No Brainer!
Antonio Gramsci was an Italian Marxist thinker in the mid 20th century who defined two revolutionary concepts - revolution by manouvre and revolution by position. Revolution by manouvre is the physical action of taking power. Revolution by position is the act of establishing oneself within the conciousness of the individual that makes the revolution inevitable. The Gramscian concept is that one reaches a point where "The Revolution" becomes so common-sensical in the popular imagination that it comes about of its own accord. The key concept here is this - when does something cease to be 'ideological' and become 'common sense'?
Let me give a current example: In conversation with someone I will call CH the Middle Ages were an unmitigated intellectual disaster fostered by Christianity. The self evident fact - so far as he was concerned - was that Christianity had plunged Western Civilisation into the Dark Ages. And the "Fact" was that his enlightened view of life had brought a revival of learning out of this Dark Age. Moreover that this interpretation of history was "Fact"!
Vainly I pointed out that Dark Ages were due to the incursion of pagan invaders and that the Christian Church was the repository of classical learning. I also gently intimated the Carolingian and 12th Century 'Renaissance' don't fit his simplistic interpretation of history - but ignorant of these - he was inclined to consider these considerations mere bluff.
The point I am driving to is this. So far as he is concerned it is a "No Brainer" - Christianity brought about the Dark Ages - he does not need to engage his brain... the Gramscian revolution has occured... what requires careful thought has been bypassed...
To be a Christian one needs to engage ones Brain.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Friday, August 19, 2011
Atheist Promises.
Atheists are campaigning against the Brownie oath (they obviously don't have anything better to do with their time!) and to that end a number of letters have been exchanged in the press. This letter in The Telegraph, London, 16th August 2011 particularly caught my eye.
"As an atheist former Brownie who questioned the overwhelmingly selfless message of servitude in the promise, I suggest replacing the words 'to love my God' with 'to love myself'."
I think that is more revealing than the author realises!
Atheists are campaigning against the Brownie oath (they obviously don't have anything better to do with their time!) and to that end a number of letters have been exchanged in the press. This letter in The Telegraph, London, 16th August 2011 particularly caught my eye.
"As an atheist former Brownie who questioned the overwhelmingly selfless message of servitude in the promise, I suggest replacing the words 'to love my God' with 'to love myself'."
I think that is more revealing than the author realises!
Monday, April 11, 2011
NIALL FERGUSON, THE PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC AND THE RING OF TRUTH . Last night on Channel 4 we had the final part of historian Niall Ferguson's analysis of "Civilization: Is the West History?" Over the preceding weeks he has pointed to several (what he calls) 'killer apps' which enabled the West to progress in a way that other cultures could not; these included Competition, Science, Medicine and Democracy. Last night we had "the Protestant Work Ethic". I believe that Niall Ferguson is correct in saying that part of the West, that is Europe, has learnt to despise the work ethic while other cultures have embraced it. Do we live to work or work to live? I believe we live to be active and creative. Furthermore he is correct in his observations that the Chinese have more Christians than the whole of Europe! As a European Christian I think that is wonderful! Truly wonderful and a remarkable testimony to the work of the Holy Spirit despite decades of persecution the church there has prospered! Christianity can no longer be perceived as a western phenomena - and quite rightly so - because it never was! In contrast to the USA Europe has sold its share of the Christian heritage for a mess of pottage. As a Christian from Europe I can see the consequences of such a dereliction. Niall Ferguson is perceptive in parts; he alludes to a loss of faith within European society which now requires the affirmation of all beliefs, no matter how crackpot, on the basis that no belief is any better than any other. He has hit the nail on the head there. But his solution is not however a reaffirmation of Protestant Christianity but a renewal of faith in ourselves.... hmmm. The problem there is that Europe has already been engaged in an experiment of substituting faith in God for faith in humanity. At that point, you will realise, that Niall Ferguson has lost the plot of his own argument. There has never been a loss of faith in ourselves! Indeed that faith has always been humankinds fundamental problem. The reality is once one abolishes God one also abolishes Man! What do I mean by that? I will argue that the intellectual environment cultivated by Protestant Christianity (which is shorthand for genuine, biblical, apostolic Christianity) has had a number of positive consequences for society and that when we abolish God and substitute Man in his place negative consequences follow. I will follow up this train of thought in the next couple of months by looking at 'Democracy & the Rule of Law' and 'Science' as attributes of a Christian worldview under a