EDWARD O WILSON; Lies,
Damned Lies and Statistics.

November 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is;
"No statistical proofs exist that prayer reduces illness and
mortality, except perhaps through a psychogenic enhancement
of the immune system; if it were otherwise the whole world
would pray continuously". Edward O Wilson.

I'm intrigued to discover what exotic statistics Wilson is demanding
which can be used to demonstrate 'contingent knowledge' (how life
might have turned out in other circumstances). How can Wilson assert
that prayer has no effect on a statistical basis? How do you know that
I wouldn't still be laid up with back pain? How do you know that I
wouldn't have had a heart attack last year or died in a car crash aged
19 but for someone's prayer?

I'm also intrigued to discover why Wilson has assumed that Christians
claim to be exempt from the common experiences of Mankind. I am
aware of no such assurance in the Bible - quite the contrary. If statistics
prove anything it is that Christians are not above the sufferings of Humanity.
Quelle surprise.

I'm intrigued too why Wilson assumes that prayer is exclusively about
physical healing of a 'name it and claim it' variety when all the Christians
I know would say that prayer is about conversing with God and not
neccesarily about getting stuff. In the words of Robert Law "prayer is
not an instrument for getting man's will done in heaven, but for getting
God's will done on earth". Wilson - it seems to me - has a formulaic
and one dimensional understanding of prayer, one that I would argue is
sub-Christian. I assume, for reasons that are unclear, that Wilson has
excluded from the equation the more usual phenomenon of prayer by
Christians offered in support of those health care professionals who are
there to care for their loved ones using their God given talents. And
Wilson has also excluded the phenomena Christians call "common grace"
where God blesses the unbeliever because he cares for all his creatures.

I'm baffled, but if the charge is that the bloated claims of some tele-
evangelists are to be laid [sotto voce] at my door, I can assure you that
I am sceptical about their claims too, but for a wholly different reason:
miracles in the New Testament are not miracles for miracles sake - they
are 'identifiers'. The miracles point the observer to precedents and
promises in the Old Testament and help them understand who the miracle
worker is. In the New Testament miracles are not mere padding within the
narrative - in reality they contain meaning beyond the event itself. Miracles
attest the revelation brought by the messenger. "Could this be the Christ?",
"who is this, that even wind and sea obey him?", "that you [all] may know
that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.....[he said to the
paralytic] pick up you bed and go home." etc etc etc. You have to test these
things against the claims they make for themselves not by Wilson's skewed
standard - 'supernatural healing on demand' - something Jesus never
promised because that was never the primary function of his ministry. I
should add that even when Jesus and his apostles did perform miracles this
did not automatically result in saving faith, the message of even the authent
-icated messenger could and frequently was rejected. Jesus went so far as to
say that some people will not "be convinced [even] if someone should rise
from the dead" Luke 16v19-31. Biblically speaking the real miracle is that
anyone comes to saving faith in Jesus at all..........and actually this is more
important than mere physical wellbeing.

So what test then can we apply which is congruent with Christ's claims?
It is a remarkable fact that within thirty years of Jesus' three year ministry the
message of the Gospel had spread from a tiny band of followers on the
Roman periphery to all around the empire. They had a sizeable community in
Rome itself - sufficiently large to be worth persecuting by the Emperor Nero
and strong enough to survive. The promise is not that Christians are exempt
from difficulties but that God's grace is sufficient to help us through them. If
you want statistical evidence of a miracle look at the growth of the apostolic
church and its survival - and its continuing survival today despite physical
persecution and intellectual ridicule.





tagline: calendar of doom.


Postscript: Quite coincidentally the November 2006 edition of
"The Briefing" [issue 338] majors on the whole 'health & prosperity'
gospel and offers a critique of it from a Christian perspective.
http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/
http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/

UNIVERSITY OF SCIATICA .

During the spell I was laid up with back pain I made
use of time off of work to read books, listen to audio
Cds and watch documentaries on TV and DVD. I call
this time in my life "The University of Sciatica"!

I've already mentioned Melvyn Bragg's "In our Time"
radio series in an earlier blog, but I want to flag up
a couple of other good sources I discovered during
my enforced 'sabbatical'.

