Glocal Christianity

Atheist attacks on Christians in China

Grab your attention? Fox news recently reported that the fastest growing Christian Churches in China are being crushed by Communist authorities who fear any independent social group that could challenge their political / ideological authority. Tibetan Buddhism and Islam come in for similar treatment. Commericalization hasn't improved their tollerance for religion it seems.

Atheist Ad Blooper

Times Online has reported that the children chosen to front the latest Atheist Bus campaign as icons of humanism are actually from a Christian family, evangelical in fact.

Their former pastor says, “I think it is hilarious that the happy and liberated children on the atheist poster are in fact Christian.” Given the campaign slogan of "Please don't label me", their bemused father says he finds the atheist labelling "ironic". Ooops!

Jensen thanks Jesus for Hitchens

Michael Jensen thanked celebrity atheist Christopher Hitchens for making us talk about God in last Monday's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald. Very tongue in cheek but also very true.

Sam Harris, Grand Inquisitor

"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live." (Sam Harris, The End of Faith, p52-53)

"I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror" (Sam Harris, Huffington Post, October 18, 2005)

Nobody expects the Samish Inquisition

 

Burning Times as Scientific Pogrom?

Religious intollerance is often blamed for "the burning times" ... but could scientific intollerance be just as culpuble?

For my counselling course I was reading an interesting article by Heather Gridley, senior lecturer of Social Sciences and Psychology at Victoria University. In the article, "Psychology, Spirituality, Religion and Culture - Harvesting the Gifts of All Our Ancestors", she made the following remarks in relation to the scientific revolution:

Nature was of course assumed to be feminine and passive, awaiting the gaze and penetration of the male scientist-adventurer. Europe's first universities were now well established, but the Malleus Maleficarum (hammer of the witches), the manual of the Inquisition on the Middle Ages, had ensured that women took no part in the cultural and scientific Renaissance, except as artist' models - any women who dared to 'cure' without having studied (from which they were banned) was declared to be a witch, and so the healing knowledges of midwives and others fell outside "the academy" of the emerging male profession.

I have heard such suggestions before, that professional rivalry was a contributing factor to the witch burnings, but the full implications of that had not hit home before. Without minimizing the responsibility of the Christian community, it would seem the scientific community needs to do some repenting of its own. 

Related Articles

Wiccans and Christians - Some Mutual Challenges

Skeptics on Skeptics

Came across an interesting article by Michael Ruse, philosopher of biology at Florida State University, on why he thinks the New Atheists are a disaster.

Ruse, a committed skeptic, speaks of the slurs he has received from New Atheist authors like Richard Dawkins, who attack him on account of "although I am not a believer, I do not think that all believers are evil or stupid, and because I do not think that science and religion have to clash."

Elaborating on this, Ruse states, "Let me say that I believe the new atheists do the side of science a grave disservice ... Their treatment of the religious viewpoint is pathetic to the point of non-being. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant ... Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group."

In the process Ruse advances a very interesting argument: "If teaching 'God exists' is teaching religion - and it is - then why is teaching 'God does not exist' not teaching religion? Obviously it is teaching religion. But if science generally and Darwinism specifically imply that God does not exist, then teaching science generally and Darwinism specifically runs smack up against the First Amendment.

And he concludes by saying: "I have written elsewhere that The God Delusion makes me ashamed to be an atheist. Let me say that again. Let me say also that I am proud to be the focus of the invective of the new atheists. They are a disaster and I want to be on the front line of those who say so."

Give me more old atheists is all I can say.

Separating Politics from Irreligion

It occurred to me just now, with Atheists insisting we separate politics from religion, maybe we should be insisting they separate politics from irreligion!

I am being a bit facetious I know, but there is a serious point lurking beneath. What we are really talking about here is worldview. As a Christian I have a religious worldview, as an Atheist they have an irreligious worldview, and I can no more separate myself from my worldview than they can from theirs. Our worldviews guide our goals, they shape our decisions, they inform our ethics. Politics involves ethical decisions, how can I possibly disentagle my religious ethics from political decisions? This is the problem.

