world.