Christians don't have the monopoly on 'doing good', But ...

I'm beginning to think that people of no faith might have the monopoly on 'doing spiteful - or intolerant' as all too often I find them displaying something that denies anything of an  open-mind and indicates anything but rational thinking has been taking place.

It's been an interesting few days as I have listened to radio broadcasts explaining how 'delusional' Christians force children into acts of worship. I have heard supposedly sane people explain how there is no difference to be found between the fundamentalists acting across Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan and Christians. There have been people almost frothing at the mouth as they peddled something bordering on hate crimes and put on display their sad Christophobic utterances.

I have to be honest here and say that were any of those with whom I 'do church' to speak as many of the self-appointed, draw your own line and approve it by your own thinking and self-approved standards, folk I have been hearing of late then I would be encouraging them to think again.

The problem is that the majority of those I have heard on the radio (or read in print) seem to have many views and very little thinking at all and I'm beginning to think that rather than the old humanist/non-theistic chestnut which claims that being Christian requires us to leave our brains at the door, this now needs to be revised with the words 'humanists' replacing the word Christian:

I am so very sad at the stuff I have heard. "Perphaps," I think to myself, "They are the secular equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church rather than displaying humanistic  mainstream thinking (but I fear not!)". The labels so many ascribe and the pure venom and spitefulness they exude: Is it any wonder that as the world adopts a more secular approach it also become a lesser place than it was in terms of justice (for all I hear these days is 'settling scores' and 'revenge') morality (for 'self' is now an acceptable focus to have) and family (let's not go there!).

I am one who believes in tolerance and yet my tolerance is apparently met by people who wish to attack and abuse and destroy as an outworking of their intolerance. If I were to try and convert people to a theist approach to life with the same vigour, venom and irrational dialogue as that demonstrated in the words and writings of some of these 'free-thinking' then 'non-theists' I'd (quite rightly) be labelled a bigot and mindless fanatic and eschewed by the majority. Cloak it in humanism or focus upon those who you consider to be nnnnnnn (choose your own cause: homophobic, racist, mysogny, misandry, etc.) and you'll soon have the morons our with their tumbrels and scythes screaming for blood. Mob rule and unthinking madness seem to be the order of the day!

I have absolutes and values and standards and these, even when I'd wish to change them, stand fir,: They guide my engagement with others around me. Others around me wish to live in a world of pseudo-scientific bunkum (odd that, isn't that what some of those claim Christians do as we supposedly oppose science?) where they worship technology and science that all too often they don't understand. They see man as the key to successful and fulfilled living but take any good idea (and I don't mean anything religious - though such a stance would fit) and watch how man will change it to meet his own ends. 

Look at all the wars that the sheep will claim were all caused by 'religion' (man's ultimate rebellion against God) and see how many were caused by non-theistic people and their thinking. 

Look at the regimes and oppressions, the greed, the corporations and tell me: Are they theistic or humanist in their attunes, values and ambitions?

I don't attack humanists, I engage with them (often agreeing at much of their thinking - if thinkers they be) and I pray for them and I respect their desire to be as they are (all too often being basically self-serving and closed minded) and refrain from ad hominem, finger-pointing, bitter recriminations and name-calling. What a shame these 'open-minded' folk can't have the grace to do the same.

Blue Sky Thinking - Answers

Now here's one for theist and non-theist alike - for in both camps I find people who are so assured of why they should (and, sadly, why others shouldn't) because they have failed to engage with this 'first rule' thinking:

The Fallacies and Faith of the 'faithful AND faithless'

I have recently been amazed to find the often proclaimed 'arrogance of Christians' residing more aggressively and entrenched in those who claim to have no faith.

Time and time again I find people of faith reading books from those who oppose their belief on the grounds of reason, rational thinking and logic and yet rarely do I find the opposite taking place.

Time and time again I find those who claim that reason, research and evidence form the basis of their thinking and attitudes rarely exercise reason, never do research (unless this is the revised usage of what I call reading newspapers) and accept the flimsiest of evidence (anecdotal and unsubstantiated is always of course acceptable if it's not faith for some).

