Human, Humane, Humanity.

Incomprehensible actions comfortingly described as "inhuman" turn out, on reflection, to be all too human.

Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science.

It is reported that the professor has refused to debate the existence of God with philosopher William Lane Craig when the latter visits the UK. I suppose I find this striking because the professor has largely built his career on such controversy rather than any solid scientific research and such debates fall well within his 'job description'. The suspicion is that the professor is more comfortable bullying "creationists" rather than engaging in any meaningful dialogue with more sophisticated protagonists. It has struck me that the professor's grasp of the issues has always been poor and he has lazily resorted to caricature of his opponents rather than examine what they actually say. Maybe in the final analysis a debate with William Lane Craig was likely to prove too much like hard work.

AMBIGUITY WARNING!
*
While I was away in the Lake District recently I came across this bottle of beer in a shop there and immediately thought of Dawn and what an apt gift to send on to her.
I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry about the surreal 'spin' she put on the birthday card I'd sent to her. I figured God was saying 'laugh don't cry!' So today I posted this gift to her but I did take the precaution of adding a warning.......and a special offer which I hope she will take me up on. The labels I added read as follows;

*
AMBIGUITY WARNING!


It should not be inferred from this beer bottle label that I have ever participated in or approved of animal cruelty. No conclusion should be drawn from the kilted figure that I am anti-Scottish or racist. or that I condone the Highland Clearances. The gender of the animal is not intended to imply misogyny or indeed prejudice against any other engendered or transgendered sheep. Just enjoy the beer.

*
Pete.
*

ps GENUINE OFFER!
*
Sometime when you are next in London I can give you a tour of where I work and you can get to know a bit more about me.

WHAT KIND OF GOD WOULD ALLOW A THING LIKE THIS TO HAPPEN?

*

*

*

post-script dated 31st August 2009 at 09:10 am.

Dear Dawn,

*

When I included this cartoon in the homemade birthday card I sent to you I was expressing my impish sense of humour and I was not trying to make some wider point.

*

I was not making out that human suffering is a suitable subject for mirth nor was I suggesting that in God's eyes all such suffering is seen as equally trivial.

*

First off; John Callahan is an American cartoonist who is quadriplegic following a car accident. He cannot grasp anything with his fingers and so he draws by holding the pen between his hands. And 'yes' his humour can be dark, which I do indeed quite like.

*

Secondly; the humour here is not aimed at human suffering but is found in the cartoon character's inappropriate sense of moral outrage at God over what the self-regarding cartoon character perceives to be a major existential crisis.

*

I guess some things just aren't funny if you have to explain them!

God Bless,

Pete.

*

*

*

PPS: 3rd September 2009. It has been pointed out to me that the Callahan cartoon suggests that all human suffering is somehow beneficial to the sufferer (it is fair to say that the cartoon character could probably afford to lose a few pounds!). But - in all honesty - it never crossed my mind that that was the main conclusion to draw from either Callahan, or by adoption, the birthday card I made. I do feel that to attribute such sentiments to me on this basis is surreal.

Lit Obit!

For nearly two and a half years I have foisted my intellectual pretensions upon an unsuspecting world which, truth be told, never actually asked for my opinion, and the time therefore has come to wind up this blog. I have a couple of articles in the pipeline but, as promised earlier this year, I will not continue blogging into 2008. To be frank I don't feel entirely comfortable curating my thoughts in a self-aggrandizing way to the onlooking world as if my person has something special to offer... and yet I did also sincerely desire to make a statement of sorts about where I stand on some of the issues of the day. I have only "something special" in the sense that I have been touched by God's love, there is nothing special as such about me personally. I am hugely impressed by the number of really good evangelical teachers and scholars out there too - so I'm not sure what I'm adding by means of my 'blog' anymore.

It is true that a few years ago I wanted to explore the doubts and challenges which had occured to me as a Christian and see how they stood up to examination. Were my answers equal to the questions posed by non-christians? Were the answers really satisfying to ME as an individual believer? Being a Christian has not been a cosey experience - Jesus never said it would be! - instead it has caused me to explore the fiercest criticisms and my own misgivings to see how the Gospel holds up.

What the reader makes of these I will have to leave to you. By way of a general disclaimer; the opinions in this 'blog' are entirely my own and it should not be inferred that they represent in any way the views of the various groups of which I am a member - any fault is my fault alone. If at times I sound irascible I hope the reader will be kind to me and weigh what I say on its merits. If you are inclined to conclude that I am a poor representative to speak on behalf of Jesus Christ you are undoubtedly correct.... my life is not all it should be.... or could be.... or will be. And if you are of a mind to conclude that I cannot possibly be a believer think how much worse I might have been if I wasn't a Christian at all!

"GOD IS NOT GREAT!"

Christopher Hitchens recently published a book by this title in which he attributes all of Humanity's ills to "religion" in one guise or another. The word 'religion' isn't one I entirely feel comfortable with because it is hardly a Biblical word at all and it is a word which often brings a lot of preconceived notions in tow which I don't believe are very helpful. I am a Christian but I do not consider myself "religious"! But for the sake of argument let's stick with the word Hitchens uses.

