On the ninth day of Christmas ...

Apple having put aside their Twelve Days of Christmas giveaway this year has given me the chance to get people thinking, praying, learning, listening (to some great music) and finding app's they might not have otherwise done: Day Nine ...


The Church
Today the Church celebrates a few people, two of whom are Basil the Great (no, not the mouse detective) and Gregory of Nazianzus - a couple of Bishops (and teachers of the Faith) from the late 4th Century - an eighteenth century  Russian Monk, Seraphim of Sarov - and a more modern twentieth century, South Indian, Bishop and Evangelist, Vedanayagam Samuel Azariah.

So what did they ever do to be remembered:

Basil, Bishop in Cappadocia, was one of those who opposed heresy wherever it was found (especially Arianism and Apollinarianism), is regarded by many as the father of the monastic way of life and was a great theological thinker of his day. He is celebrated by both Easter and Western churches.

Gregory, Archbishop of Constantinople, brought things Hellenistic into the emerging Church and was force behind the development, nay, establishment) of Trinitarian theology in the Church. He and Basil were two of the 'Cappadocian Fathers' (Gregory of Nyssa, being the the third man). Another man the traditional Church venerates.

Seraphim of Sarov was one who taught that the goal of the Christian life was to be in communion with the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox believers quote him thus: "Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved." And other hero of both East and West.


Bishop Azariah apart from being the first Indian bishop was a pioneer of Christian ecumenism in India and was opposed by Gandhi's for his work in uniting Christians and removing differences between nationals and the colonial, ruling, classes. A real hero of the faith who stood for the Gospel before nationalistic demands and desires. Only remembered in the Western Church, but that's the Eastern Church's loss!


The World
Whilst most of the Western world has taken down the lights and put away the baubles and decorations leaving the tree to be collected along with the other detritus of Christmas the other half of the world is looking forward to celebrating Christmas as the Magi finally reach the Christ child.

In Turkey the government are banning the use of lifts in an attempt to diminish waistlines - now that's a desperate measure indeed!

Another 'crewels' ship, this time containing around 1,000 would be immigrants have been rescued after the crew left the vessel on autopilot and abandoned ship (and them). Apparently there has been an increase in Kurds and Syrian migrant activity of late and yet still nothing on the IS front as far as the popular press is concerned.

Relationships between Israel and Palestine are looking to decline as Palestine moves closer to membership of the International Criminal Court (ICC), something that will open the door to membership of many other bodies which will in turn strengthen the case for Palestine as an independent country with rights. A real chalet prayer and a 'watch this space' moment as 2015 begins to unwind.

Russia receives a string rebuff as Lithuania joins the euro zone and, as Russia continues its 'strong-arm' posturing in the region, makes a firm statement of intent and allegiance. Another place to be watching and praying over, especially as the first military fatality of 2015 is announced in Ukraine! The Russian economy is in trouble (and so is the West if they turn off the gas apparently) and Putin will need to put on a show to keep things the way he wants - Ooo'er.


A giveaway?
I am almost always amazed at the tripe that some of the big-haired, gold bedecked, flashy toothed American TV preachers spout. These people who pay themselves multiple thousands of dollars for peddling unbiblical tosh to a bunch of people who more often than not cannot afford it - the promise of prosperity and health and success because you're a Christian (you know the stuff I'm sure) - so it's rather nice to find somewhere offering Greek and Hebrew courses and downloads of great material for iPads and reader and the like.

Take a look here and see what takes your fancy and make 2015 a year when you extend your theological thinking skills


Something to listen to
Do you have friends you'd like to convince  that Christianity might not be for them? The look no further than this:

And for those who like a laugh at the arrogance of blind prejudice rebranded as science defeated by something else:

Lord God,
whose servants Basil and Gregory proclaimed the mystery of your Word made flesh,
to build up your Church in wisdom and strength:
grant that we may rejoice in his presence among us,
and so be brought with them to know the power of your unending love;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.Amen.

Hello Vicar, "I've sort of lost my doubt!"

In conversation with an atheist acquaintance I was surprised to hear them say that they'd become an agnostic, no longer being sure that God (or gods perhaps) did not exist. Feeling just the beginnings of that ever present sin, pride, at my part in influencing them, I found myself brought back to the earth with a bump! The reason for this was their attributing this new found state to Richard Dawkins book 'The God Delusion'

"The more the book attacked the beliefs, the more I considered them and found something coherent and consistent and this has got me thinking and I'm not so sure there's not something I haven't wanted to notice before."