series called 'The Ring of Truth'. But for now I will confine myself to the 'Protestant Work Ethic'. I will add one caveat; Capitalism is not the ultimate goal of the Gospel of Jesus Christ! From his description I do not believe Niall Ferguson really understood the work ethic. Properly understood it is not about living driven lives under the whip hand of God. It is actually about realising that a believer can glorify God in whatever sphere of life they find themselves in. One does not have to become a priest, monk or nun in order to serve God, one can do so whatever one's circumstances if one's attitude is right. The split between the sacred and secular was broken down and different sets of spiritual and moral standards no longer applied... all are equally called. This is what was meant by the Protestant/Biblical concept of "the priesthood of all believers"; which is also a democratising influence but I'll leave that for another day! Why is it particularly a 'Protestant' work ethic? The priesthood of all believers implies a degree of activism, involvment and personal engagement which will be absent in societies which defer to a special priestly caste. I recall a commentator once saying that the difference between north and south America was that in the south the settlers came to find paradise and in the north they came to build it! That has more than a ring of truth about it. Critics of 'religion' will point out that it reduces the believer to helpless passivity. Well, there may be more than a ring of truth to that too. But I will argue that Protestant/Biblical Christianity is the exception which proves the rule. The work ethic founded on the Creation mandate of Genesis is hardly a call to inaction!
Thursday, November 04, 2010
What is the opposite of Love? I've often heard people say 'hate' in reply to this question. Someone suggested 'indifference' - which is a little closer to the mark - but I believe the answer is 'self-love'. True love recognises that one is NOT the centre of the universe and that the focus is other than oneself. True love questions our concepts of 'autonomy', 'individuality' and 'self-actualisation'. If we primarily see relationships as a means to self-fulfillment then that is not love.
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Heidelberg Catechism.
How are you right with God?
Only by true faith in Jesus Christ (1).
Even though my conscience accuses me
of having grieviously sinned against all God's commandments
and of never having kept any of them (2),
and even though I am still inclined toward all evil (3),
nevertheless - without my deserving it at all (4),
out of sheer grace (5),
God grants and credits to me
the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ (6),
as if I had never sinned or been a sinner,
as if I had been as perfectly obedient
as Christ was obedient for me (7).
All I need to do is to accept this gift of God with a believing heart (8).
1. Romans 3 v21-28; Ephesians 2 v8-9.
2. Romans 3 v9-10.
3. Romans 7 v23.
4. Titus 3 v4-5.
5. Romans 3 v24; Ephesians 2 v8.
6. Romans 4 v3-5; 2 Corinthians 5 v17-19; 1 John 2 v1-2.
7. Romans 4 v24-25; 2 Corinthians 5 v21.
8. John 3 v18; Acts 16 v30-31.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Militant Cleric's Anti-British Rant in School Assembly.
Imagine the scene where a cleric uses the platform at a school assembly to denounce the British presence in his country and calls for his co-religionists to make a stand with those the army is oppressing there.
At the time of this incident the army had been deployed a couple of years earlier to help preserve the peace in that country and were taking casualties in this thankless task. There was some feeling that the army should be pulled out and the inhabitants "left to get on with it!" The cleric made his appeal to a secondary school in Bradford which had a large number of third and fourth generation immigrant children from his home country. Their forebears had come to the city to work in the textile industry which depended upon cheap labour - and that was recruited from overseas. The important point is that the cleric clearly felt that these children owed some loyalty to the old country and its people.
On the whole the children were baffled rather than inflamed by the impassioned plea by this man and I don't think anything much came of it. The cleric was not invited back to the best of my knowledge. By this time the children had only the most tenuous links with the old country and any resentment towards "the British" had long since dissipated. The stories of their grandparents and great-grandparents having to walk from Bradford to Leeds to attend their nearest place of worship had passed into folk memory and any resistance to such buildings being developed locally (as alien impositions on the national culture) had long since ceased. Additionally the immigrants had by now their own well established school system. That did not mean, however, that the immigrant community felt entirely at ease among the host nation and there persisted some unspoken but genuinely felt fear that the conflict in this cleric's country could have serious repercussions on British streets. Occasionally their children would be asked to disperse quickly from school on the basis of rumours circulating in the city that they would be targetted by gangs of local youths. This was probably sheer paranoia - but even so it was a genuinely felt fear, met with a resolve not to retaliate in kind.