Hitchens is another shrill voice in a recent spate of attacks upon religion. There seems to be an element of panic within the intelligentsia which once confidently predicted the extinction of all religions and anticipated the inevitable dawn of a new rationalist era. The resurgence of religion as a force on the world stage has left these complacent opinion shapers non-plussed and fearful for the future of humanity. History is not following their script.

Hitchens appears to attribute all evil to religion and all good to the Humanist cause. To this end he conveniently redefines the secular ideologies of Hitler and Stalin as "religions" and dragoons Christians like Martin Luther King and Dietrich Bonhoeffer into the ranks of the Humanists! So much special pleading will cause even the most ardent Hitchens' fan some pause for thought surely! It seems to me a rather desperate expedient which causes him to twist the facts to fit his ideologically driven argument... and surely it is the ideologue's desire to rewrite history we all should beware! It is the natural default setting of humans to "otherise" evil - to attribute all that is wrong with the world to some outgroup and to make out that one's own tribe is on the side of the angels. And surely it is that condemnation of the innocent with the guilty for ideological reasons that is the real cause of evil.... Hitchens has fallen head first into that trap.... secularists are all good, religionists are all bad in a 'cowboys and indians' argument.

There is one aspect of Hitchens' argument which does bear some consideration. The means by which he redefines Nazism and Stalinism as "religions" is their "messianic" and utopian pretentions. And in that regard he is not wrong. But it is precisely those pretentions which caused thoughtful (as opposed to duped)Christians at the time to see these ideologies as anti-thetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.... in a very real sense these belief systems were "Anti-Christ" systems. The Bible already had a category for critiquing such movements when history shows that it took a good deal longer for the intelligentsia to realise these idols had feet of clay. As astonishing as it seems now there were many western secularists and humanists who defended Stalin and the Soviet system as a force for good. At the time the Stalinist and the Nazi would have argued that their beliefs were firmly founded on scientific rationalism - Marxist economics and Social Darwinism respectively, each claiming the imprimatur of scientific certainty. They certainly would never have regarded these as matters of 'faith'! And certainly not faith in God! Given that historical background, the question is how can you ever know whether your beliefs are truly rational? And if Hitchens' idea is correct how can you ever know if your beliefs are even truly secular?

Applying Hitchens' criteria Humanism is a "religion" because it has a utopian vision of mankind and even if it lacks a specific "messiah" figure it certainly exalts the human spirit so that each individual is their own saviour. Oh and it even has its own heresy hunters too!

In the final anaysis it is only the Gospel which accurately describes the world as it truly is. Quite why it is assumed that people like me make irrational "leaps of faith" rather than weigh up which viewpoint actually describes the world as it really is is a mystery to me, the truth is I never could make the credulous "leap of faith" required by humanist doctrine! When such dogma repeatedly misdiagnoses the human condition and Jesus gets it unerringly right everytime I don't consider that much of a 'leap' at all!

The solution to all anti-christ ideologies is not secularism (whatever that now means!) but Jesus - the real Christ.

The rise of the
"UBER-CONSUMER"
and the decline of
PROPOSITIONAL TRUTH!

In our post-evangelical, post-modernist, post-consumerist age there is some talk about how propostional truth is passe. This is the kind of drawing room talk which only cuts much ice among the chattering classes at their dinner parties as they crack open another bottle of Chablis. "Mere words cannot convey meaning still less 'truth' - whatever that is. All truth claims are culturally bound. Yes, they say, the important thing is the debate - the dialogue is all - conclusions are so declasse!" The reality is this is a "debate" which can only truly exist (not in a post consumer age meaning they have 'moved on' from consumerism) but in an uber-consumer age when we arrogantly assume we can smorgasbord the philosophy table and select the "reality" which suits our taste. It is even possible to snack at the "Jesus" table and select the Jesus which suits us - the "another Jesus" of 2 Corinthians 11 v4! ("Uber" is a German prefix meaning "super" or "ultra", when this prefix is adopted in English it indicates quizzical disbelief. Please feel free to substitute the word Ultra if you prefer - ultra-consumer fits my meaning just as well). Reality is a human construct in this propositionless, ultra-consumer world; why not select one that is congenial? For them the "dialogue" is all and any attempt to draw universal conclusions is arrogant and mere "power politics"; any 'truth' claim is an exercise in oppression and control. Truth cannot be contained within a proposition they insist!

Of course I firmly believe this is all utter nonsense and fantasy-land thinking. If you want to dispute the point with me come and join me on the ward round on the children's intensive care unit here in London on Planet Earth. When we stand at the foot of the bed of a critically ill patient and their course of treatment is being debated why don't you chime in with your wisdom about the "meaninglessness of words" and how the "discussion is all", that conclusions are "oppressive" and how we represent an outmoded modernistic paradigm. (Don't misunderstand me; I do not believe that a reductionist scientific model describes the whole of reality - I wouldn't be a Christian if I did! - but as far as it goes it represents a model of physical reality. It is the truth and nothing but the truth, even if it is not the whole truth, because it completely misses out the spiritual dimension to reality).

