Fry Branded

There have been a lot of very interesting and thoughtful pieces written in response to Stephen Fry's expression of protest atheism. For a good example check out Pete Greig's Amen to Stephen Fry's Atheism. Pete writes as someone who has committed his life to prayer and encouraging others to pray. You may be tempted to think that Pete's response is written from the perspective of someone who has never had to face what Stephen Fry is talking about. Shortly after the birth of their second child, Pete's wife Samie was diagnosed with a massive brain tumour and though the tumour was successfully removed by surgery she continues to suffer from terrible epilepsy. God on Mute is Pete's wrestling with the issue of unanswered prayer.

Perhaps the most surprising response has come from Russell Brand who takes on some of Stephen Fry's arguments. I don't agree with all that Brand says but he raises some important issues and opens the way to further interesting dialogue. See what you think. 

And by the way, in his interview Fry claims this:

The moment you banish him (God), your life becomes simpler, purer, cleaner, and more worth living in my opinion.

Really? REALLY? You mean bone cancer suddenly becomes easier to live with and children with that horrible eye worm you talk about find life better? That statement seems to be a glib denial of the very suffering Fry commandeers to support his argument.

Strident atheists

An interesting comment popped up on my Twitter timeline in response to an article in The Guardian originally published on Monday. The Guardian piece argued, not very convincingly, that British fears about Islamists and Saudi fears of atheists are two sides of the same coin. Now this is a fairly typical Guardian Comment is Free piece and displays the lack of rigour in argument typical of the genre. However, I was interested by a comment tweeted in response to the piece by Douglas Murray in which he asked:

Can anyone name an atheist who has carried out a suicide bombing or beheaded someone in Saudi? Anyone?

The journalist David Aaronovitch, an atheist, whose writing I usually respect, wrote:

Sure atheists don't actually behead anyone, but you have to admit they can sometimes be a bit strident. 

Now this is a line that often gets trotted out by Richard Dawkins and his chums. 'Atheists are much less harmful that religious people. We might shout a bit from time to time, be a bit strident, but we don't harm anyone'. Except of course that isn't quite true. If you happen to be a Christian living in the self declared atheist state of North Korea you aren't just treated to a few harsh words, you are more than likely to end up in labour camp or worse. The intellectual western European atheist might argue that it is unfair to link his or her views with North Korea and suggest that those pesky North Koreans aren't really atheists anyway. It's the old Jedi mind trick 'These aren't the atheists you are looking for'. Fair enough but isn't this the same argument used by many religious people who argue that the worst manifestations of those claiming to be of their faith aren't really true believers. Consider, for example, the many Muslims who would denounce and reject the expression of Islam manifested by the IS in Syria and Iraq. Or consider the many Christians who would disown the nonsense regurgitated by the Westboro Baptist Church.

Some atheists are no more than a bit strident, not unlike some religious people. However, some atheists aren't averse to a spot of murder and mayhem, as anyone with even a basic grasp of political history knows, and pretending they weren't or aren't really atheists is frankly disingenuous.

Nature and Origin

I managed to watch the excellent debate between Richard Dawkins, Rowan Williams and Anthony Kenny from Oxford on Thursday afternoon. The topic was 'The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin.' I also followed the Twitter stream on the debate for a few moments before giving up because it was just so tiresome and predictable. The debate is available to view on the Archbishop’s website.

A few brief reflections. I was really impressed with the tone of the debate. There was no grandstanding, chest thumping or brow beating which has sadly marred many of these debates. (I think for example of the Stephen Fry & Christopher Hitchens verses Ann Widdicombe & Archbishop Onaiyekan bout in the Intelligence Squared debate on the Catholic Church.) This may have been for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the audience was asked not to applaud and so the debaters didn’t play to the crowd in a Question Time way where each contributor raises their voice to a frenzied crescendo on every point to elicit clapping. Secondly, we had some real experts in their fields who had the intelligence to engage in rational debate and interact with each other’s arguments. There were also a few moments of genuine wit as well as wisdom. Those of us engaged in apologetics would do well to learn from the gracious manner in which the debaters engaged in the process.

However, I was genuinely surprised at how out of depth Richard Dawkins seemed once the debate turned to philosophical matters. At one point he said ‘I am not a philosopher’ and virtually excused himself from the discussion on the rest of that point. The problem for Dawkins is that he is continually trying to make philosophical points or at least engage with matters of philosophy and theology in his statements and writings. If you are going to comment on the discipline of others then you need at least to be able to engage with the language and concepts. By contrast, although both Kenny and Williams stressed they weren’t scientists it was clear that they had read Dawkins’ work and were familiar with some of his evidence. Kenny at one point challenged the research Dawkins appealed to regarding choice and free will (the processes involved in picking up a glass of water) and I thought convincingly exposed it weakness.

My second reflection leads on to my third. It seemed to me that both Kenny and Williams were comfortable engaging with Dawkins on matters of science and acknowledging his expertise. Williams went out of his way to praise Dawkins’ writing on the beauty of the universe. They not only accepted but celebrated science and displayed a humility about the subject. It was clear they had both thought long and hard about Dawkins’ evidence base and its strengths and weaknesses. By contrast Dawkins wanted to reduce everything to the purely scientific. Everything, he said, could or would be explained within the discipline of science. Therefore Dawkins sees no need to go outside his discipline in order to understand the subject of the debate. This perhaps explains why Dawkins doesn’t give the disciplines he doesn’t respect the courtesy of studying them in any depth.

