Extremely interesting reality/documentary hybrid on the Beeb last night. In Conspiracy Road Trip (an odd title, but what the hell...), comedian Andrew Maxwell travelled the American heartland with five British creationists. He was, it seems, trying to show them the veracity of the theory of evolution by introducing them to a series of scientists who would present their evidence for it.
The five were also asked to speak, one at a time, to the other four to outline their own feelings on the matter. What struck me was not so much the unshakeability of their beliefs - it would be a poor theologian whose entire belief system collapsed over a few days aboard a coach in such circumstances - but the apparent lack, in one or two of them, of the values they all purported to hold dear.
We had four Christians and a Muslim; two women, three men. They were variously presented with evidence from paleontologists, geologists and historians, for example a string of hominid skulls found in one, one-mile deep rock seam in a single African valley. Theories and explanations bounced back and forth - interesting stuff. In some cases, though, their faith (or simply their human prejudices) completely blinded them.
When discussing the beginnings of life on Earth with a professor of astro-physics, for example, the Muslim lad, Abdul, claimed he 'liked science', but then went on to decry it, saying that, "...science should not present things that they don't know the same way that they present things they do know. It's a sleight of hand..." This, of course, completely misses the point of science, which to my knowledge has never done any such thing. It's called a theory of evolution for a reason. From Darwin to modern scientists, the word 'theory' is still stuck in front of it. Why is it OK for religious adherents to view their great religious texts as literal, perfect and unquestionable truths but cry foul at the very idea that science may present anything as 'fact'? Far better the openness about areas of ignorance which is what science actually presents us than the closed-eye certainty of creationism.
The oldest of the group, a chap called Phil who'd taken it upon himself to be their father figure and spiritual guardian, was a fine example of Christian hypocrisy. One of the girls, Jo-Jo, admitted she wasn't much of a church-goer, as she had trouble reconciling her beliefs with the tenets of the Church. Her best friend, for example, is gay, and she "wouldn't change him for anything." The fact that she was asked about this led to Phil accusing the director of being a 'bully', calling him a 'disgusting human being' and a 'pathetic director'. He then (having checked first with the preacher that the church they were about to attend wasn't a 'gay church'), took the opportunity during the service to tell the group not to talk about homosexuality and the Church. "If the subject comes up, don't go near it...," he told the others. "Just turn to the camera and say you're being bullied. We're here to talk about evolution and creationism."
He was asked, outside the same church, if he'd directed the group on what they could or couldn't talk about. He flatly denied doing what he'd just been filmed doing. 'Disingenuous', Maxwell called it. Lying, I call it. There was only one bully on the trip, and it certainly wasn't the director. Phil, it seems, saw all scientists (even the devoutly Christian paleontologist who saw evolution as God's work) as part of some grand conspiracy to deny the 'true' age of the Earth (6,000-odd years) and bring about a Godless way of life. He criticised the fact that no 'creationist geologist' had been brought on the trip to question the scientists' evidence. Evidently he saw the point of the show rather differently to the producers, and perhaps also knew he didn't have the intellectual wherewithal to contest their claims adequately. He also showed just how much he loved his neighbours, and how much forgiveness he had in him, by refusing to speak to the girls for some time afterwards because of their reluctance to toe his line.
As it turned out, the two women at least showed themselves open-minded enough to want to 'do some more research' in one case, while Jo-Jo said that though her faith was unshaken, "...it doesn't mean that God couldn't have caused evolution. I'm not wanting to be closed off. There's too much evidence." Fair play to her - I have absolutely no doubt that her life was enriched and broadened by the experience, without her faith having been shaken in the process. I very seriously doubt the same can be said for Phil.
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Tuesday, 9 October 2012
Monday, 16 April 2012
Carey's comments show scant regard for modernity
George, now Lord Carey, was criticised in some quarters for being a bit soft, and a bit unwilling to speak out, while he was Archbishop of Canterbury. Now speaking as a 'free' man, and a sitting peer, he's happier, it seems, to give free rein to his mouth.