Back on the ward round as we sift the results of investigations undertaken and discuss options and courses of treatment we may well not have a complete picture of the patient's condition (we rarely deal in "certainty") but we must draw some conclusions from what evidence we do have and work out an action plan - indeed it would be outrageous and morally indefensible to pass by without formulating some treatment plan even if it is only a provisional one. It may well be that over the following hours and days we will revise and refine our plans as we get a clearer picture of the disease process. Isn't this the "hermeneutical spiral" principle, constantly homing in on the truth? So do not confuse the cowardice of indecision with the virtue of humility. Do not confuse humility with merely having ceased to care! What the uber-consumer calls toleration is more likely to be indifference..... or, just possibly, despair.

But as that ward round unfolds why not discuss your insights into oppressive 'truth claims' with the parents of one of our patients? I'm sure that they would be only too interested to hear from you.... but I won't answer for how they might respond! You see we live in an uber consumer society cut off from reality but once in a while reality impinges on our illusory world that once seemed so secure; when nasty things happen then we don't want a "dialogue" with the chattering classes. When push comes to shove we recognise our need for conclusions and a course of action by experts in their field not a philosophical debate about the meaninglessness of propositions or how 'truth' is culturally determined and a
function of oppression! (Disease and misfortune are not culture bound and in fact they are a compelling international language). This whole outlook is one which can only ever arise in a complacent consumer mindset which has never had to deal with difficulty or danger as previous generations have; the uber-consumer merely wants to be left to luxuriate in a world where there are no difficult choices to make and no challenges to unsettle us. We tolerate everything not because we are caring people, we tolerate everything precisely because we have ceased to care!

Do you ever wonder why people get angry and even violent with health care workers? I've seen it happen within my own intensive care unit. It's because the health care worker tells them the truth about reality when they've always thought that they could choose their own... they are uber-consumers who bought into the post modern lie. Someone given the task of breaking bad news becomes the official representative of the society who has denied them their right to the reality of their choice! Afterall the uber-consumer's catch phrase is "I know my rights!"

It would be a shame if evangelicals buy into this sort of mentality too. The danger, as I see it, is that in an attempt to be culturally 'relevant' to the uber-consumer we tailor the Gospel message to flatter our target group - but when we do that we also cease to have anything meaningful to say, we can only reflect back the conceits of the uber-consumer and we can never challenge them. The uber-consumer does not want to be unsettled in fact they will demand (with menaces) the craven approval of the church..... for all their talk about "toleration" they will never tolerate any group not geared to flatter them.

We Evangelicals only have something distinctive to say when we are authentically counter-cultural, and we have not always been faithful in this regard, but that is something the Lord Jesus requires us to be if we are to be worthy of the name Evangelical, that is "Evangel people", literally Gospel people!

"CONDEMNED TO HELL
FOR NOT BELIEVING AN
IMPOSSIBILITY!"

I recently finished reading Robert Graves'
"Goodbye to All That" which is a biographical
account of his early life and his experiences as
an officer in the trenches of The First World
War. It is a great read. I am always intrigued
as a Christian when any writer alludes to their
own beliefs and, usually, why they come to
reject Jesus Christ.... literature invariably
values 'faith' as something to be lost as an
individual progresses towards maturity.

Robert Graves relates how his own religious
convictions wavered when Raymond, a school
friend, made the point that whoever asserted
that a belief in The Trinity was a prerequisite
to salvation "was asserting that a man must go
to Hell if he does not believe something that is,
by definition, impossible to understand."

Of course most such objections to the Gospel
are founded upon one conceit or another, and
this is no exception.

The assumption is this; "God has nothing on
me except that I don't believe in this theology!"
And the implication follows that God is an
unjust ogre who is in no position to judge me!
(It is no coincidence that this is exactly the
issue at the heart of Genesis 3. Plus ca change!)

If that is your position I have some good news
for you.... first up; no-one is going to be
condemned on a technicality. The bad news is
you are condemned already! That is what Jesus
said in John 3 v18; "...whoever does not believe
is condemned already..." (i.e. we do not start
this discussion as if we are innocents) which
can be paraphrased 'God didn't go to all the
trouble of sending his Son merely to point an
accusing finger...he came to help, to put the
world right again. Anyone who trusts in him
is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him
has long since been under the death sentence'.

It is a conceit to believe that we are innocents
in the hands of an unjust God - that is the
theology of Graves' friend isn't it? To claim that
we are faultless is to be mired in illusion and
self deceit; it is also to impute evil to God and
to condemn Him! That's Raymond's theology
isn't it? And we all have a theology.

Real maturity comes when we realise how
imperfect we are. In Psalm 32 David says
"Blessed is the man against whom the Lord
counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit is no
deceit". This does NOT mean that the believer
reaches some state of sinless perfection (as
some of my evangelical brethren think);
it means I have decided to cut out all the
fudging and to be totally honest with myself
- the reason I know that this is the correct
interpretation is because of verse five,
'Then I let it all out; I said "I'll make a clean
breast of my failures to God." I'm going to stop
kidding myself!'

I am a Christian because I am not the man I
pretend to be, or the man I should be nor am
I the man I fool myself that I am.