A casual observer in the secondary school would have found one aspect quite jarring however. Each class did not have a number to designate them; the classes were given the names of those who had been "martyred". Such markers emphasised to the children that, as well assimilated as they were in English culture, there were differences too. Yet the names of the martyrs were carefully selected to emphasise their English rather than foreign origins. In fact the names of the schools themselves were carefully chosen for the same reasons as if there was a concerted effort not to create an immigrant subculture but to stress that they too belonged and wished to belong. So the challenge to the host community is how welcoming they choose to be.
From an Evangelical perspective (and that is where I am coming from!) there is a much deeper challenge - do we see our role as defenders of our national culture against faiths perceived as 'foreign'? Are we inclined to feel threatened, defensive or even angry? In the face of militant calls from hostile clerics do we really believe that the Gospel is our greatest asset or do we think we need to take "action" of some other sort?
Oh! by the way the assembly I described was in 1970 and the cleric was an Irish Catholic priest.... I was there that day! This was St George's Secondary School on Cliffe Road and I was there for two years in "Anne Line" and "Henry Morse" before moving onto St Bede's in Emm Lane, Bradford.
post-script, 12th March 2010.
I came across this BBC article on local history which ties in nicely with the comments above, just click on the link... http://www.bbc.co.uk/bradford/content/articles/2006/05/12/bradford_irish_katie_feature.shtml
Imagine the scene where a cleric uses the platform at a school assembly to denounce the British presence in his country and calls for his co-religionists to make a stand with those the army is oppressing there.
At the time of this incident the army had been deployed a couple of years earlier to help preserve the peace in that country and were taking casualties in this thankless task. There was some feeling that the army should be pulled out and the inhabitants "left to get on with it!" The cleric made his appeal to a secondary school in Bradford which had a large number of third and fourth generation immigrant children from his home country. Their forebears had come to the city to work in the textile industry which depended upon cheap labour - and that was recruited from overseas. The important point is that the cleric clearly felt that these children owed some loyalty to the old country and its people.
On the whole the children were baffled rather than inflamed by the impassioned plea by this man and I don't think anything much came of it. The cleric was not invited back to the best of my knowledge. By this time the children had only the most tenuous links with the old country and any resentment towards "the British" had long since dissipated. The stories of their grandparents and great-grandparents having to walk from Bradford to Leeds to attend their nearest place of worship had passed into folk memory and any resistance to such buildings being developed locally (as alien impositions on the national culture) had long since ceased. Additionally the immigrants had by now their own well established school system. That did not mean, however, that the immigrant community felt entirely at ease among the host nation and there persisted some unspoken but genuinely felt fear that the conflict in this cleric's country could have serious repercussions on British streets. Occasionally their children would be asked to disperse quickly from school on the basis of rumours circulating in the city that they would be targetted by gangs of local youths. This was probably sheer paranoia - but even so it was a genuinely felt fear, met with a resolve not to retaliate in kind.
A casual observer in the secondary school would have found one aspect quite jarring however. Each class did not have a number to designate them; the classes were given the names of those who had been "martyred". Such markers emphasised to the children that, as well assimilated as they were in English culture, there were differences too. Yet the names of the martyrs were carefully selected to emphasise their English rather than foreign origins. In fact the names of the schools themselves were carefully chosen for the same reasons as if there was a concerted effort not to create an immigrant subculture but to stress that they too belonged and wished to belong. So the challenge to the host community is how welcoming they choose to be.
From an Evangelical perspective (and that is where I am coming from!) there is a much deeper challenge - do we see our role as defenders of our national culture against faiths perceived as 'foreign'? Are we inclined to feel threatened, defensive or even angry? In the face of militant calls from hostile clerics do we really believe that the Gospel is our greatest asset or do we think we need to take "action" of some other sort?