He's spoken out in an interview with the Telegraph about what he sees as an erosion of Christian values and rights in an increasingly secularising society, complaining about a legal ruling in favour of the removal of prayers from the start of council meetings, and leaping to the defence of the guest house owners I've already written about in these pages. He's also complained about the treatment of a Relate counsellor who lost his job for refusing to counsel same-sex couples.
His comments on these cases basically amount to a call for Christians to be able to be free to exercise discrimination, while at the same time complaining about the fact that they themselves are being discriminated against. This apparent contradiction does not seem to occur to him. "This inability to find a way to accommodate the sincerely held beliefs of someone like Gary McFarlane creates a tyranny," he claims. So, if Mr McFarlane, the Relate counsellor in question, believed through his religion that he couldn't counsel mixed-race couples, or couples comprising a Christian and a Jew for example, would that be OK too? And of the B&B owners, he says: “I want to protect their freedom to take that line.” The same question must be asked there - can they refuse admission to mixed-race or mixed-religion couples too, if their religion demands it? Where is the line drawn?
A religious belief is not a licence to discriminate against people because they don't fit some ideal lifted from a several-thousand-year-old holy book, however genuinely held. He goes on to talk about his grandson Simon, who died of a suspected drug overdose. I don't know if the Telegraph article is trying to tell us that Carey is implying that securlarist culture is to blame for this poor lad's death, but he seems to forget as he laments the 'slippery slope' that 'led to his death' that his God is supposed to be the one who makes all these decisions, and takes us when it pleases Him. God calls us to Him in ways we are not meant to understand, but his grandson's death was all about a secular society giving him easy access to drugs? I can't personally reconcile the two concepts.
Whatever drives his 'call to arms', whether it's the very real and human grief he must be feeling or merely the freedom of expression he's now got since his retirement from the Archbishopric, he simply has to accept the way our society is going. This is a dam which is being asked to hold back more and more pressure, and if it isn't modified, it's going to fail. Work with modern society, and the Church still has a place. Fight against it and the marginalisation of faith will only continue, and possibly even accelerate.
He's spoken out in an interview with the Telegraph about what he sees as an erosion of Christian values and rights in an increasingly secularising society, complaining about a legal ruling in favour of the removal of prayers from the start of council meetings, and leaping to the defence of the guest house owners I've already written about in these pages. He's also complained about the treatment of a Relate counsellor who lost his job for refusing to counsel same-sex couples.
His comments on these cases basically amount to a call for Christians to be able to be free to exercise discrimination, while at the same time complaining about the fact that they themselves are being discriminated against. This apparent contradiction does not seem to occur to him. "This inability to find a way to accommodate the sincerely held beliefs of someone like Gary McFarlane creates a tyranny," he claims. So, if Mr McFarlane, the Relate counsellor in question, believed through his religion that he couldn't counsel mixed-race couples, or couples comprising a Christian and a Jew for example, would that be OK too? And of the B&B owners, he says: “I want to protect their freedom to take that line.” The same question must be asked there - can they refuse admission to mixed-race or mixed-religion couples too, if their religion demands it? Where is the line drawn?
A religious belief is not a licence to discriminate against people because they don't fit some ideal lifted from a several-thousand-year-old holy book, however genuinely held. He goes on to talk about his grandson Simon, who died of a suspected drug overdose. I don't know if the Telegraph article is trying to tell us that Carey is implying that securlarist culture is to blame for this poor lad's death, but he seems to forget as he laments the 'slippery slope' that 'led to his death' that his God is supposed to be the one who makes all these decisions, and takes us when it pleases Him. God calls us to Him in ways we are not meant to understand, but his grandson's death was all about a secular society giving him easy access to drugs? I can't personally reconcile the two concepts.
Whatever drives his 'call to arms', whether it's the very real and human grief he must be feeling or merely the freedom of expression he's now got since his retirement from the Archbishopric, he simply has to accept the way our society is going. This is a dam which is being asked to hold back more and more pressure, and if it isn't modified, it's going to fail. Work with modern society, and the Church still has a place. Fight against it and the marginalisation of faith will only continue, and possibly even accelerate.