'Amazon' are always a good resource if you are house
bound. Great books, reasonably priced delivered to
your door. If you are not a great reader why not try
an audio book? Push the boat out and try a subject
or author you've never heard of - who knows where it
might lead?! You will be the richer for having tried!
Amazon also have a great DVD rental service.

I stumbled across a company based in the USA who
provide university (college) style lectures in a variety
of media. I've bought a few courses in audio CD from
them over the last few months "CS Lewis", "Western
Civilization", "Russian Literature", "Natural Law", "Books
that changed the World", one on Chinese civilisation
"From Yao to Mao" and latterly "The Birth of the Modern
Mind - an intellectual history of the 17th & 18th centuries"!
These and many other courses are available from 'The
Teaching Company' http://www.teach12.com/ Check out their
e-catalog! Some advice; (1) I personally wouldn't order
the transcripts as the courses do come with some,
perfectly adequate, written notes. (2) For customers
outside the USA be aware that your local customs may
impose a charge [eg HMG Customs will levy a charge on
product worth over $50]. These are my only caveats -
this company is an excellent resource; I recommend them
to you.

As for Bible teaching I thoroughly recommend
www.shmedia.org.uk and www.thegoodbook.co.uk Maybe
you too will one day have an opportunity like mine to
create your own curriculum in your own learning experience!
Don't knock it! The Good Book Company also offer
correspondence courses to certificate level through the
"Open Bible Institute" [formerly known as the Moore
College Correspondence Courses]. I've done the 'Bible
Introduction' and 'New testament 1' [that's Mark's Gospel]
in times past and I'm presently having a crack at 'Old
Testament 1' [that's the Pentateuch]. The exams are
optional - but hey if you're going to do the work why not
go for the certificate?! http://www.open-bible-institute.org/

Just one more recommendation; I created my own
'University of Sciatica' t-shirt online at http://www.eshirt.it/
Honest, it's a really easy site to use and they have some
great designs which you can customise, or you can upload
your own image if you like.

Over the last couple of months I've been gradually
increasing the number of hours at work; initially doing
office based stuff and more recently doing clinical work
on the Children's Intensive Care Unit at 'Sonata Smith's
Hospital' in London. Oh, and earlier this month I managed
to do my previously aborted walking trip to the Lake
District. So things are definately moving in the right
direction.

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.

FRIDAY THE 13th!
Superstition & Destiny.

The problem with superstition is the implication that one's
destiny is ultimately controlled by forces the control of
which is the province of a professional magician class.
Being interested in Astronomy (not to be confused with
Astrology!) I entered my birthdate into a computer
programme checking on planetary positions. To my
surprise the Sun was in the constellation Leo - my
"birthsign" is supposedly Virgo. I don't mean the Sun
was on the margins of the two it was definately well
within the 'wrong' star sign!

Since Ptolemy the ancient astronomer defined the
Zodiac two and a half thousand years ago a phenomenon
called the precession of the equinoxes has shunted the
constellations along a month or so. It's like having a
calendar without the leap years - over time the months
end up out of synch. It is amusing to think that astrologers
claim to be able to read ones destiny but cannot get the
one objective starting point right!

I once put this to an astrologer friend of mine; "so what star
sign am I? Leo or Virgo?".......... "Typical b****y Virgoan!"
she replied!

The point is as a Christian I don't believe my destiny is ruled
by the date. I don't accept that the date defines who I am.
To give way to such fears is to deny that Jesus is Lord.
He is the one who defines who I am and he is the one
who controls my destiny.

MELVYN BRAGG; "In Our Time".

Melvyn Bragg has returned to BBC radio 4 recently with a new
series of "In Our Time". The format is a discussion by a panel
of experts chaired by Bragg exploring the history of ideas.
It is on at 9am on Thursday mornings for 45 minutes and a
shorter version is repeated the same evening at 9.30pm on
Radio 4. [92.4-94.6 MHz; 198 kHz].

I've always been a fan of this programme since I heard an
explanation of 'the standard model' of sub-atomic particles
which 'blew my mind'!