Oh! by the way the assembly I described was in 1970 and the cleric was an Irish Catholic priest.... I was there that day! This was St George's Secondary School on Cliffe Road and I was there for two years in "Anne Line" and "Henry Morse" before moving onto St Bede's in Emm Lane, Bradford.
post-script, 12th March 2010.
I came across this BBC article on local history which ties in nicely with the comments above, just click on the link... http://www.bbc.co.uk/bradford/content/articles/2006/05/12/bradford_irish_katie_feature.shtml
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Equality Law and the Christian Church.
Three amendments proposed by Baroness O'Cathain were approved by the House of Lords last night. These will help the church to continue to employ Christians ............. for the present.
There are two very important things to emphasise about the churches' stance over this issue, especially to those who will regard these amendments as an illiberal step. Firstly, the Christian church is committed to the principle of equality, St Paul wrote that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3 v28), there are no race, class or gender inequalities in God's eyes. Equality was a Christian concept long before our liberal establishment claimed it as its own invention. Our society describes as "community" ever more tightly defined and exclusive groups but the church is one of the most diverse communities within the UK today - in fact it is one of the few which genuinely draws together people from a diverse range of backgrounds. Thinking specifically about gay issues it is important to say that the church does employ gay people, but as with all Christian disciples, their lives must reflect the ethos of the organisation they will directly or indirectly represent, again St Paul said on these sorts of issues "and such were some of you" (1 Cor 6 v11).
So, secondly, the point of the churches' opposition to the government's Equality Bill is not to exclude some people groups from being employed by the church but rather to allow the church to employ professing Christians. The issue at stake is the independence of the church from state control.
It is a curious anomaly that our liberal establisment has excluded political parties from its Equality Bill; and indeed it would be incongruous if the law required such parties to appoint people who did not share their beliefs. Given that, is it so unreasonable for churches to seek similar consideration?
Three amendments proposed by Baroness O'Cathain were approved by the House of Lords last night. These will help the church to continue to employ Christians ............. for the present.
There are two very important things to emphasise about the churches' stance over this issue, especially to those who will regard these amendments as an illiberal step. Firstly, the Christian church is committed to the principle of equality, St Paul wrote that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3 v28), there are no race, class or gender inequalities in God's eyes. Equality was a Christian concept long before our liberal establishment claimed it as its own invention. Our society describes as "community" ever more tightly defined and exclusive groups but the church is one of the most diverse communities within the UK today - in fact it is one of the few which genuinely draws together people from a diverse range of backgrounds. Thinking specifically about gay issues it is important to say that the church does employ gay people, but as with all Christian disciples, their lives must reflect the ethos of the organisation they will directly or indirectly represent, again St Paul said on these sorts of issues "and such were some of you" (1 Cor 6 v11).
So, secondly, the point of the churches' opposition to the government's Equality Bill is not to exclude some people groups from being employed by the church but rather to allow the church to employ professing Christians. The issue at stake is the independence of the church from state control.
It is a curious anomaly that our liberal establisment has excluded political parties from its Equality Bill; and indeed it would be incongruous if the law required such parties to appoint people who did not share their beliefs. Given that, is it so unreasonable for churches to seek similar consideration?
Sunday, January 17, 2010
AVATAR.
Yesterday I went to seen the movie "Avatar" in 3D - stunning movie with very imaginative CGI. It was a long movie but I didn't feel that it was long, the action kept me entertained right the way through.
The storyline about the Military-Industrial Complex destroying the nature loving/tree hugging inhabitants of the beautiful world of 'Pandora' is ho-hum. I suppose it is meant to be a parable for our times. The takeaway message is that all living things are fundamentally interconnected and that by diminishing nature we ultimately only hurt ourselves, Humanity needs to live in harmony with Nature.
This is all very charming of-course, but the problem I have with such nature worship is that the Nature we have in mind is not nature as it truly is, cruel and arbitrary, but a sanitised version that is majestic and fundamentally good. Maybe the message is 'computer generated' too!
I must go find a tree to hug now!
PS 2nd Feb 2010. I see that Avatar has been nominated for best film Oscar - I guess it will win for its sheer novelty value. The CGI is very good in 3D but I did hear the plot described as "Pocahontas in Space" which I thought was very apt until I heard Mark Kermode call it "Dances with Smurfs"! Priceless.
