London For a Secular Europe 2010

Following quote is from the BHA wbsite. I was there. I think I'm just visible in the photo. It was an interesting Rally. Very good natured and civilised. There was a sprinkling of more outlandishly dressed attendees, and a few slightly oddball remarks, but most were distinguished only by their very straightforward views and unremarkable dress.

Around 250 demonstrators met Sunday outside Westminster Cathedral and marched to the Italian Embassy, as part of the second annual London for a Secular Europe demonstration.

Addressing the rally, the organiser from the Central London Humanist Group, Marco Tranchino, said:

'The Vatican is not an immutable fact of life. It is relatively young, and in fact it is younger than the current pope. The Vatican was created by the dictator Mussolini on the 11th of February 1929 with the Lateran Treaty and since then it has gained more and more financial privileges and power on the global political scene interfering insidiously in debates in the United Nations, especially against women's rights and gay rights.

‘11th of February 1929; and that's why on the anniversary of the Lateran Treaty, every year in Rome, thousands of Italians demonstrate against the Vatican and its undemocratic power. We are here to support the Italian demonstration "NO VAT" [“No Vatican”] and demand a secular Europe. We don't ask this of the Vatican. We ask it of the democratic institutions, and that's why we are here at the Italian embassy.

‘Last year, the British Humanist Association, together with the Central London Humanist Group, was the first to support this event in solidarity with the Italian march.’

Representatives from several organisations spoke at the rally, including Bob Churchill, Head of Membership at the British Humanist Association. Afterwards he said:

‘The speakers addressed many issues of anti-secularism, including state-funded ‘faith’ schools in the UK, increasing EU collusion with religious institutions, ‘blasphemy’ laws such as the new law in Ireland, and the impact that is felt around the world when European states compromise on the basic principles of secularism.'

Pastor denies the existence of God

I saw an article on Ekklesia about a Dutch Pastor who has recently been allowed to continue in his ministry by his regional Church body despite making it clear that he did not believe the existence in God.

In 2007, Hendrikse hit the headlines with the publication of his book titled "Believing in a God that does not exist: the manifesto of an atheist pastor" (Geloven in een God die niet bestaat - manifest van een atheïstische dominee). In the book, Hendrikse distinguishes between believing in God, which he affirms, and believing in the existence of God, which he rejects. Instead, he refers to God as, "happening".

The article goes on to state:

Research published in 2006 by the ecumenical broadcaster Ikon and the Free University of Amsterdam found that one in six clergy of the Protestant Church were either not sure about or did not believe in the existence of God.

The survey also found that clergy aged 35 years or younger tended to be the most certain of God’s existence, while clergy aged between 55 and 65 years were the most unsure. "Overall, the survey indicated that the younger generation was more 'pious' than older generations," the research report said.

With acknowledgements to Ecumenical News International.

I've frequently wondered whether it is an urban myth that some priests come out of theological college as non-believers, and yet go on to successful ministries. Where's the integrity? There are plenty of ways to provide spiritual and emotional support to the community without living a lie.

Charles Kingsley on the fossil record

I've just recalled a quote by 19th century writer Charles Kingsley, made when discussing his doubt that God made the World complete with fossils that appear to predate the Creation. He said:

"I cannot believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie"

I find myself ever more perplexed by the creationist view of the World. How can they sustain their belief, when every argument they produce can so easily be refuted, and when the much simpler rational solution is so blindingly apparent? I find it scary that people can be so intent on self delusion. Of what else are they capable?
I do acknowledge, however, that most Christians do not subscribe to such a literal view.

An alternative version of the Noah's Ark story

Yes, I know it's silly, and there will be Christians who will explain away Genesis as a parable or as an analogy. My concern is the way that apologists selectively discount those parts of the Bible that do not make sense and still feel enabled to quote other parts that do appear to make sense. I am reminded of a colleague who assembled many details about his birth, and sent them away for a horoscope reading. Back came a 4 page horoscope "specially compiled" using his details. He was delighted with the result and showed it to me. He had used a yellow highlighter to show all those parts that were "true" and he said he was amazed at how they had got it so right. I pointed out to him that although there was an even distribution of yellow throughout the piece, only about 30% of the the report was coloured yellow, and that many of the highlighted sections could equally apply to me or many other people. I then used a different coloured marker to show the statements that applied to me, and guess what, the ratio was about the same! Interestingly he was not convinced by my argument. I wonder which parts of the Bible he highlights and which he does not?

Uniformitarianism...

Yes, it really is in the dictionary. Came across it completely by accident. Guess there's a weird sort of parallel with people who apparently can open up the Bible at random and find words that seem to fit the need.
"Uniformitarianism - the concept that the earth's surface was shaped in the past by gradual processes, such as erosion, and by small sudden changes, such as earthquakes, rather than by sudden divine acts, such as Noah's flood."
Cool huh?

New dinosaur discovery solves evolutionary bird puzzle

From a news report today:
"A newly discovered fossil has shed light on why a group of dinosaurs looks like birds, say scientists. Haplocheirus Sollers may not be as charismatic as T. rex or as agile as a pterodactyl but it's thought to solve a long standing puzzle. Researchers believe its short arms and large claw show how bird-like dinosaurs evolved independently of birds."

Those who promote "Intelligent Design" are keen to point to apparent gaps in fossil records, and a lack of evidence of transitional creatures. This seems to ignore the fact that new fossils are being found all the time, and each time something like this is found it fills further gaps.

By contrast, I am not aware of any new discoveries which add weight to the argument for Intelligent Design. Any suggestions?

The man with the lottery ticket...

Here's a thought - A man who buys a lottery ticket is aware that it is incredibly unlikely that he will win, and he may also realise that logically he would be better advised to spend it on something tangible rather than "waste" it on a very unlikely hunch.

But surely what this man is indulging is his need for hope for something greater than his everyday existence. Each week he selects his numbers, and each week he does not win, but he still keeps going back week after week to buy another ticket, because he has not lost hope that one day he will win.

Each time he checks the results he fantasises about what it would be like to be that winner. He also worries that the week he does not buy his ticket will be the week that those numbers come up. So he works himself inot believing that he must follow this path.

Isn't religion a bit like that?