The subjects can be rather esoteric but they do provide
you with an introduction to topics you might never have
heard of otherwise. Sometimes they look at science,
sometimes it's history, other times it can be literature or
philosophy. I often find that "In Our Time" can inspire
me to look further into a given subject - you don't always
have to agree with a panellist's opinion to feel curious
enough to follow it up with some reading of your own.

Earlier this year I had to take some time off work because
of back pain. This period was a great opportunity to listen
to some of these programmes I'd recorded over the years.
I called this my "University of Sciatica"! [Don't you think that
sounds a bit like a midwestern college? I even had a T-Shirt
made up with this name - how sad is that?]

Anyway I am writing to recommend this radio series and to
let you know that you can access the archive of previous
discussions at the website below, either to listen on-line or
download in an mp3 format.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/inourtime/inourtime.shtml

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.

REVELATION: a Beast of a Book!

This Saturday at my church [St Helen's Bishopsgate in
London] we had a day long introduction to the book of
'Revelation' for the the Bible Study leaders [aka "SLOBS"!].
I am one of the small-group leaders and this was our
opportunity to collect our thoughts before launching
into this series of studies. Personally I have some misgivings
about using this book for a participatory Bible study but
that is the challenge I guess.

Revelation is a 'happy hunting ground' for all sorts of strange
teachings and cults.....and some despair of ever truly under-
standing it. The best advice I can give is, get the 'big picture'
before being drawn into discussions about particularities.
The key to any Bible book is often found in its broadest
perspective. The book of Revelation suffers from folk
rushing in to interpretation and application without first
getting a grasp of the broad structure of the book.....which
reduces it to a Christian version of 'Nostradamus'. Revelation
has a repeating cycle of sevens using symbolisms which
would make perfect sense to the first century readers.....
why else would John have written it? The themes the book
explores are relevant throughout history......why else did God
include it in the canon of scripture? The only substantial future
event yet to unfold is Christ's Return. We must guard against
the temptation to believe that our generation and our
nation has a exceptional role to play in this drama.

Can I recommend a couple of books? "Revelation Unwrapped"
by John Richardson: ISBN 0 9524894 2 2 (UK) or ISBN
0 646 28287 5 (AUS). This is only 74 pages long but it provides
a good handle on 'the big picture' and critiques less helpful
interpretations by well-meaning but off key Bible teachers
who are often certain and seldom right! Bible believing
Christians affirm "primary literal inspiration of scripture" but
some good hearted people assume that this must also require
literal interpretation of the text. This invariably causes
problems when we need to understand symbolic or figurative
language - of which 'apocalyptic' literature is full - and leads
to a wooden literalism which often misses the point the Bible
is teaching.

My personal view [which should not be thought of as having
any official status with my church] is that it is unfortunate that
some Christians are content to take their theology from pulp
paperback prophecy rather than draw it from the source of
God's Word.......this results in a 'group think' which is hard to
justify when put to the test. I do appreciate that there will be
people out there whose trust in the Bible is founded upon a
supposed correlation between the Bible's apocalyptic books
and specific contemporary world events; however I am compelled
to say that such naivety will not pass the test of time. Can I urge
you to look deeper within the Bible text for its real meaning?
If not, you risk founding your faith upon shifting interpretive
sand and not on the bed rock of God's Word. Be wary of
teachers who effectively take the Bible away from you and
render you dependant on their insights rather than help you see
God's Word for yourself.

Another book I would recommend is Graeme Goldworthy's
"The Gospel in Revelation". Again another surprisingly short
book [not to be confused with his similarly titled tome] which
is pure gold! ISBN 0 85364630 9. As a rule of thumb the very
best Bible commentaries are not written by academics for
academics, but by those with a pastoral background for pastors;
the Bible is pastoral theology when all is said and done!

Anyway if you fancy following along our studies in Revelation
these coming months you can access the material at
www.centralfocus.org.uk Better still if you are around London
why not sign up with one of our groups? Details can be found at
www.st-helens.org.uk Studies start 4th October with an
introductory talk by John Richardson - author of "Revelation
Unwrapped"!

tagline: The Beast, the Whore, the Lamb, the Mark, the Bible,
Revelation, revelation.

postscript: 6 Nov 06. I should have also recommended the
excellent BST commentary by Michael Wilcock "The Message of
Revelation" published by IVP. ISBN 0-85110-964-0.
Some people find Paul Barnett's "Apocalypse Now and Then"
helpful; published by Aquila Press ISBN 1 875861 41 6.

