No Random Coincidence? Or Wishful Thinking?

A comment on a Catholic Blog about the apparent intervention of God in subtle ways:

I have experienced this in my life in so many ways! I can’t even begin to tell you. One story I’ll share—though my eyes are welling up with tears at this very moment. My first husband died in a hunting accident--during the deer hunt here in Utah, after we had been married 15 years. At his funeral my friend’s daughter played the music to the country western song, “The Dance”.

Anyway, many years later, I was at an outside Jazz concert being held at Deer Valley Resort, when the jazz band said they usually don’t play country western, but they wanted to play this song tonight and proceeded to play “The Dance”. As I looked up to the mountainside, a huge buck watched through the forest at all of us gathered there. I was at that concert with my new husband, we had just gotten married. Any guesses where...right there at that resort looking over that mountainside. To me that was a wonderful message from what is a very thin veil between here and the afterlife. We’ve gone on to have a son who was born on September 2nd, the same birthday as my 1st husband’s nephew—his namesake, Daniel. You’re right, no event, when lived in faith, is random or meaningless.

If Internet accounts are representative, then so much of Christian witness seems to revolve around superstition; and finding meaning in the most tenuous connections.  Surely what this really illustrates is humans' amazing ability to find patterns in things around them, and their fondness to ascribe meaning where there is none.  I presume that this is comforting and that it gives people a sense of purpose, but that does not mean that their assumptions are correct.

But is this really just harmless nonsense?  Maybe it is.  And maybe if it provides people with comfort then who am I to disillusion them?  My concern is that this mindset leads on to other unsound connections and conclusions which may indeed be harmful.  Is it not better to base our decisions and our actions on reality rather than on wishful thinking?

Theocracy is bad news!

An article caught my attention on the BBC website today:

Men and women have been banned from shaking hands in a district of Somalia controlled by the Islamist group al-Shabab.  Under the ban imposed in the southern town of Jowhar, men and women who are not related are also barred from walking together or chatting in public. It is the first time such social restrictions have been introduced.

The al-Shabab administration said those who disobeyed the new rules would be punished according to Sharia law. The BBC's Mohamed Moalimuu in Mogadishu says the penalty would probably be a public flogging.  The militant group has already banned music in areas that it controls, which include most of central and southern Somalia. Somalia has not had a stable government since 1991.  The UN-backed government only controls parts of Mogadishu and a few other areas.

This is appalling.  Christians may say that this is a consequence of Islamic teaching and would not apply to a Christian theocracy.  But in a Christian theocracy it's likely that such things as homosexulaity would be outlawed despite being something that is innate in some people, and people's right to choose in many aspects of their lives would be significantly curtailed.

Theocracy is bad news, however and wherever it may occur.

Nietsche was right. There is no God.

OK, so it's an attention grabbing headline.  But having just re-read some of Nietsche's writings I am even more impressed by his ideas, which were truly innovative when he wrote them. 
For many this is a bleak conclusion, and they find it very hard to believe that there really is fundamentally nothing more to life than to reproduce and die.
But this need not be such a bleak conclusion if one accepts life for what it is, and models one's way of life on that premise.  It is possible to lead a full and satisfying life under this truth. 
Religion is so deeply ingrained into our culture that it is not something which it is either necessary nor desirable to try to oust immediately.  There will always be some who need the security of religious belief, and who will never be convinced of the alternative, which is arguably intellectually more challenging. 
However, religious extremism remains one of the major problems facing humankind.  And supplanting one  religion with another religion does not solve the problem.  There will always be those who seek violence, and whilst there are religions there will always be those who use it as the irrational justification for their acts.  Humanism does not breed suicide bombers...
I seem to be going though a phase when I feel particularly negatively towards religion.  I think it has outlived its usefulness, and I'm frustrated that people are so deeply indoctrinated that any amount of contrary evidence is dismissed, at the same time that any amount of supportive heresay and unreliable witness reports are unquestioningly accepted.  Far too frequently believers put up their own 'straw men' to discredit a non-religious view - often 'staw men' that fundamentaly misunderstand or misinterpret what Atheists actually believe.  I admit that many non-believers make no real effort to understand religion in any great depth, but it's my experience that the more conscientious atheists frequently tend to understand the religion of those with whom they argue to a greater depth than those who defend their religion.
What to do about all this though?  Hmm...