We'd spoken on a few occasions about the many 'nice' Christians they'd encountered and seen them merely constrained to the 'mad but nice' bin; people who lived in the world of 'I want it to be' who pinned their hopes on someone whom, having been invented to salve their needs, lived their lives of belief in that same person.

The burden of proof is whose I wonder - Is it on the part of the believer or the doubter? That's the question isn't it?

You can't see gravity and yet let go of something and the effect of gravity is immediately obvious and gravity's existence is confirmed.

You can't see God either and yet let go of Him and what is the observable effect?  Is their an empirical test? Can we remove God from the equation and see some difference or add Him to the mix and find a precipitate in the test tube of faith or a 'pop' as the dying splint of faith reignites in the substance of God?

This is going to be a interesting journey indeed - thank you Mr D :-)

I've tried - but I can't believe

Demanding

Disputing

Denying

Proclaiming

Claiming

It's tough as they just keep on trying

Going on and on and on and . . . 

Quoting him

His words

His beliefs

his example

which, they claim, cannot be denied

Offering proof of his existence

Claiming that he's real

Not the invention of a needy people

Pointing to the logic

Appealing to reason

Making fantastic claims

For a wondrous future should we follow him

But - hard as I try

As much as I'd like to

As much as they want me to

I can't

I really can't 

I just can't believe in

In

Dawkins

©Vic VDB 2013

Andrew Brown on New Atheism

Having been sent the link to, as usual, a rather excellent piece: Andrew Brown: The New Atheism, a definition and a quiz I was grateful to find that some of the things that arose in my first conversation appear to be valid (and some of my thinking perhaps valid too - phew).

You can read the piece for yourselves but here's a few interesting segments (italicised for clarity) that jumped out and called for my attention (and perhaps validated some of the thoughts thus far):

"I thought I would try to define the New Atheism that I, and others, so dislike. In part this is difficult because the new atheism is largely a political and social rather than an intellectual movement."

So perhaps my 'red top' readership comment is shared by others. This is rather comforting as one friend asked if I was not being perhaps a little 'snobby' when I posted it. I'm not, but what I'm saying is that it doesn't have the higher reading age of those who are philosophically atheist.

I also loved the use of the word 'synecdoche' (using a part of something to denote the whole: pointyhats for bishops, dogcollars for clergy, etc.) and that he sees in the new atheist approach religion as being:
'A synecdoche for everything that might go wrong, so that belief in the evil qualities of Faith was not so very different from belief in the evils of witchcraft.'

Yes indeedy folk - it is faith, religion, the religious (call them what you will) who are the source of all that was, is and will be wrong. Perhaps science is the new messiah?

I'm rather pleased to see Brown name the prophets, patriarchs and prime movers of the new atheist thing as: 'Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Jerry Coyne, the American physicist Robert L. Park, and a couple of blogging biologists, P Z Myers and Larry Moran.'

And more grateful too that he says of them:
'They have two things in common. They are none of them philosophers and, though most are scientists, none study psychology, history, the sociology of religion, or any other discipline which might cast light on the objects of their execration. All of them make claims about religion and about believers which go far beyond the mere disbelief in God which I take to be the distinguishing mark of an atheist.'

Taking as his model former Master of Balliol and philosopher, Anthony Kenny, t as the datum from which he defines (old) atheism, he says that he (Kenny) would reject the following

❄ There is something called "Faith" which can be defined as unjustified belief held in the teeth of the evidence. Faith is primarily a matter of false propositional belief. 

❄ The cure for faith is science: The existence of God is a scientific question: either he exists or he doesn't. "Science is the only way of knowing – everything else is just superstition" [Robert L. Park] 

❄ Science is the opposite of religion, and will lead people into the clear sunlit uplands of reason. "The real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, while religion is the most common form of superstition" [Jerry Coyne] 
"I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented." [Dawkins] 

❄ In this great struggle, religion is doomed. Enlightened common sense is gradually triumphing and at the end of the process, humanity will assume a new and better character, free from the shackles of religion. Without faith, we would be better as well as wiser. Conflict is primarily a result of misunderstanding, of which Faith is the paradigm. 
(Looking for links, I just came across a lovely example of this in the endnotes to the Selfish Gene, where lawyers are dismissed as "solving man-made problems that should never have existed in the first place".) 