Tuesday, 20 December 2011
First Warsi, now Cameron not recognising the facts
David Cameron's recent assertion that Britain is '...a Christian country, and we shouldn't be afraid to say that...' is irritating to those of us whose secularism is important to us, but more importantly, it's not backed up by the facts.
It's true that in the 2001 census, some 73% of the population described themselves as 'Christian'. But that is a hugely broad, poorly defined and easily misinterpreted figure, especially when you take into account the actual practices of a lot of those people. Indeed, the PM himself said he was a 'committed but only vaguely practising' Christian, whatever that means.
Much more recently, the National Centre for Social Research conducted its 28th survey into British Social Attitudes, covering pretty much everything from politics, through transport, the environment and religion. This does not just ask people to define themselves as Christian, other, non-religious etc. It actually asks people about their religious beliefs and practices. Its findings bear little resemblance to the picture of Britain that the PM, and recently Baroness Warsi, would paint. The NCSR found that 50% of British people characterise themselves as having 'no religion', while 20% see themselves as CofE, 15% 'other Christian', 9% Roman Catholic and 6% 'non Christian', presumably other faiths. Full results can be found here. Of those who do count themselves religious, more than half never actually attend a service of any kind. Most tellingly, only 14% of the population actually attend services weekly, and the numbers are falling - affiliation to the Church of England has halved since 1983.
This doesn't look like a Christian country to me. It looks like a largely secular, but at the same time multi-faith country that should not be being governed by, or in the interests of, any one of those religions. It's another example of those in power conveniently ignoring the facts in favour of their own world view, and it's particularly frustrating to people like me who think that government should be secular, with the Church (of any faith) having absolutely no role in policy making when those policies affect everybody.
Cameron did, at least, leaven his comments slightly - more on what he said here. But his central assertion that the 'Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today' rings pretty hollow to the millions of us who, like me, have somehow managed to piece together our own moral code without ever having read the thing.
It's true that in the 2001 census, some 73% of the population described themselves as 'Christian'. But that is a hugely broad, poorly defined and easily misinterpreted figure, especially when you take into account the actual practices of a lot of those people. Indeed, the PM himself said he was a 'committed but only vaguely practising' Christian, whatever that means.
Much more recently, the National Centre for Social Research conducted its 28th survey into British Social Attitudes, covering pretty much everything from politics, through transport, the environment and religion. This does not just ask people to define themselves as Christian, other, non-religious etc. It actually asks people about their religious beliefs and practices. Its findings bear little resemblance to the picture of Britain that the PM, and recently Baroness Warsi, would paint. The NCSR found that 50% of British people characterise themselves as having 'no religion', while 20% see themselves as CofE, 15% 'other Christian', 9% Roman Catholic and 6% 'non Christian', presumably other faiths. Full results can be found here. Of those who do count themselves religious, more than half never actually attend a service of any kind. Most tellingly, only 14% of the population actually attend services weekly, and the numbers are falling - affiliation to the Church of England has halved since 1983.
This doesn't look like a Christian country to me. It looks like a largely secular, but at the same time multi-faith country that should not be being governed by, or in the interests of, any one of those religions. It's another example of those in power conveniently ignoring the facts in favour of their own world view, and it's particularly frustrating to people like me who think that government should be secular, with the Church (of any faith) having absolutely no role in policy making when those policies affect everybody.
Cameron did, at least, leaven his comments slightly - more on what he said here. But his central assertion that the 'Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today' rings pretty hollow to the millions of us who, like me, have somehow managed to piece together our own moral code without ever having read the thing.
Friday, 17 September 2010
Infiltrate! Infiltrate! Infiltrate!
Oh, the joys of the papal visit. "They're standing 20, 30 deep to catch a glimpse of the Pope," they tell us on the Beeb. Well, possibly most of them, but I seriously doubt the bloke with the sign reading 'The Pope is the Anti-Christ' was there for that purpose. In a move which highlights one of the many absurdities of religion, this made me laugh out loud. "My religion's the right one." "No, mine is." "No, mine - your religious leader's actually the devil. See how far up you've let him get in your heretical 'church'?"