What is 'Eternal Life'?

In the Christian Bible it is written: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

But what is this 'eternal life'?  And why is it that there are so many differing answers to this question within the various sects and branches that make up Christianity?

One thing that most seem to agree is that the physical constraints, pain and suffering of this World are absent. But happiness requires sadness to it to be experienced, joy requires sorrow, lack of pain requires pain.  Take away one side of these equations and one is not left with something wonderful.  One is left with nothing.  If there is no contrast then there is no way to comprehend one's existence, at least not to a mind that bears sufficient resemblance to my current mind to be called me.  I cannot both be an individual and lack the constraints that this world includes.

I'm still puzzled.

Is Persecution a necessary part of Christian Mythology?

Is it just me or are there increasing numbers of stories about persecution of Christians in countries not known for this activity, such as the UK?  Most of the cases I've read do not appear to me to be anything like persecution.  The most that could be said about them was that there was unfair discrimination.  But is this narrative necessary to vindicate Christian perspectives in a secular environment?  Is having an imagined enemy being used to strengthen internal cohesion within Christian circles?  Often I've read Christian bloggers express the idea that opposition to their unusual views has provoked an adverse reaction and that therefore they must be doing something right.  It's a weird logic, but seems to crop up rather frequently.
When one tries to reason with these people, and show them what real full blown persecution looks like, one stock response is something like "Well if we don't do something to stop what is currently going on here then that is how we will end up too."  The thin end of the wedge argument.  But it makes no sense.  The environment and the circumstances are not related.  There is no proof that low level discrimination inexorably leads to religious persecution.
I remain puzzled.

The Bible and Submissive Women

Two ministers in the Church of England are refusing to backpedal from their reiteration of the biblical teaching that wives should “submit” to their husbands. The Rev. Angus MacLeay, and his assistant, Mark Oden, have come under fire in the media after they recently issued a pamphlet and sermon, that quoted Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (5:22-33) and said that old fashioned values would save marriage.
The quote from Ephesians states: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

I've been participating in a blog discussing the submissive role of women in the Christian church.  I find it revealing that without exception the proponents of female submission appear to be grey haired middle class and/or extreme right wing men.  I just cannot understand, try as I might, why anyone in 2010 should cling to the dubious theological figleaf that is Peter's mysogynist preaching - apparently because he was the vessel for God's infallible wisdom.
Count me out of this ridiculous religion!

Police and the Power of Prayer?

There was a rather bizarre and disturbing article in the UK Daily Express today.  Extract:

A SENIOR police officer claims he has slashed the crime rate in his home town – by praying. Inspector Roger Bartlett says the power of prayer has helped catch criminals, boosted crime detection rates and even reduced the number of ­people killed on the roads.  Insp Bartlett, who has 23 years’ experience, is ­“convinced” that faith work has had a positive impact on policing in Barnstaple, Devon.
The 44-year-old Christian arranges prayer meetings where locals are encouraged to pray in a bid to cut crime. He claims his prayers have been answered “on a number of occasions”.
The officer, who is part of the ­leadership team of the local Christian Policing Association, said: “For the past six years or so, I have reported to quarterly meetings of Christians from different churches in Barnstaple who want to pray for local policing issues."
“I have seen a number of specific answers to their prayers like the unprecedented Halloween night in the town when the police did not have to attend a single incident of disorder."
“Also, a prolific serial dwelling ­burglar who, after a significant series of offences, was apprehended in very unusual circumstances within three days of that group praying that he would trip up and be caught.”

This is not just another quirky story.  It is rather disturbing.  Firstly, what possessed the Police to allow this officer to appear in a national newspaper with a story about using supernatural assistance to solve crime?  Second, it is disturbing to know that there are police officers out there who engage in this kind of activity. 

I would be seriously worried if I knew that my local police force were trying to use the power of prayer to catch criminals.  Moreover, what does this say for the impartiality of the Police?  If I were a devout Hindu or Muslim, I would at best be suspicious that this officer would treat me with impartiality, and at worst I would be deeply offended by his behaviour.

If policemen practice their faith in private that is entirely their own business, but this should not be allowed to to become an apparent influence in the discharge of their professional duties.