❄ Religion exists. It is essentially something like American fundamentalist protestantism, or Islam. More moderate forms are false and treacherous: if anything even more dangerous, because they conceal the raging, homicidal lunacy that is religion's true nature. [Sam Harris] 

❄ Faith, as defined above, is the most dangerous and wicked force on earth today and the struggle against it and especially against Islam will define the future of humanity. [Everyone]

Brown concludes by saying:

'All of these propositions will be found in the authors I have cited as well as in the comments to religious articles here. I sometimes think that only the last two are unique to the new atheists: you can certainly find the others in earlier authors. But those are the six doctrines which I would reject when saying rude things about the new atheists.

What would be interesting in comments is if people would score themselves out of six. I expect that one of the most common forms of disagreement would be to claim that you are a three or a four, but none the less the believers are so repulsive and dangerous that the other two points just don't matter. That's how politics works, after all, and the new atheism is interesting as a political or social movement, not an intellectual one."

Again I am grateful to Andrew Brown for adding to the discussion and increasing my understanding (even if it is his view alone :-)  ).

New Atheists - different from the old?

Whilst I am hoping to find some people who will state their cases and explain what they think their position is called and what it believes (or perhaps doesn't), one of the conversations I have had this week was from a someone who was a devotee of Dawkins. They used the man's name repeatedly and spoke of the 'irrational beliefs' and 'delusions' of the 'religious'. They (note: it was them, not me!!) sneered at the philosophical emptiness of the old style atheists, putting them down as merely playing at being atheists.

New atheists, my companion said, 'Weren't interested in conversation but were, 'concerned with ridding the world of the religious faith groups and bringing about a new world order through social, political and educational means. 'We need to teach our kids that there's only us and that the God thing merely brings separation and causes wars, famine and poverty.' 

It is obvious that somewhere in the mix is something fuelled by the actions of fundamentalist believers and the twin towers for they, and other acts of violence, all featured in the conversation. It was also obvious that whilst we might be able to find some commonality between those who consider themselves to be new atheists, there are also very many differences (and for me one of these is that many of those who appeared to embrace it were very much of the red top tabloid variety!).

This is not meant as a put down but as a reference to the simplistic and unquestioning acceptance of some who fail to examine or challenge those whom they quote;  and the manner in which the adoption of the 'blame culture' tactics whereby all the world's ill can be laid at the door of a few groups:
those who have,
the politicians, and
the believers

(Interestingly what appears to the common element in all three is 'God' (really - don't see that but perhaps I wouldn't).

So who are the patriarchs of the new atheist movement ('old atheists' have Russell, Huxley and the like)?

Well, to name but a few there are: Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Robert Park and many other major and minor prophets besides. What is interesting is that I don't see any clear thinkers in terms of philosophy or logic and there's a 'scientific' element (real and pseudo) behind everything which makes me think that perhaps we'd be better off relabelling 'new atheist' as 'enlightenment or renaissance II' (the first being 'if we can understand it we can control it', the second being 'if we use science we can deny it'?).

As the conversation progressed I was told that: 'The old atheists merely appear content to deny the existence of God and consider all the arguments, proofs and statements regarding God as ultimately false - and having thought thus, God disappears in a puff of logic! Not so the new brigade who want more. Their faith in science puts paid to the old faith in God.'

Another interesting observation in the conversation was the view: That just as Christianity trumped the pagan beliefs so too has scientificism (is that really a word?) trumped faith. This is a new world order: one that will see an end to famine, war and inequality for science can be the measure by which justice and order are made real and, 'Science is the only real way of knowing – everything else is just superstitious nonsense'

So perhaps I'm getting a clearer picture of what new atheism is (well in one person's view anyway) in that it is the new Messiah, 'Truth', that will lead us into understanding, knowledge and freedom from the cancer of faith and the multiplicity of gods that call for our attention, obeisance and defence in battle when deemed necessary (For as I was told: 'Remember the crusades and the inquisition, the result of religion!').

'Without faith, we will be better as well as wiser. Conflict is a result of misunderstanding, of which Faith is the paradigm.' (I think this is a paraphrase of Hitchens or Dawkins - can't find the direct quote so would lean towards Dawkins - clarification most welcome).

A nicer way of explaining away wars and conflicts (note I didn't say ALL) and selling the new atheism as the panacea to all ills and the vanquishing force against the evils of faith and religion (I see faith and religion as different things but others appear to see them as synonymous and interchangeable - What is certain is that the intended interpretation is that without 'faith' we will be well, peaceful and of one accord).

What concerns me is that I can see within the conversation that some think a faith in a lack of faith might lead to a new (atheist) world order. I think I'd rather have a faith-based, moral and ethical society (for there is much of that in the faith communities) rather than a function or scientific one!
Perhaps I am unsettled by the hints of things past that made me think we were looking to revisit the past with this striving for the utopic future it promises.