It is self evident that I need God himself
to help rescue me and that is exactly what He
did. God did not delegate the task to another
but He Himself came to do what no other
could. Jesus is God expressed in human form.
He would only do this out of love to rescue us
from ourselves.

I may not understand the Trinity either -
understanding the Godhead is not necessary;
but what is critical is to see our need for God's
rescue plan and to understand that this is
far from an impossibility... it is a downright
necessity. Jesus is the logic of history.

"AS A PAGAN MYSELF
.....[I BELIEVE]....
THAT KINDNESS IS ALL".

I've recently been reading Jan Morris'
biography of Jacky Fisher- a pioneering
British admiral of the late 19th and
early 20th centuries.

While commenting on Fisher's eccentric
take on Christianity she made the above
passing reference to her own pagan beliefs.
As throwaway remarks go it is quite
revealing - careless talk often is. She
alludes to the inconsistency of Fisher's
beliefs - his military professionalism and
belief in a version of Christianity. That
might be a fair point depending on whether
one believes it is not possible to be a
professional soldier (ie serving a legitimate
authority) and a Christian; that would take
us into the realm of "Just War Theory". But
I digress.

The thing I do not get at all is her connection
between Paganism and kindness -
you wouldn't get very far by pointing out
that the Pagan gods were paragons of
kindness as you were assaulted by some
one following their example, would you?
"But this is antithetical to your ethos!....
aarrrgh!"

My initial reaction was to say that Jan
Morris' assertion is a complete non sequitur.
But then, of course - stupid me! - I thought
back to the great pagan cultures in history
such as the Roman Empire and remembered
that they were such a kindly bunch weren't
they? The Assyrians, Aztecs and Spartans
were ever so touchy feely! And who would
deny that the Celts and the Vikings were the
cuddliest of them all!?

ARTHUR C CLARKE,
PROFILES OF THE FUTURE
and A SPIRITUAL ODYSSEY.


As a teenager I read all of Arthur C Clarke's
books. He is widely known as a writer of
science fiction, but he also wrote articles
about the future of science and technology.
As an ardent teenage atheist I shared in the
rosey technocratic vision of the future when
humanity would shake off the petty
superstititions of the past and launch itself
into the Cosmos to forge a brave new
world. Of course it was rather naive but
it was the 1970's and I was a teenager,
come on!

One book by Arthur C. Clarke was called
"Profiles of the Future" and it made a
real impact on me at the time.
If I recall correctly it was in this book that
he made a startling assertion; that there
was a 'timebomb ticking underneath
Christianity' and went on to say that
contact with Extra Terrestrial Intelligence
would deliver a fatal blow to the Biblical
worldview that mankind was made in
God's image and, as such, is the pinnacle
of God's creation. As a juvenile argument
this might pass muster, but the question is
what "image" does AC imagine God
shares with humanity? And, in any event,
I fail to understand why extra-terrestrials
wouldn't share God's 'communicable
attributes' - after all what have those to
do with mere physical form? Since then,
the reader will realise, that I have come
to a much richer understanding of who
God is.

Any student of the history of the sciences
will realise that ever since humankind
realised that the points of light in the night
sky we called planets are worlds in their
own right it was commonly supposed that
they were all inhabited. This caused no
great problems theologically for the
millions of believers at the time. Allan
Chapman wrote an excellent article on
this topic in "Astronomy Now" magazine
a few years ago.

In fact the Christian author CS Lewis wrote
a series of science fiction novels which
predate AC Clarke's work. CS Lewis had
no problem with non humanoid extra
terrestrial intelligent beings. If you read
his novels you will realise that the people
he had most problem with were the
de-humanised humans bent on cosmic
colonisation not these other much more
sympathetic beings to whom the Earth
is known, not without reason, as "The
Silent Planet"!

As a teen I was also deeply impressed by
AC's "2001: a space odyssey", this novel
(and movie) had the fundamental merit
of ending in mystery as mankind makes
its first contact with a higher extra
terrestrial civilisation (there was a
numinescent encounter with beings
utterly "other"). "2001" was based
on AC's previous novel "Childhood's End"
and a short story "The Sentinel". The
subsequent sequels "2010" and "3001"
clarify AC's vision of this mysterious alien
civilisation - a rather creaky computer
programme, with some dodgey ethics
(actually they are only us writ large aren't
they?) to which plucky humanity upload a
computer virus in the name of "deicide"!
AC's vision of God is very limited and, not
unlike Philip Pullman's interpretation
of God, is ultimately a reassuring comfort
blanket to the atheist. Incidentally isn't
the Pullman series 'His Dark Materials'
just Terry Pratchett's 'Discworld' with
the humour stripped out?!

AC's understanding of religion in "3001"
seems shockingly one dimensional and
ignorant (sorry, that's the only word
which will do!) and it isn't surprising
therefore that he regards "religion"
(whatever that means!) as a "socio-
pathology".

Most atheists - and I used to be one -
are surprisingly ignorant for intelligent
people... I guess that's why they hold
such rosey views about humankind...
most atheist visionaries do... but the
reality when such visions become
concrete is always hideous. Atheist
visionary utopias always are.