The reality is that there are those from both camps who dialogue, read, think and continue to engage in research. When I became a Christian I was challenged to collect a brain at the door rather than leave it as those of no faith often accuse. My faith demands that I continue to study and to challenge the Bible and the settings - I acknowledge consistencies and similarities with some of the Biblical narratives and other writings; I accept the psychological imperatives and definitions of faith and can agree that religion does indeed provide someone to thank when it goes well, plead with when it's going wrong and appease when 'under a curse'. That said I also acknowledge the empirical evidence before me and test it with eyes that seek explanation in both science and faith. I look at the stuff I can understand and seek to find answers to that which I cannot - acknowledging the intelligence of those 'ancients'  and trying to see what their cultures might have added to the mix too!
Would that those on the other side of the divide did the same.

Recently I encountered two sides of the same 'ignorance' coin on the same day in the one episode - I find myself returning to the people and their comments and, on each replay, find myself more frustrated and (to be honest) just a little angry with them each time - Let me explain:

The Christian
This person was firmly stuck in a position whereby their faith was something fixed and what they believe was totally dug in and fixed. They 'knew what they believed' and they were not going to be shaken from it. The problem was that what was on view was an immature faith in a long-term believer and this was all due to the place they worshipped in. You probably know the type of place - great sermons on a dozen passages, a Bible with about twelve books and a faith that move mountains and a reality that made its members walk around them!

They were rigid in their belief and vehement in their rejection of 'God haters' - the primacy of the Word they neither knew or understood was central - and yet they could neither defend it or show themselves to be able workers for it. 'In the name of the Lord' is a great way to travel - but the words need to be fleshed out and take upon themselves the incarnacy that God's Word did!

There was no willingness to debate - just to shout people down and assumed to work on the basis that by repeating trite little Christian mantras and closed statements that others would 'be saved'.

The Atheist
Were keen to tell me how open-minded they were and yet even had it been open (and believe me it wasn't) there was so little of it (a mind) that chewing gum and walking would have cause a core failure!

As the conversation progressed I realised that they kept using the word evidence and yet when prodded and probed it was obvious that their evidence was gleaned from the laboratory that is the pub, newspaper and that oft quoted source: The Friend. They (mis)quoted from their prophets and gurus and (in the name of balance I'm sure) also misquoted Bible and other 'religious' stuff too. They appealed to reason but there was little of it. Pointed to facts, but they were misquotes and error-filled utterances. They spoke of research and yet had never really even read the basic books of either faith (for theist and non-theist are but two opposing faiths - God or Science, free or under authority, self-pleasing or God-pleasing - divide it as you will).

What was sad in these encounters was that both adversaries worked from a position of entrenched ignorance. There was no research into what they or those with whom they disagreed believed (or didn't) and thought. There was no ability (or apparently willingness) to engage in dialogue and find out what the other side believed - just a reliance on the belief that merely opposing, and writing off, the other side was enough.

What was really sad was that neither of the people had even the basic tools to be able to defend their own beliefs and this, in my book (and God's too) is probably the most sad part of the whole.

The way forward (for theists and non-theists):
Please remember that faith engaged in without involving your brain is useless and hollow religion - it is the stuff that ignorance grows in to choke everything that God (or not god) would have us celebrate and renders us an impotent and limited, superstitious and empty people.

So read the books that form the basis of your belief (And where this is the real Bible - read ALL of it, there's 66 books you know!)

Read books about the things you think challenge our faith and find out for yourself.

Read books by people you might think oppose your faith (and people) and dialogue with them, then

Dialogue with people who believe what you believe and check your understanding (and theirs) and, that done, engage in dialogue with people you think you don't disagree with.

Remember that no one group has the monopoly on being good, acting wrongly, being stupid, having closed minds, bias, ignorance, stupidity, blind faith, selfishness, exclusivity and best of all - being just plain ugly people!

How can we say we love God when we hate the image of Him made visible in the person before us?


I scribbled this over a period of weeks - revisiting and rethinking about how what I'd encountered informed and challenged my own position and attitudes. I think that this might be the right time, as we reach the end of 2013, to post it.

Nominal Christians - Nominal Atheists

I often find myself reflecting upon the fact that I meet so many nominal Christians; you know the sort I'm sure - they're the people who might have been baptised but have never 'done' church in any shape, size or form.