It seems to me that there is a lot of nonsense about Avatar being the most succesful movie ever on the basis that it has taken the most in ticket receipts - firstly cinemas are charging a premium for the 3D aspect of Avatar, so the price is inflated at the outset and more importantly monetary inflation naturally means that the most recent films gross "more". In 1940 a cinema might charge $1 to see "Gone with the Wind" to go see a comparable movie now will cost much more. The best measure of a film's popularity is not ticket receipts but total number of tickets sold - on this measure ("bums on seats!") "Gone with the Wind" is easily the winner.... by a very long way!
Is 3D the future of cinema? I hope not! Because that would imply that the cinema will focus on the visuals at the expense of good storytelling. 3D is fine for a movie which is all about the visuals, but the best films are rich in plot and characters. I hope the visual component does not displace these other dimensions, I really do!
Yesterday I went to seen the movie "Avatar" in 3D - stunning movie with very imaginative CGI. It was a long movie but I didn't feel that it was long, the action kept me entertained right the way through.
The storyline about the Military-Industrial Complex destroying the nature loving/tree hugging inhabitants of the beautiful world of 'Pandora' is ho-hum. I suppose it is meant to be a parable for our times. The takeaway message is that all living things are fundamentally interconnected and that by diminishing nature we ultimately only hurt ourselves, Humanity needs to live in harmony with Nature.
This is all very charming of-course, but the problem I have with such nature worship is that the Nature we have in mind is not nature as it truly is, cruel and arbitrary, but a sanitised version that is majestic and fundamentally good. Maybe the message is 'computer generated' too!
I must go find a tree to hug now!
PS 2nd Feb 2010. I see that Avatar has been nominated for best film Oscar - I guess it will win for its sheer novelty value. The CGI is very good in 3D but I did hear the plot described as "Pocahontas in Space" which I thought was very apt until I heard Mark Kermode call it "Dances with Smurfs"! Priceless.
It seems to me that there is a lot of nonsense about Avatar being the most succesful movie ever on the basis that it has taken the most in ticket receipts - firstly cinemas are charging a premium for the 3D aspect of Avatar, so the price is inflated at the outset and more importantly monetary inflation naturally means that the most recent films gross "more". In 1940 a cinema might charge $1 to see "Gone with the Wind" to go see a comparable movie now will cost much more. The best measure of a film's popularity is not ticket receipts but total number of tickets sold - on this measure ("bums on seats!") "Gone with the Wind" is easily the winner.... by a very long way!
Is 3D the future of cinema? I hope not! Because that would imply that the cinema will focus on the visuals at the expense of good storytelling. 3D is fine for a movie which is all about the visuals, but the best films are rich in plot and characters. I hope the visual component does not displace these other dimensions, I really do!
Saturday, November 03, 2007
"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.
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.
Friday, June 22, 2007
EVANGELICALS:
ELECT or ELITE?
The book "Father and Son" by Edmund
Gosse is an autobiographical account
of Gosse's relationship with his
evangelical father while growing up
in the mid nineteenth century. Some of
his observations and experiences resonate
with my own spiritual journey so it was a
fascinating and touching story. In many
respects his criticism of evangelicalism
(his parents were part of the Plymouth
Brethren) are ones I would endorse.
Gosse is right to point out the dehumanising
nature of religion when innocent pursuits
are arbitrarily counted as 'sinful'. And it
wasn't that Gosse's father was meaning to
be a dreadful ogre - his actions were meant
for the best - and that is the real issue isn't it?
What turns a reasonable, loving, caring father
into an ogre if it wasn't his evangelicalism?!
I believe that we can pinpoint the problem:
there is just a great a danger in living above
the line of God's Word as living below it!
(A crucial distinction between 'evangelicalism'
as a sociological phenomenon and the ideal
of the body of evangelical doctrine to which
all evangelicals ostensibly hold).
What does that distinction mean in practice?
The Pharisees of Jesus' day were orthodox,
upright people whose lives, in many respects,
were praiseworthy. The problem is in their
desire to remain unsullied by the world they
hedged themselves around with religious
requirements which God never asked for.