What a job on the part of Satan that is, if he'd actually managed to sneak in and rise to the rank of Pontiff. You'd have to applaud his audacity and, given some of the homophobic, misogynist, anti-family planning messages coming out of the Vatican, the loon with the poster has got plenty of 'evidence' to back up his claim.
Thankfully, of course, there's no such entity. The ammunition which the poster-carrier sees as the machinations of the anti-Christ is of course a result of all too human failures. Blinded by faith and desperately allying with each other against what they can see is a hugely secular tide washing over this country in particular, they are modern day Cnuts, I hope. They're wasting their time. The freedoms, tolerance and understanding of ethnic minorities, other sexualities and, yes, the freedom to practise religion of any colour, are born out of this country's secular humanism. They want to be careful what they wish for - if they win their supposedly holy campaign to turn us all back to spirituality, how long would it be before the more zealous among us started burning each other at the stake?
What a job on the part of Satan that is, if he'd actually managed to sneak in and rise to the rank of Pontiff. You'd have to applaud his audacity and, given some of the homophobic, misogynist, anti-family planning messages coming out of the Vatican, the loon with the poster has got plenty of 'evidence' to back up his claim.
Thankfully, of course, there's no such entity. The ammunition which the poster-carrier sees as the machinations of the anti-Christ is of course a result of all too human failures. Blinded by faith and desperately allying with each other against what they can see is a hugely secular tide washing over this country in particular, they are modern day Cnuts, I hope. They're wasting their time. The freedoms, tolerance and understanding of ethnic minorities, other sexualities and, yes, the freedom to practise religion of any colour, are born out of this country's secular humanism. They want to be careful what they wish for - if they win their supposedly holy campaign to turn us all back to spirituality, how long would it be before the more zealous among us started burning each other at the stake?
Tuesday, 7 September 2010
Recapitulating the sins of the past
Something in the news today beggars belief, and demonstrates the dangers of religious fundamentalism of any colour. A pastor Terry Jones of the White Dove Outreach Center (sic) in Florida is going to hold 'Burn a Koran Day', in which he plans to do rather as the title of his jamboree suggests - he's openly encouraging people to throw copies of Islam's last holy text onto a big bonfire. Signs promoting the day by name, and saying 'Islam is of the devil' have been put up around his church.
It's utterly bewildering that he can be allowed to do this. I fully respect and admire the American veneration for freedom of expression, but is there nothing in their constitution which prevents such outrages on the grounds that they're prejudicial against religious belief? Picking on a particular group for their ethnicity or religion of course carries all too familiar echoes of a past we're all aware of. We've all seen pictures of something similar to the Pastor's idea of a jolly weekend. They're mainly in black and white because they depict the fervour of the Nazis as they burn books written by Jewish authors in the 1930s.
Exactly who Terry Jones' centre is trying to reach out to is clear - fundamentalist anti-Islamic zealots of the worst order. I recognise that this lunatic is in no way representative of the typical feelings of most Christians, let alone Christian churches, but could such zeal grow and thrive in the mind of anybody, for example, who didn't believe in a devil to create this perceived 'evil' in the first place?
General David Patraeus, US Commander in Afghanistan, has said it will further endanger the lives of American troops in Afghanistan, and will cause problems 'not just in Kabul, but everywhere in the world'. You know you've got a shit-storm on your hands when the US military represent the voice of reason and moderation in any scenario. An opinion poll conducted earlier this year evidently showed that 53% of Americans viewed Islam unfavourably and such events, if allowed to continue, can surely serve only to further stir such sentiment. I sincerely hope that the silent millions in America who must be appalled at the idea of this outrage, regardless of their religious views, make their voices heard and this nutcase is somehow prevented from conducting this bonfire of the sanities.