I also meet a number of Atheists and find that whilst some will say they are 'Agnostic' the majority merely state that they are 'Atheists' and it is in this that I can find much humour and even more for me to take comfort in. The reasons for this are not mocking any of the groups but are rational and real (so the skeptics, agnostics and atheists can take joy too!) so I know I'm a crowd-pleaser today! ;-)

1. Some I meet are 'proper' atheists in that they have denied God (or gods) and have studied and formed a deep and (in their mind) rational and yet closed system to support their views. Some are willing to dialogue on level playing fields and engage in two-way street stuff, but this is (rather sadly) the exception to the breed. They are not only atheists but are also people with no religion and no beliefs in anything but the material and absolute.

2. Other I meet claim to be atheists but this is actually nothing more than a 'catch all' label to collect up their 'there is no god' stance and if there were perhaps a little more informed, or perhaps a little less lazy, would declare themselves to be merely 'agnostic'. These are the nominal atheists who hold beliefs in an eternity and life after death (but with who and why and what for?) and cling to some of the stuff that supports (and demands) a deity; the people who are rather 'just confused' and living under a flag of convenience. Perhaps best called 'syncretic unbelievers'!

3. The third group are people who are unhappy at being labelled 'atheist'; they are merely people who don't believe in a god. These people take the (most un-atheist like) position of 'whatever floats your boat!' 'You want to believe in a Creator God? That's fine as long as you don't expect me to have to do it too! You want to believe that there's nothing? Then for you there probably is, but don't try to drag me into your ways of thinking either!' The feel as aggrieved by fundamentalism whether it be theist or atheist (there's a cartoon on the blog about that from last month

4. I do meet some who make up a fourth (minority) group and these are true agnostics - they don't believe and want to wear the 'agnostic' badge with the subtext - 'so talk to me - I'm open either way!'

Now the interesting thing for me is that every now and then a nominal Christian, someone who has never had a church affiliation or been a member or can even tell you the stories, talk about Jesus and the like, comes to faith as an 'Atheist'. The 'no god' community tend to parade these people and yet, upon the most cursory of discussions it become clear that they are like a friend of mine who joined a political party a few years back so that they could resign their membership to make a point. Loads of gesture and yet no substance. The don't have a convert, they merely have a new member!

And the good news for me is that when I find a 'proper Atheist' coming to faith I find someone who has read, dialogued (and yet rarely openly discussed) and made a firm and conscious decision to take up that stance, putting it all aside to embrace the concept (and then for them the reality too) of their being a God! Now this is what the other side of the debate claim for every nominal and yet for the ersatz atheists and many of the agnostics too, this is not a defection but a taking up of belief (and when it happens the other way - and it does do that - the same applies too).

The good news is that I find more 'full on' atheists being convinced in our direction that I do the other way round and those I do meet who have become non-theists have rarely been theists- they just happened to be born in the UK and were baptised (or often these days not) and wore the nominal badge because they weren't Islamic, or Hindu or any of the other faiths. The 'Christian' was like a string of garlic to protect from other gods and labels!

So take heart: The many 'no faith' types are merely waiting to hear the good news from the Church or waiting to be convinced by the New Atheists and their disciples. The invitation is made, the challenge for people hearts and minds // minds and hearts is before us.

Who you gonna call?

What you gonna do?

Who are you going to affirm of deny today?

So many non-Atheistic Atheists

Interesting conversation with chap who notice that my book was concerned with the issue of atheism.

'I'm an Atheist,' said he and then went on to explain the reasons why he disagreed with my views (which he hadn't actually asked for or heard, he'd merely assumed the dogcollar meant what he assumed to be was what he assumed it to be!).

As is often the case, he threw in the fact that he believed in faeries and the like because that explained the odd happenings in his home. 'Could be Poltergeists,' said I (helpfully); and amazingly he agreed!! So I continued:

'So you're not really an Atheist at all! You can't be because you believe in the existence of the supernatural and in beings that have less credibility than Jesus, who is (after all) a person of historical substance.'

His response was that he could, 'Believe in the supernatural and maintain his belief that there is no God without conflict!'

So I asked him to define supernatural realms where mischievous spirits (of faeries) could exist and yet god, any god, couldn't (and explain the 'why,how, what' and the like to support it).