BENEDICT XVI on Relativism.

"Today a particularly insidious obstacle to the
task of education is the massive presence in our
society and culture of that relativism which,
recognising nothing as definitive, leaves as the
ultimate criterion only the self with its desires.
And under the semblance of freedom it becomes
a prison for each one, for it separates people
from one another, locking each person into his
or her own ego."
Pope Benedict XVI speaking at a conference of
educationalists.

I chose this quotation, not because it comes from
a pope but, because he aptly expresses the problem
with 'relativism' as a sociological phenomenon.
For those of you who believe that 'relativism' is the
only absolute I would like to open up the discussion.
Benedict XVI points out the consequences of this
'relativism'; I would like to take issue with one of
its supposed foundations.

A few months ago I was listening to a debate about
'relativism' on the radio. Heaven knows where the
BBC get their pundits from but one of the panel
asserted that Einstein had provided the scientific
basis underpinning the philosophy of 'relativism'.
'Einstein proves Relativism to be true' [that is
everything is relative to each other - there are
no fixed points of reference].

While his fellow panellists acknowledged the
self evident truth of this I was shouting at the
radio! "You don't understand Relativity at all
do you!?" Even lay people have heard of e=mc2
which means energy equals mass times constant
squared. Einstein never said 'everything is
relative to everything else', he actually said mass
and energy are relative to a fixed constant - in
this case the speed of light.There are constants,
there are fixed reference points.

I suppose if something is repeated often enough
for long enough 'relativism' will become the received
wisdom. That however will never make it true.
The reality is that the human heart doesn't want
any reference outside of itself and its desires.
Whatever the BBC pundits say 'Relativism' has no
scientific basis - its basis is really found in our
self centred human nature.

I do not believe that for every proposition
there is always an equally valid opposite.
There is such a thing as objective truth, the
Cosmos does have its fixed reference points.

ARGUMENTATION!

A few weeks ago I received a 'freebie' from
http://www.teach12.com/ in the form of an article
called "38 Ways to Win an Argument from
Arthur Schopenhauer's 'The Art of Controversy'."
It makes fascinating reading for someone like
myself who takes an interest in Christian
Apologetics.

The strategies suggested involve misrepresenting
your opponents position, making them angry,
confusing them and twisting their language. Also
by using the innocence of a non-expert audience
you can ridicule a perfectly valid argument made
by your opponent. "For it is with victory that you
are concerned, not with truth"! There is something
unkind - if not downright cruel - about it all, but
perhaps this should not surprise us because
all that is false is cruel by that very fact.

Well, frankly I find the strategies suggested totally
deplorable. Of course I am saying this as a
Christian for whom the 9th Commandment against
"bearing false witness" is a cardinal principle.
Furthermore underhand strategies are antithetical
to the spirit of the Gospel; they imply that the truth
will not do. Integrity requires that one
understands and represents ones opponent's views
fairly.

I can only conclude that there are people out there
who are prepared to publicly argue a case they
know to be false, because these strategies can serve
no other purpose; unless the whole article is meant
to be 'tongue in cheek' of course, but somehow I
doubt it.

I have no interest in arguing something I suspect
is false; my philosophy of argumentation is this:
my primary goal is to understand the truth and
if I am wrong it is a kindness to put me right. In
that sense an argument requires good faith on
both sides to engage with an issue fairly and,
no matter how difficult the discussion is, it will
ultimately be collaborative and enlightening.
Even an insult may contain some flash of insight
from which one might benefit. The alternative
of cheap point scoring at someone else's expense
is mindlessly adversarial and results in nothing
of worth.

The only"victory" worth having is to know the
truth. Ultimately the facts are their own best
argument.

C.S. LEWIS.

During the Second World War CS Lewis gave a
series of radio talks on the BBC. These talks were
subsequently published as "Mere Christianity".
In one talk on 'Forgiveness' Lewis said this:-

"Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in
the paper. Then suppose that something turns up
suggesting that the story might not be quite true,
or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's
first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite
so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment,
and even a determination to cling to the first story
for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as
bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am
afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed
to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is
beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If
we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to
see grey as black, and then to see white itself as
black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything -
God and our friends and ourselves included - as
bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be
fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.

THE GOD DELUSION.

As a prelude to the Christmas season can I make a plea
to all my fans out there in blog-world? Please do not put
a copy of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" in my
Christmas stocking!

It seems to me that this guy has achieved a prominence
way beyond his abilities by making a career out of winding
up Christians like myself. Our protestations of innocence at
his anti-religion scattergun diatribes only boost his notoriety
and his subsequent book sales. The real challenge Dawkins
presents us with is not his huffing and puffing but our own
internal urge to rise to his bait!

The best thing to do is ignore him. So my New Year's
Resolution is; his name will not appear again in this blog.

For Richard Dawkins' fans out there let me pose a challenge
to you. In "The Sunday Telegraph" review section 'Seven'
published in the UK on 17th the Dawkins' line about religion
is repeated that killing is 'something you might well do if
you've been taught from babyhood upwards that your God
will approve of such behaviour. You don't have to produce
evidence to support your belief. You simply say, "It's my
faith", and are blind to any argument. If part of your faith is
the righteousness of killing infidels or apostates, then that
does seem to me to go further than the ordinary aggression
which you [the interviewer] attribute to humans anyway.'