Not surprisingly they came to see themselves
as God's elite and that fed their spiritual pride.
Spiritual pride is an abomination to God.
They didn't just presume they were 'okay' -
they presume that they are better than okay!
Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, said
"Beware of practising your righteousness
before other people in order to be seen by
them..." Jesus challenges us with the question
'who are you trying to impress?' It is perfectly
possible to have orthodox beliefs but use
them in a self serving way - God says to
such people 'you sought the admiration of
your contemporaries.... and that is the only
reward you will get!'
It isn't wrong to seek to love and serve God
with all your heart - but it is possible to want
to do this in such a way as to be admired by
other people for it! And that poisons our
relationship with God. It is the comparing
which reveals the true state of our hearts.
Are we doing something solely to please God
or to compare ourselves favourably against
others?
'Others may be content to serve God to "X "
extent', we say, 'but I can do better'. Gosse's
father confused being "elect" with being "elite",
just as the Pharisees did, and as we continue
to do! Not surprisingly when life does not
follow the contours they had confidently
predicted - they felt some degree of grievance
against a God who had not come good on the
bargain they had foisted on Him; holding
God to account for promises He had never
made. God will not be so manipulated.
Their sense of grievance at the 'sacrifices' they
had made to no effect on a God impervious to
their demands is testimony to the nature of
the bargaining relationship they had with God
belying the evangelical doctrine they wore as
a badge of distinction!
It is not surprising that Jesus preferred the
company of prostitutes and swindlers because
they understood what the sheer grace of God
means: they had no spiritual pretensions, they
were 'elect' (that is, chosen by God to receive
His mercy) but they also knew they were not a
spiritual 'elite' - and that is the point every
true Christian needs to come to; where do you
really put your trust - in Christ's righteousness
alone or your own self righteouness?
There is no middle ground.
I should know because I was once full of it... my
spiritual credentials! Now I'm an evangelical:
elect but not "elite"!
ELECT or ELITE?
The book "Father and Son" by Edmund
Gosse is an autobiographical account
of Gosse's relationship with his
evangelical father while growing up
in the mid nineteenth century. Some of
his observations and experiences resonate
with my own spiritual journey so it was a
fascinating and touching story. In many
respects his criticism of evangelicalism
(his parents were part of the Plymouth
Brethren) are ones I would endorse.
Gosse is right to point out the dehumanising
nature of religion when innocent pursuits
are arbitrarily counted as 'sinful'. And it
wasn't that Gosse's father was meaning to
be a dreadful ogre - his actions were meant
for the best - and that is the real issue isn't it?
What turns a reasonable, loving, caring father
into an ogre if it wasn't his evangelicalism?!
I believe that we can pinpoint the problem:
there is just a great a danger in living above
the line of God's Word as living below it!
(A crucial distinction between 'evangelicalism'
as a sociological phenomenon and the ideal
of the body of evangelical doctrine to which
all evangelicals ostensibly hold).
What does that distinction mean in practice?
The Pharisees of Jesus' day were orthodox,
upright people whose lives, in many respects,
were praiseworthy. The problem is in their
desire to remain unsullied by the world they
hedged themselves around with religious
requirements which God never asked for.
Not surprisingly they came to see themselves
as God's elite and that fed their spiritual pride.
Spiritual pride is an abomination to God.
They didn't just presume they were 'okay' -
they presume that they are better than okay!
Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, said
"Beware of practising your righteousness
before other people in order to be seen by
them..." Jesus challenges us with the question
'who are you trying to impress?' It is perfectly
possible to have orthodox beliefs but use
them in a self serving way - God says to
such people 'you sought the admiration of
your contemporaries.... and that is the only
reward you will get!'
It isn't wrong to seek to love and serve God
with all your heart - but it is possible to want
to do this in such a way as to be admired by
other people for it! And that poisons our
relationship with God. It is the comparing
which reveals the true state of our hearts.
Are we doing something solely to please God
or to compare ourselves favourably against
others?