49er

Last week I had my 49th Birthday. To mark the occasion I thought
I would quote something which (I think) Bob Hope once said;

"When you are 20 you care desperately what other people think of
you. When you are 40 you are past caring what other people think
of you. When you are 60 you realise that other people were never
thinking about you in the first place".

I wish I'd thought of saying that!

In 1985 I spent a few months with "Youth with a Mission" at Holmsted
Manor in England doing a "Discipleship Training Course" (a mini pre-
Toronto Toronto if you get my drift). 1987-88 I went on to do a year
at The King's Lodge at the "School of Biblical Studies" under Charlie
Bassett which provided a much needed counter balance to the
previous charismania and helped give me a superb overview of the
Bible.

Have you noticed how a lot of parachurch organisations emphasise the
"youff" element? YWAM [pronounced why-wham incidentally], Youth
for Christ, Teen Challenge, Campus Crusade, Young Life etc to name
but a few. Now that I've hit middle age, what groups are aimed at the
likes of us?
I want to flag up the possibility of launching a new organisation called
OGWAM....Old Geezers with a Mission. If you think that this is a good
idea please send fabulous amounts of money to my off-shore bank
account!

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/

INTELLIGENT DESIGN:
does "infinity" exist?

I cannot help but feel that there are a number of
semantic misconceptions surrounding the concept
of "Intelligent Design" [ID]. The chief one being:
is ID scientific? And how do you define "science"?

The commonsense approach would be to say that
science is evidence based. Those of us who would
seek physical evidence of "design" would hope
that such evidence [if found] would [in principle] be
accepted as "scientific".

But it seems to me the debates surrounding ID
founder not on evidence but on one's philosophy of
science. For some, "science" is by definition natural-
istic and rejects the "supernatural" [a distinction
they themselves created], so on such a definition
any evidence of design cannot be science for that
very reason - the conclusion is built into the
definition. If they label something "supernatural"
it immediately makes it inadmissable as scientific
evidence. In a universe full of remarkable
implausabilities some are ruled in and others are
ruled out. The debate about "Creation Science" is
particularly acute in the USA where the state
education system is bound by the principle of
the separation of church and state.......and there
the debate is not science but the philosophy of
science. In short the presuppositions one starts
with determine the outcome - no wonder these
discussions are often debates of the deaf.

The concept of "Intelligent Design" stands or
falls on the principle of 'irreducible complexity'
[it is a falsifiable theory] and seeks to discover
biological systems [which can be studied objectively]
that cannot function in a precursor state [testable].
The classic example is the mousetrap comprising
spring, catch, trap and base plate; it cannot
function without all the components in place.
(It might have served a different function in a
precursor state - but the onus is on the naysayer
to state what that function was). A mousetrap
cannot evolve piece by piece - it is all or nothing -
hence 'irreducible complexity'. There are any
number of biological systems which fall into this
category.
Is it so unreasonable to ask about the origin of such
systems? At this stage no one is invoking God as
an explanation - we are merely raising biological
questions, but the materialist will invoke the
"slippery slope " argument. It is a paradigm they
are not prepared to explore.
Conversely, from a Christian perspective, the limit
in the creationist's argument is that even if we prove
the likelihood of a creator on material grounds, we are
still not able to identify conclusively who that Creator
is, not without special revelation anyway. So there is
only a limited mileage in the ID argument to start with.

But returning to the "Secular Fundamentalists" as
my chief target...someone will object and say that in
an infinite universe all sorts of improbable things will
happen. But it seems to me that one cannot
airily wave the word "infinity" over any given
problem and magic it away. You disallow one set
of improbabilities but admit this set (which
serves the same "god" function) because it fits your
preconceived ideas better - why is that?

Can I be provocative? Does "infinity" exist anyway?
Yes, I know it exists as a mathematical notion.
Yes, I know that space is infinite (albeit bounded). But
these are beside the point. Crucial to the materialists'
argument is not the size of the vacuum of space; what
matters to the materialist is matter [well, it would,
wouldn't it?] What matters is the stuff which makes
the world we inhabit and forms every biological sytem.