Well I suppose you might think that given such a scenario
- just as any secular demagogue did with their dissidents.
The issue is; is the nature of religious faith inherently evil
in a way that, say, totalitarianism is not? Apparently
Dawkins would say 'yes'. I don't rate his chances at having
a cosy chat with the likes of Robespierre, Stalin or Pol Pot....
but hey what do I know? I suspect that what Dawkins really
means is not that rational argument is impossible with those
of a religious persuasion, but that such a dialogue is
impossible for him! And that is quite a different matter.
Dawkins may well lack the empathy required for reasoned
discussion but it is illogical to conclude that no-one else can
do it either. To have a rational argument requires making
some attempt to understand the other person's rationale and
just because it is not his rationale does not mean that there
is not a rationale; Dawkins doesn't have to agree with it to
try to understand it. At least you and I are managing to have
a reasonable discussion right now aren't we?

I don't know why I take this so personally because I don't
recognise Dawkins' caricature - maybe I'm more sensitive
than most. Okay the challenge is this: let's get down to
cases, search my blog and find some evidence for the
notion that I advocate killing people. Go a step further -
search the audio library of my church - there are several
decades worth of talks there - where is the evidence that
anyone there has ever urged violence? http://www.shmedia.org.uk/
He says it's from babyhood - okay; check out the Sunday
School material at http://www.tntministries.org.uk/ - where is the
proof that children are being taught to kill in God's name?
And remember - in all of this - we are not discussing
whether Christians fail to live by the principles they advocate,
but whether those principles are themselves inherently evil
....that is the 'Dawkins Doctrine'.

The Christian position is that God alone has the right to
judge an individuals' heart - I cannot do it because I do
not know what God knows. Not only that but I have no
right to do this in God's name because I too am a sinner,
who will be judged against the measure I use! And there's
the rub - one would have to construe God's deferred
judgement as a present day mandate. The Gospel requires
me to forgive others on the basis that God in Christ has
forgiven me. The petty grievances I nurture must be
relinquished in the light of the forgiveness of God I've
received. Those of you who have suffered some dreadful
crime must also seek to forgive but that ability to forgive
one's enemies is not founded upon a shrug of the shoulders
in a "it doesn't matter", vague, sort of way. It is founded on
the ability to commit our deepest wounds to a just God, who
sees all our hurts and who judges wisely, and to whom we
and our assailants will one day be required to give a full
account. Furthermore as a Christian I cannot despise a fellow
sinner because 'there but for the grace of God go I!' God's
love is expressed in two ways - his love of mercy and his love
of justice. I cannot see how he'll square that circle - but I
trust that he can do it - and in reality that is what 'faith' is,
trusting in the character of God revealed in Christ.

If you find this murderous evidence I'll join you on your side
of the barricade - and you know who else will be there?
Jesus! You might not have heard that he taught his disciples
to 'turn the other cheek' and 'love your enemies' etc and
the apostle Paul also concurs in Romans 12v14-21. [I do not
mean to be patronising in saying all this; if you source your
information from the likes of Dawkins you may well not know
that it is upon Jesus that the Christian attitude to others is
to be founded]. Of course you will find 'crack pots' if
you look hard enough [you find them in every society] but
it is entirely disingenuous to talk up these examples as
representative.

In fact there is an interesting scrap between Jesus and
his disciples in Luke chapter 9 v51-56 which is very inform-
ative. Jesus is en route to Jerusalem and is passing through
a Samaritan village which rejects him; his disciples ask if
he wants them to call down fire from heaven on the villagers.
Jesus rebukes his apostles and continues his weary way to
The Cross.







tagline: Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. Dawkins' God Delusion.

Postscript: for further reading can I recommend Alister McGrath's
"Dawkins' God". Blackwell Publishing ISBN-13: 978-11-4051-2538-3.

COSMIC FINE TUNING....
"what banged and why?!"

There are four fundamental laws of physics
which determine the nature of the universe.
They are gravity, electromagnetism, and the
weak and strong nuclear forces.

All these factors (any of which could have
absolutely any value) are, in reality, so care-
fully balanced that the mathematics is
unbelievable. It has been likened to someone
firing an arrow from one side of the universe to
the other and hitting the bull's eye. Or put
another way the odds are conservatively estimated
to be 10 to the power of 55 [that's a 10 with 55
zeroes after it]. If any of those fundamental
values were not exactly balanced as they are by
each other we would not have an ordered, habitable
universe. A slight variation one way or another in
any of the four laws and the universe is a titanic
'black-hole', and a minor tweak the other way, the
universe is a diffuse cloud of gas - with no stars
or planets. Another twist; you can have stars and
planets but no Carbon [and hence no complex organic
molecules]. The universe we observe is exactly as
it should be to sustain intelligent life.