'Others may be content to serve God to "X "
extent', we say, 'but I can do better'. Gosse's
father confused being "elect" with being "elite",
just as the Pharisees did, and as we continue
to do! Not surprisingly when life does not
follow the contours they had confidently
predicted - they felt some degree of grievance
against a God who had not come good on the
bargain they had foisted on Him; holding
God to account for promises He had never
made. God will not be so manipulated.
Their sense of grievance at the 'sacrifices' they
had made to no effect on a God impervious to
their demands is testimony to the nature of
the bargaining relationship they had with God
belying the evangelical doctrine they wore as
a badge of distinction!
It is not surprising that Jesus preferred the
company of prostitutes and swindlers because
they understood what the sheer grace of God
means: they had no spiritual pretensions, they
were 'elect' (that is, chosen by God to receive
His mercy) but they also knew they were not a
spiritual 'elite' - and that is the point every
true Christian needs to come to; where do you
really put your trust - in Christ's righteousness
alone or your own self righteouness?
There is no middle ground.
I should know because I was once full of it... my
spiritual credentials! Now I'm an evangelical:
elect but not "elite"!
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Laodicea.
This is the seventh (and final) church in the opening chapters of
the Book of Revelation; and it is here that the Autumn term of
"Central Focus" concludes. Our Bible Study resumes in January in
chapter 4. These seven churches are being evaluated by the Risen
Christ; they all face challenges; a couple are commended, most
are censured, none are without hope.
It seems to me that unless "religion" results in meaningful, self-
critical reflection then such belief systems can only ever serve as
'flags of convenience' for whatever tribe we identify with. It marks
out "us" from "them" in our tribal conflicts and the values we
ostensibly hold to are in reality subverted to other ends. We take
God's name in vain when we claim his endorsement of such conflict
and we will have to give an account for that one day. The chief
problem of the Laodicean church is its complacency and self
satisfaction - the horrifying thing about it is that Jesus Christ is
outside seeking admission! This is a church where the 'life' of the
organisation happily ticks over and Christ is not at the heart of
it.
The challenge is to examine our own hearts and see where we
have subtly excluded Jesus and settled for mediocrity. It is that
lukewarm notion of 'faith' that the Lord finds so nauseating. "Be
zealous and repent" he says. This is not to be zealous for the sake
of being zealous - this is to be passionate about Jesus and the
priorities he has. Of course being a 'zealot' is so un-english and is
so uncool; but maybe that is the cost of discipleship for us!
This is the seventh (and final) church in the opening chapters of
the Book of Revelation; and it is here that the Autumn term of
"Central Focus" concludes. Our Bible Study resumes in January in
chapter 4. These seven churches are being evaluated by the Risen
Christ; they all face challenges; a couple are commended, most
are censured, none are without hope.
It seems to me that unless "religion" results in meaningful, self-
critical reflection then such belief systems can only ever serve as
'flags of convenience' for whatever tribe we identify with. It marks
out "us" from "them" in our tribal conflicts and the values we
ostensibly hold to are in reality subverted to other ends. We take
God's name in vain when we claim his endorsement of such conflict
and we will have to give an account for that one day. The chief
problem of the Laodicean church is its complacency and self
satisfaction - the horrifying thing about it is that Jesus Christ is
outside seeking admission! This is a church where the 'life' of the
organisation happily ticks over and Christ is not at the heart of
it.
The challenge is to examine our own hearts and see where we
have subtly excluded Jesus and settled for mediocrity. It is that
lukewarm notion of 'faith' that the Lord finds so nauseating. "Be
zealous and repent" he says. This is not to be zealous for the sake
of being zealous - this is to be passionate about Jesus and the
priorities he has. Of course being a 'zealot' is so un-english and is
so uncool; but maybe that is the cost of discipleship for us!
Friday, September 01, 2006
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/
"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/
Friday, July 28, 2006
Niall Ferguson and
"The War of the World".
Earlier this week the revisionist historian Niall
Ferguson concluded his TV series on Channel 4
in the UK. His contention is that the conflicts of
the 20th Century were not ideological in nature
but fundamentally ethnic. Human ability to
treat other people as "alien" enables them to
indulge in "ethnic cleansing" without the empathy
of fellow feeling. How are we able to treat each
other as if we have come from another planet?
I often wonder if at heart all evil is actually a lack
of empathy - the inability to put oneself in someone
else's shoes.