Atheists can't think for themselves

This guy has done a series of videos on Atheism vs. Christianity. Interestingly it's not immediately obvious where he's coming from. Judge for yourself. Actually this is one of the more obvious ones. Have a look at his other videos.  Actually, now I come to think of it, he looks uncannily like one of my previous bosses...

Reading the Bible - Who'd have thought it!

I guess one of the few positive outcomes of being severely ill is the time to think and study whilst convalescing. Something for which my work would not normally allow me time.

I have become intrigued by religious motivation. It is simply beyond my understanding that intelligent well educated humans can regard wilful dimissal of reality or just plain refusal to develop as a virtue. For how else can those who call themselves true believers reconcile their belief with reality?

Something I've noticed particularly is that when some ardent believers are threatened, it is a common recourse to hide behind a Bible quote, rather than argue the point from simple reason. I cannot argue with them unless I familiarise myself with the context of the verses they quote, so I have found myself reading large parts of the Bible, and I've become quite familar again with many parts of it. (But before anyone reading this gets ideas - no, it has not converted me - in fact quite the reverse. It seems so very much less impressive than when I first read it all those years ago.

From a believer's perspective am I a sinner if I simply cannot, try as I might, find faith? Am I worse than someone who goes to Church every Sunday, who knows orders of service by heart, who behaves in every way like a true believer, and yet who does not really believe in their heart? I wonder how many humans really, really believe? How many have been through the torture and sacrifice that real faith requires?

My search for truth continues.

Does God exist? - (1) The Ontological Argument

Christian apologists are fond of "proving" that God exists using logic or philosophical arguments. Are the proofs mere word games, or is there more to them? One of the oldest widely disseminated arguments is the so called "Ontological" argument. In the late 11th Century St Anselm argued that we can deduce the existence of God from the mere idea of God. Just by thinking about what God is we can deduce that He exists. St Anselm's argument was:

By definition God is greater than which none can be conceived.
God can be conceived of as just an idea, or as really existing.
It is greater to exist than not to exist.
Therefore, God must exist.

Over time various philosphers have exposed the flaws in this argument.
Initially Anselm's contemporary, the monk Gaunilo, objected that logically one could prove anything exists by this argument. St Anselm's response was that this argument could only be applied to God, because only He could be perfect and unique.

But it was not until Emmanual Kant in the late 18th Century that the Ontological argument appears to be have been conclusively rebutted. Kant showed that the argument wrongly assumes that existence is a property. According to St Anselm the concept "God" contains contains the idea of existence. So the statement "God does not exist is a contradiction in terms. Therefore he must exist. But Kant claimed that existence does not add anything to, or define, a concept. To say something exists merely means that some object corresponds to the concept. Existence is not the same as a concept. Therefore it is not true that "God exists" must be true.

However, this argument is still used today in various forms, and with further justifications and explanations.

In future posts I'll summarize further arguments. Next will be the "Cosmological Argument"

Christopher Hitchens interviewed by Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell

Click on the title to listen to a great interview with Christopher Hitchens by liberal US Christian, Marilynn Sewell. A fascinating exchange in which there appears to be a meeting of minds. Are Unitarians really Christian in name only?

Apologists and epistemology

Why is it that Christian apologists are so entranced by arcane vocabulary? In almost any American Christian treatise one can guarantee there will be a free use of such words as "epistemology" (the theory of knowledge, especially the critical study of its validity, methods and scope), even where their use is really not required by the discussion.
Is this just an attempt to add authority to their arguments - by demonstrating that they have an educated background? For instance, just look at any of the blogs by the apologist Mariano for examples. This person is so wrapped up in his own intellect and importance, that whenever his view is challenged he tries to defeat his opponent by ridiculously verbose and pedantic responses.
The main problem for me is that too often these people use this form of writing to "explain" in complex terms a quote from the Bible for which there is invariably a much simpler, but less convincing explanation, which is more appropriate to the time it was written. Much wasted energy is expended trying to relate outdated writings to the present day.
It seems to me that part of the problem is the common belief amongst religious apologists that morality is absolute. But deeds and words in the Bible which may have appeared moral or self-evident at the time they were written, now often appear just plain weird, unless they are wrapped up in "interpretation" by these people, to make them palatable and reasonable to the modern ear. To take one of many examples - the possession of slaves was thought of as quite normal and acceptable in biblical times, and this is reflected in the Bible.