It's utterly bewildering that he can be allowed to do this. I fully respect and admire the American veneration for freedom of expression, but is there nothing in their constitution which prevents such outrages on the grounds that they're prejudicial against religious belief? Picking on a particular group for their ethnicity or religion of course carries all too familiar echoes of a past we're all aware of. We've all seen pictures of something similar to the Pastor's idea of a jolly weekend. They're mainly in black and white because they depict the fervour of the Nazis as they burn books written by Jewish authors in the 1930s.
Exactly who Terry Jones' centre is trying to reach out to is clear - fundamentalist anti-Islamic zealots of the worst order. I recognise that this lunatic is in no way representative of the typical feelings of most Christians, let alone Christian churches, but could such zeal grow and thrive in the mind of anybody, for example, who didn't believe in a devil to create this perceived 'evil' in the first place?
General David Patraeus, US Commander in Afghanistan, has said it will further endanger the lives of American troops in Afghanistan, and will cause problems 'not just in Kabul, but everywhere in the world'. You know you've got a shit-storm on your hands when the US military represent the voice of reason and moderation in any scenario. An opinion poll conducted earlier this year evidently showed that 53% of Americans viewed Islam unfavourably and such events, if allowed to continue, can surely serve only to further stir such sentiment. I sincerely hope that the silent millions in America who must be appalled at the idea of this outrage, regardless of their religious views, make their voices heard and this nutcase is somehow prevented from conducting this bonfire of the sanities.
Monday, 12 July 2010
I get the feeling I may be a blogging 'black sheep'
I've just hit the 'Next Blog' button on here, and kept doing so, until I eventually came across something I could read which was not actively plugging Christianity. I don't know if the 'choices' the button makes are in any way affected by the labels I place on my own posts, but it took 21 hits of the button before I came to a blog not actively pushing the Christian message. I counted them, yes, I'm that dull.
I feel I may not have chosen the best medium for what may occasionally be anti-theological postings! I can, for my own part, only recommend that anybody searching for meaning or some great truth beyond their own mortality would do well to read anything written by Carl Sagan, a man who evidently knew where to find awe, wonder and beauty in the real and whose writings I've only just become aware of through reading Dawkins' latest atheist tract while on holiday. (Oddly preachy in places, since you ask, but passionately and intelligently argued of course). He quotes Sagan often, and it's inspired me to get hold of some of his work and read it. My favourite quote of Sagan so far? This, on the idea of an afterlife;
"The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides."
Given the nature of most of my posts so far this may seem as something rather out of context, but I've been thinking about this stuff as a result of reading Dawkins' God Delusion and having seen the Milky Way for the first time in a dark, clear Galician sky on Friday night, unpolluted by the light from any city, and being overwhelmed with a feeling of utter insignificance, awe and wonder, all at the same time. Sorry to be all thoughtful and introspective, and stray from the footy for a bit! Normal service will doubtless be resumed in due course when some transfer news or friendly result or something trickles through from the Albion.
I feel I may not have chosen the best medium for what may occasionally be anti-theological postings! I can, for my own part, only recommend that anybody searching for meaning or some great truth beyond their own mortality would do well to read anything written by Carl Sagan, a man who evidently knew where to find awe, wonder and beauty in the real and whose writings I've only just become aware of through reading Dawkins' latest atheist tract while on holiday. (Oddly preachy in places, since you ask, but passionately and intelligently argued of course). He quotes Sagan often, and it's inspired me to get hold of some of his work and read it. My favourite quote of Sagan so far? This, on the idea of an afterlife;
"The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides."
Given the nature of most of my posts so far this may seem as something rather out of context, but I've been thinking about this stuff as a result of reading Dawkins' God Delusion and having seen the Milky Way for the first time in a dark, clear Galician sky on Friday night, unpolluted by the light from any city, and being overwhelmed with a feeling of utter insignificance, awe and wonder, all at the same time. Sorry to be all thoughtful and introspective, and stray from the footy for a bit! Normal service will doubtless be resumed in due course when some transfer news or friendly result or something trickles through from the Albion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)