But that might just be me.

Twenty minutes of banging the keyboard, drinking tea and eating toast complete - over to you.

Pax

ps. I have modified this post to show where the comments were from my companion and the underlined segment is intended to show the ownership of the comments relating to the old order of atheism.

Thanks

Arrogance or informed: New Atheists Vs Christians

One of the biggest issues I find when engaging with atheists is that of the fact that one side is often willing to dialogue and the other is resolutely fixed and rigidly unwilling to move from their tenets, dogma, doctrine and beliefs (regardless of how irrational they are).

Of course what makes it even stranger is that the latter group are the 'Atheists' who cling to their beliefs (or should that be lack of beliefs?) and quote their prophets (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and others) and argue in a most illogical and emotive manner. In fact, truth be told, there are times when I struggle to see who the 'irrational people of faith' are.

That said, there are a number of quite flawed and fallible Christian sources; those who take extrapolation of things scientific and portray them as if they were fact. Those who argue for a 'young earth' and rail against evolution and seek to find the God of the gaps solutions that bring about an 'Intelligent Designer' for use by an ignorant (scientifically and theologically speaking) people.

I am about to embark upon a journey of exploration the goal of which is to dialogue and to enable others to dialogue with those who would contend that there is no God (and I'm happy for them to prove this - for the assumption for so many years having been that there is, the task is surely theirs to deny any such belief. I am content to remain with the status quo that there is) and to defend my own position (in a balanced manner - start shouting and all you will hear is your voice!).

I look forward to rejoinders (and will issue in return, of course, my own surrejoinders), correction and the impartation of facts (and opinions - for these too are helpful, perhaps even when not valid). I relish the challenge of being made to think and to look at how I might be able to gibe and answer for the hope that I have in Jesus, the Christ, to all (and any) that might ask; and I do so realising my limitations and trembling in trepidation at the paucity of my wit.

There are those who tell me that religious belief lies at the root of all the atrocities; that belief (they call it 'religion') is to be found at the root of all wars and conflicts. Of course the deaths, oppression and conflict founded in, and enacted by, non-faith groups (remember Russia, Marxism and so many other non-faith group like Nazism for instance) are glossed over.

Christianity is seen as an agent of conquest during the time of Empire and obviously wrong acts and response throughout the middle ages taken as a constant to be kept and used as a talisman to provide some form of absolute proof. The Acts of the Jewish nation throughout the Ancient Near East (and especially the actions of their God, the God also of the Christians) show how wicked God is.

The comparison of 'like for something different' whilst claiming congruence and equality uses both flawed science and logic and the lack of integrity (often unintentional) on both sides makes this a most difficult path to tread - but tread it I will.

Pray for me - educate me (facts is possible) - tolerate me

ps. I'm happy to defend my position but not in isolation - for many merely pepper me with cries of 'defend, defend . . . ' and I'd like to have those 'prove by logic, reason and the like . .'

Living the life scientific

I'm enjoying engaging with someone who considers themselves to be an atheist at the moment. What makes it more fun is that they appear to have bought into the whole 'anti God - anti faith - anti religion' thing with a vengeance and assume that all the world's evils come from having a belief in something. Fun? Yes indeedy folks because their belief in things scientific!

It's quite amusing in that they consistently mock those who believe as the source of death, destruction and fundamentalism and put forward the idea that science is all about 'fact' and 'logic' and is the only rational way for mankind to be. In fact, science will eventually lead to the demise of religion as people come to see that it is only in science that mankind can be both saved and directed.

Now that sounds like a religion to me!

'Of course,' they tell me, 'science never killed anyone; it was religious people who did the killing. Science may have provided the means for the killing but it is pure and above the religious fanaticism that actually did the deed!'

Now this keeping one's hands clean is understandable and yet I find many cases where logic and rational thinking, separated from any idea of a religious influence or use, has brought about the death of many.

The other side of the coin is that whilst those who embrace a purely rational scientific faith have their outcomes and advances, it is more often than not the faith groups who are out their being altruistic in the many relief works and agencies. Thus we find the reality that religion is, like the Curate's egg, something in which 'not all of it is bad' and we can also see that not all of those things scientific are good either.

I'm going to have an attempt to dialogue with the new atheist issue - not because I want a fight but because I want to understand where they have a point (and some points are indeed valid) and where they have merely left their brains at the doorpost and believed blindly the modern prophets and purveyors of flawed logic and bitter misrepresentation.

So, let us reason together (for that is what Christian do - reason). Blind faith is as the name implies 'blind' and of little use to anyone!'

Pax