The standard objection to these observations is
that if it didn't exist, as is, we wouldn't be here
to discuss it. This misses the point entirely - it
is like the man put up before a firing squad to be
executed. Against all the odds the soldiers miss.
After the event someone comments that he has had a
lucky escape! Or could it be that the squad had
been bribed, were they drunk, had the rifles been
sabotaged, or was there some other logical explan-
ation? "None of these", says the prisoner, "because
if they hadn't missed I wouldn't be here to discuss
it". One would rightly conclude that the man was
being rather obtuse to put it mildly. There is a
legitimate existential question here.

The usual response is to bring up the 'lottery
analogy'. Of course the odds in favour of any
given winner winning in the lottery are vanishingly
small, but the odds that there will be a winner are
actually very good. Again, this misses the point
entirely. There aren't trillions and trillions of
players in this cosmic lottery. There is only one
and its our 55 figure number which came up. Again,
let me repeat, there is a legitimate existential
question which - despite our best efforts - cannot
be avoided.




tagline; Calendar of Doom. Anthropic Principle.
Cosmic Fine Tuning. Cosmic Precision Tuning.
Cosmological Argument. Goldilocks Enigma.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUCA.

My name is Luca and I am a stray cat.I think my
previous owners must have got bored with me.
It's not uncommon for Humans to take us to a
strange part of town and drive off. I had to live
rough for a while.

One rainy day I wandered into someone's garden
and peered in through the french windows. I must
have looked a sorry sight - dripping wet and half
starved.

I don't blame Pete & Helen for not feeding me
straight away because they probably thought I
had a home to go to. I stayed in their garden in
the meantime cos it's quiet there. Anyway they
gave me some food when they could see how
thin I'd become. After that I couldn't keep away.
I'd eat anything back in those days. I love roast
chicken - definately my favourite - let me know
the next time you're cooking and I'll drop in for
dinner! I suppose it is fair to say that I've become
a bit more picky about my food these days; I'm not
so keen nowadays on 'Whiskas' Cod - if that's put
out for me I'll wander down the street to Shirley's
to see if there is a better offer!

Pete & Helen called me 'Lucas' at first until they
realised that I was a girl! I have a lovely black
and white coat which is nicely complemented by
a new red collar - it is so nice to feel that I 'belong'
to someone again!

What gets me is how capricious these Humans are.
One day just when I was beginning to feel a bit
more confident I was whisked away to an evil
place called the Veterinary Surgeon.

I was stabbed, poked, de-fleaed, de-wormed,
vaccinated and had THREE teeth extracted because
they had gone
" bad "

.......whatever that means. I was hopping mad
and sulked for days! They said
" it was for my own good "
- yeah right. They said all this
" treatment "cost them £300 - I have no comprehension
whatsoever what this means. I suppose I just have to
take their word for it on
" faith "!

It's enough to make you doubt the goodness of Man!



PostScript: 26th October 2006.
I might have misjudged Luca by implying that she is an
ungrateful cat. This morning when I returned home after
a night shift there was the biggest, deadest MOUSE laid
out on our doorstep!
Personally its not my taste, but I appreciate the sentiment!
To everyone out there in blog-world - I hope that your day
starts as fruitfully as mine!

Signed: a shamefaced cat owner.

DAN BAKER'S AUNT SALLY.

October 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is:

"Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith,
then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its
own merits." Dan Baker.

"Aah.......this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'faith'
that I wasn't previously aware of!" (Apologies to Douglas Adams
and 'Arthur Dent'!)

One cannot have faith in something [that is trust it] unless at
some level you are convinced it already has merit. Derrrrr!

It makes you wonder what the apostle Paul was doing in Athens
debating with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, or why he
spent two years "reasoning daily in the Hall of Tyrannus" with
all-comers [see Acts 17 &19!]. Incidentally what have I been
doing this last year with "Calendar of Doom" if not arguing the
merits of the case?

To have a mature dialogue on issues that divide us requires an
agreement over what exactly we disagree on! Can I recommend
Wayne Grudem's "Systematic Theology" published by IVP:
GB ISBN 0-85110-652-8 or USA ISBN 0-310-28670-0. The
contents give a surprisingly accesible account of evangelical beliefs.
Chapter 35 and specifically pages 710 & 711 puts paid to a couple
of commonly accepted, but laughable, concepts of 'faith' including
the irrational belief in something despite the abscence of evidence
version which yanked Dan Baker's chain. There is a good explanation
there of what 'faith' really means in the context of the evangelical
faith [and frankly I'm not an apologist for any other kind].

Biblically speaking 'faith' is not so much about believing abstract
assertions, it is more akin to trusting in the character of a personal
being and the promises they make. A Christian is someone who
believes that there is ample evidence to justify not merely a belief
in God's existence but crucially to trust in God's character. Now
Dan Baker will almost certainly not accept that evidence as
compelling - but that is a totally different issue to simply asserting
that Christians have put the 'faith' cart before the evidential horse!