Is matter infinite? Well no it is not. According to the
Cornell University website the mass of the observable
universe has been calculated to be 25 billion galaxies
worth (and that includes dark matter). From this we
know that the universe will continue to expand - there
isn't enough mass (and so gravity) ever to draw
it back together. Indeed Cornell University go on to
say that the universe isn't big enough to contain
another Earth with another You! If we can quantify
the mass of the universe it is ipso facto not infinite and
does not contain the infinite possibilities you think it
should.

Given that - what is so unreasonable about flagging
up the "what if God does exist?" question?

T.I. CLOUGH & CO,
Solicitors, Bradford.
My first job.

When I left school in the Summer of 1976 I was nearly 19 years old.
My first job was as a trainee 'legal executive' with a firm of lawyers in
my hometown.

I worked in the criminal litigation department specialising in cases
being defended in 'Crown Court' - that is the 'superior' criminal court in
England & Wales (Scotland has a different legal system). And yes,
this is the court where the judge and barristers wear wigs and gowns!

I would read all the prosecution statements and write "a brief" giving a
synopsis of the case as I saw it. This would go to the barrister who
would defend our firm's client in court. I would also interview the
defendants and their witnesses. Sometimes I would instruct a private
detective to make enquiries on our behalf and sometimes I would do
the sleuthing myself - which I can assure you is no where near as
glamorous as it sounds! We covered cases right across the north of
England and the whole spectrum of serious crime.

When my cases came to court I would sit behind our barrister in the
well of the court and make notes on the evidence on their behalf. My
job was to ensure our side of the case flowed smoothly and that all
our witnesses were still on side; it is so embarrassing when your
own witness turns "hostile" once they get on the witness stand and
that's when the statement I took from them becomes critical in under-
mining their U-turn!

I spent four years doing this sort of work and I am grateful for the
insight it helped to give me into the ways of the world. To find oneself
mixing with the bad, the mad and the sad at the margins of our society
was a revelation.

I was once on a case out of town defending a guy on burglary charges
who, although he was out on bail, fully expected to be sent to prison
when his case concluded that afternoon. It was not unusual for our
clients to get themselves plastered in the local pub at lunchtime in these
circumstances. As it happened in this instance the judge was minded
to suspend his sentence. So there we were after the hearing with our
client breathing beery fumes over me explaining that he had no money
left in order to get home having spent every penny on booze. I gave him
some out of my own pocket. "I swear on my [sainted] mother's grave
I'll pay you back" he said. I told him not to worry about it. Experience
had taught me that sincerity is in inverse proportion to such declamations.
Of course I heard nothing more about it, until that is I bumped into
him a year or so later in our office reception. He was a habitual
burglar so that isn't altogether surprising. "I remember you", he said,
"I swear on my [sainted] mother's grave I'll pay you back [the money]".
Again I told him to forget it, "just write it off" I said. No, no he would
not hear of doing such a thing "I will pay you back". He never did.
I knew he never would. But isn't it curious? He could have accepted
my offer to 'write it off' - he didn't even have to say a thank you - all
he had to do was agree. But it is as if he was offered it as a free gift and
yet chose to steal it instead by making a promise he had no intention
of keeping. He could have walked away scot free but chose not to.
There is a parable in there somewhere.

Sometimes I'd be asked by other Christians how I felt defending
people who were obviously guilty. I would say that everyone is
entitled to have their day in court and put their side of the story.
Besides everyone is innocent until proven guilty, right? The
depressing thing was seeing the same old faces time after time,
recidivists doing "a life sentence on the installment plan!"

I quit T.I. Cloughs in 1980 and worked briefly as an oddjob man for
Harvestime Publishing before I started my nurse training. I had decided
that the law was not for me and I wanted to do something more
constructive with my working life - I know it sounds corny - but that's
why I moved into nursing as a career.

It is tempting to think crime is something that is always done by "the
criminal classes", the unsavoury element in society, the misfits and
antisocial types; not "decent" middle class people like ourselves.
I heard that T.I. Cloughs were closed down a couple of years ago after
the 'Serious Fraud Office' prosecuted some of the lawyers there. One of
them is still on the run and there is a warrant outstanding for his arrest.