Taking up his coat he merely said, 'I don't choose to believe and that, for me is enough!' And with was vanished into Rugby!

Totally agree :-)

So farewell 'Agnostic of Rugby' (or should that be confused?) - thank you for the dialogue, distraction and company.

May God (who I'm sure does exist) bless you as you continue life's journey :-)

Science? Merely a branch of Theology!

Today, as the Church of England commemorates the life and work of William of Ockham, Priest and Philosopher, it behoves me to (once again) point out that despite the erroneous posturing of many with their thinking over:

Evolution (Darwin)

Heliocentric theories (Copernicus and Galileo - neither of whom were persecuted for their theories by the way)

And many other myths (wait for it):

Science, Philosophy, rational and logical thought are merely little more than (comfortable) bedfellows with theology and people of faith (well some of them anyway!).

I have often regarded 'Ockham's Razor' as one of the handiest and sadly least used means of resolving difference and establishing fact.

In it we have the essence of empiricism and the practice of assuming that simpler explanations are, all other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones is the basis upon which much good, and long-lasting, science is done.

Yippee for William of Ockham - yet another brick in the wall of reality that shows scientific, rational thinking lives comfortably with theology (and people of faith) within the physical world.

Now if only some of those around us who have to invent complex explanations for the very things that are defined simply (but perhaps they might need them to remove their blinkers - theist and atheist).

Happy Wednesday

A Sceptic's View - a guest writes:

An interesting contribution to the discussion from someone I dialogue with regarding the issue of faith, belief, atheism and reason. An account of their position as a self-confessed Sceptic:

"Firstly, nearly all atheists are sceptics, and their atheism comes from their scepticism.
Secondly most sceptics are frightened of ghosts and of alien abduction. Sceptics never get haunted and they are never abducted, and hence it keeps us safe.

Atheists are sceptics that focus on belief in God, other sceptics (such as Carl Sagan) focus on aliens, others on alternative medicine (my friend at work asked someone that believed in homoeopathy “what do you call alternative medicine that works?” His answer – medicine), others on astrology, others on ghosts, others on creationism, others on history revision, others on moon landing conspiracies (we didn’t land on the moon – it was all filmed in a warehouse on Mars), others on…

You get the idea.
What is most interesting is that, from a sceptics point of view, all of these are the same. We say the same things to each of the groups and get the same response back.
We ask for evidence of X.

Believers of X say The evidence is there if you look at it in the right way.

We say that evidence should be objective and amenable to science.

Some say that X is perfectly scientific and there is evidence but the scientific community refuse to listen. Others say that there are reasons why, despite making claims that seem testable, science will never be able to investigate the claims (I think this is called special pleading).

Then we go round in circles.

What is actually more interesting to me is that some of these believers follow this in debating other believers but don’t apply the same process to their own belief. A sceptic is basically somebody that applies this to all their own views. What is often overlooked by people is that sceptics are nearly always tougher on their own views than they are on other peoples.

Many years ago, before I was calling myself a sceptic, My wife came up to me to tell me that she had heard a news report that showed I was right about something (I can’t remember what it was now).

The next thing I said was “what was the sample size?” and she knew, she had remembered because she knew I would ask.

Even when being shown I was right I tested the evidence.

How to become a believer
In our garden there is a group of three pots. One of these keeps on falling over.
I can imagine someone coming to our house and saying that fairies are doing this. Being a Sagan believing sceptic, I say show me the evidence. They say all you need to do is take the step of belief and then you will see.

Having been worn down by many people saying just take the first step and it will all be clear, I decide to take that step this time. I decide to believe.

Now I believe in fairies.

Now I have evidence for fairies every time that the pot falls over.

If a sceptic now comes to me I will point out that it is their lack of belief that is preventing them from seeing the evidence right in front of their eyes. I can say this because I used to be a sceptic and then saw the truth. They go to the trouble of checking the pot and see that it is a little top heavy and, with our dogs running round it will be the one most likely to fall. I point out that I can remember a time when it was upright and later on its side and I am sure that the dogs were not in the garden at that time. Can they explain that?

As they can’t provide a scientific explanation of this particular time, this proves that their science cannot explain everything and the only rational thing to do is continue with my belief."