Rather than view 'faith' as some special category of knowledge semi-
detached from reality, it is important to say that we all put our trust
in others from time-to-time [eg the pilot of my holiday flight, the
cook who prepared my meal, even the compiler of the bus timetable
etc etc etc]. All civilisation hinges on those little quantum packets of
trust we both give and receive. But we have already covered a lot of
this ground back in February's "Calendar of Doom" when we looked
at 'Doubt & Certainty' with Voltaire. Incidentally the compiler of the
'agnostic calendar' was asserting 'faith' in Dan Baker when they chose
his quotation - they trusted in the veracity of his accusation.

Let us hope that it was not the case that he thought it is sufficient
merely to caricature and misrepresent someone else's position. If so
it can only be the gallery he is playing to. Or it might simply be that
he hasn't done enough background reading before launching his
attack.

Either way; when he sorts himself out his little homily against
"intellectual bankruptcy" will be a tad more credible.




tagline: Dan Baker. Misrepresentation. Caricature. Versus. Peter
Swift. Faith. Gospel. Evangelical. Evangelicalism. Christianity.
swiftypete. Jesus. Jesus Christ. Intellectual. Mature. Calendar of
Doom. The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. H2G2. 'Safe'. The
God Delusion.

RICHARD DAWKINS: but is it
"life as we know it"?

September 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is;

"If we want to postulate a deity capable of engineering
all the organized complexity in the world, either instant-
aneously or by guiding evolution, that deity must already
have been vastly complex in the first place. The creationist,
whether a naive Bible-thumper or an educated bishop,
simply postulates an already existing being of prodigious
intelligence and complexity. If we are going to allow
ourselves the luxury of postulating organized complexity
without offering an explanation, we might as well make a
job of it and simply postulate the existence of life as we
know it!" Richard Dawkins.

Ah, but that is the question isn't it? Is it really an explanation for
"life as we know it"? Dawkins view of "life" is that 'fish are machines
for replicating DNA in the sea, birds are machines for replicating
DNA in the air and people are machines for replicating DNA on land'.
The question that is crying out to be answered is; is this an adequate
description for "life as we know it"? It is akin to someone saying
that they have a blueprint of an aircraft and assure you that this
tells them everything there is to know about flying! It has all the
lucid simplicity of the madman - I doubt that you would have faith
in such a person to fly an aircraft you were aboard that's for sure!
[And we all put our trust in other people at some time or other].

What am I driving at? Sure DNA helps replicate creatures, I don't
deny that. What I do deny is that this explains everything about
"life as we know it". Dawkins uses the word "life" to mean 'bio-mass'
and nothing else because a materialist is blind to the non material
dimensions of "LIFE" in all its fullness. "LIFE as we know it" is
much more richly textured and the non-material things we
experience are just as real; imagination, creativity, justice, love
(and hate), good (and evil), joy (and sadness) all make up a fuller
picture of "life as it exists".

Dawkins once wrote "in a universe of blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going
to get lucky, and we won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any
justice. The universe [has] no design, no purpose, no evil, no good;
nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows, nor cares.
DNA just is, and we dance to its music." As an explanation for LIFE
is this adequate? To a materialist with a minimalist abstract notion
of life; yes.

But it seems to me that there are universal principles of justice as if
there is a natural law written into the fabric of the Cosmos - and
such law makes little sense without a law-giver. We care about the
suffering of those involved in natural or manmade disasters when
Dawkins' abstractions logically require indifference. DNA doesn't
care but personal beings do. Bafflingly even Dawkins uses words like
"evil" and "wicked" to describe those people [like me] he does not
approve of, as if even he is compelled at a subconscious level to
acknowledge that such categories exist [as with all such barrackroom
moralists his anger is peppered indiscriminately about - nonetheless
even he is a grudging witness to the reality of non-material values].
Why should I think that Dawkins is any more perceptive about LIFE?

All moralists [whether they realise it or not] have a simple formula
in their heads and it goes like this "the world would be a far
better place without.................people in it
(fill in the blank space)"."Evil" is always a
description of someone other than ourselves; it is
only the Christian who recognises that it is their name that should
be there! This is what Christians call "repentance" - the
acknowledgement of ones own evil, indeed it is this which makes a
Christian Christian (and is not to be confused with those who are only
notionally "christian").

Dawkins postulates life as an abstraction but LIFE as it is actually
lived [beyond the lucidity of the madman] is not an abstraction
LIFE is personal. From these thoughts I would argue that there is
adequate evidence of a cosmic creative lawgiver; one who is
personal; one who has nothing to learn from us about love and justice
- and thus is someone to whom I am accountable for the evil [aka
abscence of love & justice] which infests my heart and in whom I,
as a Christian, trust to pilot me home safely because I know that
I cannot do it.

I don't postulate I observe.



tagline: Calendar of Doom. swiftypete. swiftypete. the swiftypete. the
swiftypete blog. Peter Swift is swiftypete. life. existence. meaning.
reductionism. versus. christianity. richard dawkins. Peter Swift
is the swiftypete. The God Delusion.

post-script: I had intended to talk about "Cosmic Fine Tuning" as material
evidence of a creator but I've written enough already and it will have to wait
for another day.
post-post-script: There are some good articles on Genesis and Science in the
October 06 edition of "The Briefing" [issue 337]. Back issues can be obtained
from http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/ or http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/