How's that for irony?

The Path of Brighteousness.

Richard Dawkins coined the term "bright"
as a noun to describe those people who have
a naturalistic world view; perhaps he was
also alluding to "The Enlightenment" as his
source of inspiration, one which denies the
existence of the spiritual.

Brights reading this blog will have already
concluded that I am a "dull" because I don't
buy into the reductionist interpretation of
life.But before any brights verbally lynch me
let me flesh out where I am coming from, I
don't mind being insulted provided you get
your facts right!

As a Christian (and one who works in a
science based field)I have no need necessarily
to deny the naturalistic description of the
Cosmos. After all, all truth is God's truth.
The bright's worldview may be "the truth and
nothing but the truth" but I don't believe
for one minute that it is "the whole truth"!
Nor do I accept that to explain something is
the same as explaining it away. To allude to
CS Lewis, Richard Dawkins and all the other
brights 'describe a city and think they've
described the world!'

In turn I will, no doubt, be called a Creation-
ist and a Christian Fundamentalist. Guilty as
charged. I do believe God created the cosmos so
that would make me a creationist, wouldn't it?
(Although "creationist" has now acquired
connotations of "Young Earth Creationism"
which I do not buy into!) I do believe
in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian
faith so I must be a fundamentalist; which is
what that phrase originally meant in the early
20th Century. However I'm not altogether happy
with some of the baggage both these appellations
now bring in tow. Even before the word "fundament-
alist" became associated with terrorism I was
already more than a little uneasy about the anti-
intellectual connotations it brought with it.

As if this wasn't bad enough "Fundamentalism"
has also since come to require an acceptance
of a Pre-millennialist interpretation of the
Bible. For what it is worth I, and many like
me, are amillennialist. This will seem an
esoteric quibble until one grasps that upon
this millennial [kingdom] question our under-
standing of the nature of The Kingdom of God
turns. Amillennialism as a term is a misnomer
because those who hold to it believe that the
Kingdom of God was realised by Jesus (realised
in the sense of made a reality, albeit yet to
come in all its fulness when Christ returns).
The premillennialists believe that the Kingdom
has yet to come. To cut to the chase this means
that a significant constituency within this
group called 'dispensationlists' have a
particular interpretation of the "End Times"
[which effectively means an interest in
'conspiracy theories'] and an exalted role for
the modern state of Israel which has major
implications for how they interpret the middle
eastern conflict. 'Dispensationalism' has a
disproportionate influence upon the church in
the USA. I do not share their convictions on
these issues and I do share some of Dawkins
reservations about the role religion plays in
fuelling violence; though I believe the issue
is human nature not religion per se (because
people will always find a host of excuses for
first despising and then seeking to destroy
other people): the secular ideologies have
blood on their hands too! Murder is certainly
nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus, because
The Kingdom Jesus founded cannot be advanced by
the bullet or the bomb, indeed such methods are
fundamentally antithetical to its nature.

To conclude; the tele-evangelist Pat Robertson
describes amillennialism as "the end time
apostasy" no less! So I'm not convinced that
the fundamentalists Dawkins despises would
recognise me as one of their own, even if
Dawkins would!

So am I a fundamentalist or not? And am I a bright or a dull?
And are people that easily pigeonholed anyway?

It's a funny old world isn't it?



tagline: Dawkins. Fundamentalism. Reductionism.
Bright. Naturalism. versus. The Bible. Philosophy.
Religion. Science. Pat Robertson. Calendar of Doom.
Evangelical. Evangelicalism. Tele-evangelism.
Tele-evangelist. Creation. Secularism. Dull. New.
Premillennialism. Amillennialism. Postmillennialism. Realised
Millennialism. Christian Counter Culture. Church. State. Israel.
Morality. Grace. Dispensation. Dispensationalism. Theocracy.
Theonomy. Eschatology. Eschatalogical. End Times. Left Behind.
Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion.


postscript for postmillennialism! This theology
suggests that there is to be a glorious 'church
age' establishing the kingdom of God on Earth
after which Jesus will return. In its brashest
form this is also known as "Dominion" or
"Reconstructionist" theology. In my view, these
have a theocratic political agenda which by its
very nature stresses moralism as its driving
force rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
They also stress raw political power as a means
to bring in the kingdom and I suspect that this
too is antithetical to Jesus' Gospel message.