I have to say that Ferguson's thesis seems to me
to be a re-hash of Samuel Huntington's "The Clash
of Civilizations" rather than anything desperately
original as the TV promo promised. [I've looked at
Huntington's ideas in a blog back in March '06 if
you're sufficiently interested!]
Having concluded that the world's conflicts often
defy simple explanation Ferguson goes on to attempt
a simple explanation = 'too many young men needing
economic prospects'. This is rather too simplistic in
my view, I think (for what it's worth) that young, poor
men are not so much the cause of conflict as the
unwitting foot soldiers of events outside of their
control. But then why should a historian have any
particular insight into the future?
Ferguson's final remarks which made an appeal to our
common humanity were belied by the lack of common-
ality his programmes highlighted. As a Christian I
can understand his attempt to appeal to some higher
concept which will enable us to treat each other as fully
human, but such a concept -it seems to me- cannot be
centred in humanity - we must look beyond ourselves
to truly understand ourselves. Indeed Ferguson's
appeal rests on the ability to empathise - yet to build
a philosophy on ourselves, as all Humanists do, is
actually a subtle denial of the need for empathy. How
often have you heard someones crime described as
"inhuman"? Or have you called someone "inhuman"?
The truth is what we pointlessly call "inhuman" is in
reality all too human. By calling it "inhuman" we are
making a vain attempt to distance ourselves from it
by "alienising" it [what I call "otherising" it!] I am a
Christian because the Gospel of Jesus helps me see
the world as it actually is, and Jesus does not seek to
comfort me with silly notions of my own innate
goodness but confronts me -and us all- with our
alienation from the One who is the source of all love.
"If only there were evil people some where insidiously
commiting evil deeds and it were necessary only to
separate them from the rest of us and destroy them.
But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the
heart of every human being." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
in 'The Gulag Archipelago'.
"The War of the World".
Earlier this week the revisionist historian Niall
Ferguson concluded his TV series on Channel 4
in the UK. His contention is that the conflicts of
the 20th Century were not ideological in nature
but fundamentally ethnic. Human ability to
treat other people as "alien" enables them to
indulge in "ethnic cleansing" without the empathy
of fellow feeling. How are we able to treat each
other as if we have come from another planet?
I often wonder if at heart all evil is actually a lack
of empathy - the inability to put oneself in someone
else's shoes.
I have to say that Ferguson's thesis seems to me
to be a re-hash of Samuel Huntington's "The Clash
of Civilizations" rather than anything desperately
original as the TV promo promised. [I've looked at
Huntington's ideas in a blog back in March '06 if
you're sufficiently interested!]
Having concluded that the world's conflicts often
defy simple explanation Ferguson goes on to attempt
a simple explanation = 'too many young men needing
economic prospects'. This is rather too simplistic in
my view, I think (for what it's worth) that young, poor
men are not so much the cause of conflict as the
unwitting foot soldiers of events outside of their
control. But then why should a historian have any
particular insight into the future?
Ferguson's final remarks which made an appeal to our
common humanity were belied by the lack of common-
ality his programmes highlighted. As a Christian I
can understand his attempt to appeal to some higher
concept which will enable us to treat each other as fully
human, but such a concept -it seems to me- cannot be
centred in humanity - we must look beyond ourselves
to truly understand ourselves. Indeed Ferguson's
appeal rests on the ability to empathise - yet to build
a philosophy on ourselves, as all Humanists do, is
actually a subtle denial of the need for empathy. How
often have you heard someones crime described as
"inhuman"? Or have you called someone "inhuman"?
The truth is what we pointlessly call "inhuman" is in
reality all too human. By calling it "inhuman" we are
making a vain attempt to distance ourselves from it
by "alienising" it [what I call "otherising" it!] I am a
Christian because the Gospel of Jesus helps me see
the world as it actually is, and Jesus does not seek to
comfort me with silly notions of my own innate
goodness but confronts me -and us all- with our
alienation from the One who is the source of all love.
"If only there were evil people some where insidiously
commiting evil deeds and it were necessary only to
separate them from the rest of us and destroy them.
But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the
heart of every human being." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
in 'The Gulag Archipelago'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)