Now, to follow my line of arguement its important to understand that I regard the separation of politics and religion as a very different issue to the separation of church and state. Church and state is a much narrower topic, it has much more to do with institutional relationships, and on that topic I completely agree that there should be separation. In fact I would remind any Atheists reading this that anabaptists and baptists, in who's shadow I stand, have championed separation of church and state for centuries. So, no, I am not talking about that, I am talking about the broader issues.

So this leads me back to my original statement. If Atheists can't separate their understanding of the world from their action in the world, why should they expect us to do any different? It is a rediculous expectation. What we should respect is democracy and freedom of speach. In a democracy, you're free to try and convince the community, I am free to try and convince the community, and the community decides. If you reject that system you're rejecting democracy. If that's the case, come out and honestly admit it.

Do Atheists Believe in Freedom of (Ir)Religion?

Do Atheists believe in freedom of religion? Fortunately I can say I've encountered many that do, but many more seem to have an amazing propensity to confuse freedom of religion with freedom from religion.

What's the diff? Just this: freedom of religion seats everyone, Atheists included, around a round table with one another; freedom from religion seats Atheists at the head of the table, in a priviledged "neutral" referee role. I am sure some Atheists think that's grand, but I am not so sure it makes them any better than fundamentalists vying for the same seat. I am not sure they realise how totalitarian such aspirations really are. We missional Christians, chastened by our past, see the danger in that seat. They don't seem to see it yet.

An example of this tendancy to get confused over freedoms can be seen in Friendly Atheist's recent post on "workplace proselytisation". I would encourage you to read it here. What is workplace proselytisation? Apparently it's mentioning God in any way, shape or form in the course of your everyday life. If our talk is not sufficiently irreligious, that is, irreligiously "neutral" (LOL), we're being oppressive. 

Atheists, Christians, and Pagans

Gus diZerega, who co-authored Beyond the Burning Times with my friend Philip Johnson, recently posted some thought provoking comments on Atheists, Christians, and Pagans.

The recent plethora of books by militant atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens is beginning to generate a good deal of return fire from people writing within the Christian tradition, either as sophisticated adherents or writers recognizing that on balance our society benefited from it rather more than it lost.  ... I think we NeoPagans have something of value to add to this debate about the social value of religion.

I agree and think this call to engage is a welcome development. Too often Atheist apologetics is framed in bipolar terms. The standard talk is of "irreligion versus religion" with Christianity, particularly fundamentalist Christianity, being seen as the primary representative of "religion". In a pluralistic society such as our own I see this as deeply myopic and deeply problematic, so I welcome Pagans to the conversation and wish them well in broadening it.

I am also encouraged that Gus avoids the easy stereotypes of Christianity and Paganism which promises to lift the conversation to a higher and more mutually respectful level.

I know nothing – NOTHING!

In an entertaining and informative review of Terry Eagletons book "Reason, Faith, and Revolution", Andrew O'Hehir writes:

Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens, Eagleton insists, are playing to the high-minded liberal-humanist prejudices of their elite audience and, in the process, are displaying a shocking ignorance of their supposed subject, one that would be deemed unacceptable in almost any other intellectual forum. Would anyone be permitted to write a book about courtly love in the Middle Ages based on several visits to a Renaissance Faire, or a book about Nazism based on episodes of "Hogan's Heroes"?

I hear Sergeant Schultz now!

And I like how Eagletons describes contemporary Christian fundamentalists as faithless. I have often though so myself. Too often fundamentalists confuse suppressed doubt with faith. Mature faith faces doubt head on.

Can Atheists Dig A Hole for Themselves?

"We can safely say that the teachings of Richard Dawkins have never inspired anybody to move their family to sub-Saharan Africa to dig wells." Christianity Today

Christians for Science

I am not sure if its a case of selective hearing or just bad press but there seems to be a profound lack of awareness amongst non-Christians as to how many Christians actually support open scientific enquiry.

For example, Sean the Blognaught recently asked, "One thing I did wonder is who do you know on the religious side who is openly fighting for science? The most prominent I can think of is Kenneth Miller"

Now, let me see, how about...

The current head of the Catholic Church - "Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an 'absurdity,' saying that evolution can coexist with faith."

The current head of the Anglican church - "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."