Dick Lucas, The Rector Emeritus,
St Helen's Bishopsgate, London.

Dick Lucas became the rector of St Helen's when it
was a moribund church in the early 1960's. Located in
the heart of the financial district in London the church
established a ministry reaching out to those who
worked in "The Square Mile". Over the following
decades the congregation grew and now has a sizeable
student work. In recent years St Helen's has started to
plant a number of churches in the London area and
continues to support Gospel work in the UK and
overseas. Founded on the conviction that when the
Bible is taught God's Word is heard, Dick was instrumental
in reviving the concept of "expository preaching"; in
fact the satirical website "Ship of Fools" described Dick
as 'the Pope of evangelical preachers"! I have benefitted
enormously from the ministry of the St Helen's team
over the 15 years I've been a member there.

Dick, who turned 80 last year, retired as rector a few
years ago but continues to do work for "Proclamation
Trust" and is a guest preacher at a number of evangelical
events around the world.
I heard a story about Dick: after he retired he started
attending an independent evangelical church near his home
(no doubt to give the new rector some elbow room). One
morning at this church one of the deacons, trying to suss
out where this Anglican clergyman fitted into the grand
scheme of things, quizzed him on the conferences he had
attended recently to gauge just how "sound" he was. [In some
circles the term 'anglican' and 'apostate' are virtually
synonymous!] Dick clearly impressed the deacon with the
range of "reformed" conferences he had been to and the
deacon was mightily reassured about the newcomer as a
result. Dick commented afterwards, "I didn't have the heart
to tell him that I hadn't just attended these conferences but
preached at them!"

This August - while our current rector takes a well earned
Summer holiday - Dick will be preaching each Sunday
morning on the theme of "Words of Comfort on Knowing
God". If you want to hear him in person our church is a
'stones throw' from "The Gherkin" in the heart of The City
in London and our morning service starts at 10:15am
[though as of September this will change to 10:30am].
Details can be found at http://www.st-helens.org.uk/ not just
for our Sunday services but also all the mid-week meetings
including the lunchtime services.
Alternatively talks can be obtained or downloaded from
St Helen's Media at http://www.shmedia.org.uk/

BERTRAND RUSSELL on
"The Conscience of Savages!"

August 2006's thought from my Agnostic Calendar is;

"Then you have to say one or other of two things.
Either God only speaks to a very small percentage of
mankind.....which happens to include yourself - or
He deliberately says things not true in talking to
the consciences of savages."
Bertrand Russell. "A Debate on the Existence of God"
(1948) in [sic]

Bertie doesn't seem to have really grasped the issue here.
God has spoken to all people - what they then do with that
revelation is the point of contention. We have already covered
some of this ground back in May's "Calendar of Doom" with
Carl Sagan so I won't repeat myself here. Suffice it to say
that the people Bertie calls savages are made in God's image
and enjoy His blessings and His general revelation.

As a Christian I do not expect less of "the savage" than I do
of an urbane European philosopher! And as a Christian I do not
expect more from the latter either. Indeed one might have thought
that Bertie would have learnt something from his own experience; in
his earlier career he professed some less than savoury opinions on
race and eugenics - in fairness that was a fairly common failing with
many such early twentieth century philosophers.

The point is; Bertie is uncomprehending of the possibility that
something has gone wrong at our end of the chain of communication
with God and we are morally responsible for that. [Think about this
issue from the perspective of International Law and cross cultural
concepts of justice - don't get too hung up on the cant of ivory tower
philosophers]. When people justify brutality to their own
moral satisfaction (in Auschwitz, Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia,
London, New York, Madrid, Abu Gharaib, Iraq, Beirut - any point of
the compass you care to name in fact!) does Bertrand Russell really
believe that there is nothing wrong with human consciences? Well, on
the strength of this quote apparently so..............................................




tagline; Calendar of Doom.

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'.