The Bible is also full of truisms and common sense advice on how to live in an enlightened society. At the time these ideas may have been revolutionary, and fired people's imagination. But are they still? I think not. Most of us now live in a far more sophisticated, educated and enlightened society. Maybe that is one of the reasons that the Bible has ceased to be such a compelling read, and why apologists have to resort to ever more inventive ways to recreate interest and belief.

"The Ten Commandments and Me" - Ann Widdecombe

I just watched a programme on UK Channel 4 with MP Ann Widdecombe explaining why she thought the Biblical Ten Commandments were so relevant, and suggesting that society today would be a better place if we took more account of them. There was a subtext running through the programme that Christianity had served our country well down the centuries, and we would be well advised to stick with it as an alternative to our current obsession with consumerism and celebrity.

I have no problem with a majority of the exhortations in the ten commandments. I do however have an issue with the notion that without these biblical commendments we would lose our way in the moral maze of life. Are we seriously to consider that "Thou shalt not kill" is a uniquely Christian idea, or that without it we would all feel that it was acceptable to kill

At this point fundamentalists are liable to quote Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot as examples of how atheism leads to people being "permitted" to indulge in mass slaughter. Oh pleease! They did not commit those crimes BECAUSE they were atheists. I am an atheist, but I don't think that gives me a licence to kill. It's a basic tenet of a civilised human society not to kill fellow humans. The same shared values apply equally to all the other non-supernatural Biblical commandents.

However, atheists and humanists are individuals rather than subscribers to a specific creed. I think we tend to see ethics and morals as self evident. There are many religions and cultures amongst humans around the World, but I'm not aware of any that have a markedly different view to the Christian code of behaviour. These values are absolutely not unique to Christians.
Perhaps we should nail our colours to the mast a bit more and declare what we all share in common. Hmmm... Something to think about. It is absurd to accept some Christians' position that we need to embrace their religion to be truly moral humans.

Which is the greater threat?

Which is the greater threat to Christianity - competing faiths or lack of faith?

Many Christians on the web seem to focus their attacks against atheism, secularism or materialism, and yet they are silent on Islam or any other competing religion. Surely these competing belief systems pose a much greater threat to the future health of Christianity than a simple lack of belief? Is the criticism of other religions taboo? Or is there real fear of reprisals? - Today’s “new atheists” are a pretty safe bet because whilst they may be capable of harsh invective, they are not by inclination violent, or prepared to die for their lack of faith.

I have to say that as an atheist in a Western democracy I am more concerned by the growth of Islam than anything the Christian Church could throw at me. Islam appears to have the potential to undermine the very fabric of our secular society.

Am I alone in this view?

Whistling down the wind

It's probably just as well that I don't have lots of people reading this blog. I'm a newcomer this arena, and judging from the reactions of many readers of more established blogs, there is much room for vilification, usually ill informed and/or plain unhelpful and rude.
Why are we all so polarised by religion? It's as if we are all supporting our own "team" and trying to score points. To read many of the critiques you would have thought they feel a whoop of delight each time they believe they have trumped the opposing "team".
It's interesting that Christian apologists appear to focus much of their spleen on atheists, instead of other (presumably competing) religions? Is that because they feel that questioning someone's sincerely held belief in a supernatural force is out of bounds? "If we question the basis for their deity then they will do the same to us, wheras atheists are fair game becasue there is no deity to compare." I know that sounds ridiculous, but that's how a number of those blogs come across, and I can see it's a tempting avenue to follow. Ah well, they are only words, and all this is just ephemeral. Does not stop me being happy that the Sun is shining brightly through my window.

Coming Out...

It seems extraordinary that in this supposedly secular and enlightened society, it should be so difficult to make the decision to declare myself an atheist. If, for instance, I tick a box on an application form to say that I am a Christian or a Muslim no one is surprised, but if instead I add that simple word "Atheist", it immediately seems to ring alarm bells - Radical - Freethinker - Independent - Nonconformist - Dangerous - Fanatical - Won't fit...
And yet I am no extremist, and honestly believe I lead a moral life, living by the creed that I should not do to anyone else what I would not like them to do to me similar circumstances. I am comforted by the knowledge that this is our one life, and that I need fear neither the wrath of a vindictive God, nor the futility of eternal immaterial "paradise".
Why do people feel so threatened by sincere discrete atheists?