And if you want an evangelical authority, even Billy Graham has expressed openness, or at least indifference, to the creation and evolution question. For example, "I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God." (Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74)

Like Benedict I also believe the debate is an absurdity. Most days I don't even consider it worth commenting on. If I don't fight for science it's because I see no fight.

Dances With Dawkins

Sorry, had to be done after the Gods must be Godless post. This is obviously the less intellectual response, but iconography works for me too. Tell me, is this dude as "nonreligious" as Positive Atheism claims?

Actually, maybe I should subtitle this the New Atheist two-step. How does it go? First, advance an inclusive definition of Atheism that amounts to little more than anti-YHWHism. Second, advance an exclusive definition of Atheism in terms of pro-scientism. Then, rapidly vacilate between the two to keep the masses off balance. Let's do the God warp again.

The Gods Must Be Godless

Here is a chart from Positive Atheism that epitomizes why I find the Atheist vs Theist conversation annoying and hopelessly mired mired in religious illiteracy.

Notice, not only are Buddhists listed as Atheists ... a dubious assertion at the best of times ... but Hindus are as listed as Atheists as well! My head hurts. Is there a religion that has more gods than Hinduism?! I am stretched to think of one.

Here's how Positive Atheism justifies it:

"In Western society the term atheism has been used more narrowly to refer to the denial of theism, in particular Judeo-Christian theism, which asserts the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good personal being. This being created the universe, takes an active interest in human concerns, and guides his creatures through divine disclosure known as revelation. Positive atheists reject this theistic God and the associated beliefs in an afterlife, a cosmic destiny, a supernatural origin of the universe, an immortal soul, the revealed nature of the Bible and the Koran, and a religious foundation for morality."

"Theism, however, is not a characteristic of all religions. Some religions reject theism but are not entirely atheistic. Although the theistic tradition is fully developed in the Bhagavad-Gita, the sacred text of Hinduism, earlier Hindu writings known as the Upanishads teach that Brahman (ultimate reality) is impersonal . Positive atheists reject even the pantheistic aspects of Hinduism that equate God with the universe. Several other Eastern religions, including Theravada Buddhism and Jainism, are commonly believed to be atheistic, but this interpretation is not strictly correct. These religions do reject a theistic God believed to have created the universe, but they accept numerous lesser gods. At most, such religions are atheistic in the narrow sense of rejecting theism."

So what's wrong with that? Oh gosh, where do I start!

Ok, firstly, we're a global society now. These are world religions we are talking about. Why the fixation on western, pre-globalization definitions of religion? Imposing western views of religion on world religions is cultural imperialistic, academically sloppy and just doesn't cut the mustard. Because eastern religions don't look like western religions they can't be religions? Oh, pleeeeeese! Where's a brick wall when I need it. Get some global eyes guys. You're supposed to be liberating people from cultural imperialism aren't you?

Secondly, look, when we start talking about "irreligious religions" can't we admit that semantic stupidity has taken over.

Thirdly, speaking of semantic stupidity, "theistic gods" versus non-theistic gods? Scuse me? What does theos mean again? Ah ... god! So, tell me everyone, is it genuinely meaningful to distinguish between "godly gods" and "ungodly gods"? Just guess what I think.

Fourthly, if it can be acknowledged that it is "not strictly correct" to equate pantheism with atheism, that it is actually a kind of theism, then why persist in it? 

Fifthy, and most importantly, religious worldviews are generally three tiered, not two tiered. Every heard of the flaw of the excluded middle? Any model of religion that is worth anything must account for all the gods and spirits in its orbit, not just high level understandings of ultimate reality. This more than anything shows the fallacy of classifying Buddhism or Hinduism as athestic.

I could rant on but I think I'll leave it there. I trust you get the idea. All this talk of nonreligious religions and atheistic gods gets up my goat. What we're seeing here, I think, in this binary Atheist vs Theist conversation, is the failure of Atheists to come to grips with globalization, pluralism and postmodernity.

And you know, just as we are seeing Atheist versions of fundamentalism blossoming in response to pluralism and postmodernity I am wondering if, in years to come, we'll see an Atheist equivalence of emergence burst out.  

Richard Dawkins speaks to Father George Coyne

Richard Dawkins actually behaves himself in this interview with Father George Coyne. Not a bad dialogue for once. See also Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7