Some may have found it frustrating that Williams was prepared to live with questions and uncertainty, for example on the problem of suffering. Anyone who knows the Archbishop’s writings and theology will understand that this is characteristic of his approach. His faith in God means he doesn’t feel he needs to have all the answers neatly tied down, that’s God’s problem not his. This for me is the heart of the matter; the contrast between someone who wants to have everything understood and explained and someone who is content to live with ambiguity and uncertainty within faith in One who doesn’t explain the gaps but encompasses everything. Or as Williams put it, a God who is ‘Love plus Mathematics’.

What’s Darwin’s book called?

The Richard Dawkins Foundation For Reason and Science has commissioned some research to discover ‘the extent to which adults recorded as Christian in the 2011 UK Census (or who would have been recorded as Christian, if they had answered the question) believe, know about, practise and are influenced by Christianity, as well as their reasons for having described themselves as Christian in the Census’.

Dawkins was joined on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme by Revd Giles Fraser, former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's, to debate the survey and here is the recording of their discussion.

The highlight for me comes at about 3.15 when Fraser says ‘Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of The Origin of Species I’m sure you could tell me that.’ Dawkins responds ‘Yes I could’ and Fraser says ‘Go on then’. Dawkins' response is rather revealing as he struggles to remember the full title. The point Fraser is making is that you wouldn’t  dismiss someone’s belief in evolution just because they can’t remember the full title of the book, yet, this seems to be the approach taken in the survey regarding the Christian faith. Fraser goes on to critique the survey and the interpretation placed on it’s findings.

 

I must say I am fascinated by the amount of effort expended by Dawkins and his chums in opposing the Christian faith. I am greatly encouraged that they take Christianity so seriously they feel compelled to devote so much time and energy to their cause. Perhaps as Christians we should feel challenged to be as serious and energetic about the faith we espouse.

The Screwtape email

Wormwood,

What on earth is going on? How could you be so stupid? Did I not tell you that the best way to defeat the enemy is to stop talking about him and avoid drawing attention to him? Apathy and ignorance are far better weapons than any overt assault.

For a while the enemy’s agents were doing our work for us. Don’t you remember the successes of the last century? We didn’t need to do a thing, just sit back and watch as his supporters did their best to undermine his work. They were tripping over themselves to get into the media to debunk every aspect of belief.

But now, thanks to your incompetence, he’s back in the game. People can’t stop talking about him, even Prime Ministers are saying what a good thing he is. What possessed you? (O.K. I know what possesses you but that’s not the point). Thanks to your recruitment policy there are a few very vociferous people, destroying all our good work. Every time one of your agents opens his/her mouth, or puts fingers to keyboard, a whole new round of discussion and debate opens up. These ‘new atheists’ as they’ve become known, simply do the enemy’s work for him and I seriously suspect they are double agents so effective have they been in raising the enemy’s profile.

The enemy’s supporters have never been so motivated and engaged in the battle: demanding public debates; churning out books putting forward the argument for belief; speaking his name at every opportunity and never out of the media. There are intense discussions going on all over the place and that is not helpful to our ambitions. It’s true some of them overreact and a few make fools of themselves by their aggressive responses and I’d encourage you to play that for all it’s worth. Nevertheless, serious damage to our cause has been done.

As for that bus campaign! What made you think having his name on the side of the Number 23 to Tooting was a publicity coup for our side?

And encouraging our supporters to go to Carol Services to enjoy the singing but ignore the religious stuff, how was that ever going to work? Haven’t you read what’s in those carols? The only saving grace is that the enemy’s supporters are often too stupid to read and act on the words themselves.

I want the whole operation closed down before you wreck our mission for good.

Your seriously hacked off uncle,

Screwtape.

Stop moaning, keep praying

Richard Dawkins has carved out quite a career for himself as flag waver in chief for the New Atheists. His utterances have ‘cool’ comedians genuflecting and Christians fuming in indignation. Sometimes Dawkins’ refusal to speak is more infuriating than his ranting. That seems to be true of his latest sortie into the battle. Or should I say his decision to decline entering the battle.

The theist William Lane Craig has invited Dawkins to a debate and Dawkins has declined. Fair enough, no one is required to participate in a debate about their views, even if others might suspect it is because Dawkins fears the weakness of his arguments being exposed. Dawkins has explained his decision in The Guardian. The first reason he gives is that he had never heard of Craig and neither had any of his philosopher chums so why should he give Craig publicity by granting him a debate:

Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine"

Dawkins then went on to explain that he would not debate Craig because of Craig’s explanation of the text of Deuteronomy 20. Dawkins’ argues that Craig is guilty of defending genocide and that makes him an unworthy opponent:

Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn't, and I won't. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.

And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig's words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well.

A response to Dawkins has been offered by the philosopher Daniel Came. Again writing in The Guardian Came suggests:

Given that there isn't much in the way of serious argumentation in the New Atheists' dialectical arsenal, it should perhaps come as no surprise that Dawkins and Grayling aren't exactly queuing up to enter a public forum with an intellectually rigorous theist like Craig to have their views dissected and the inadequacy of their arguments exposed…

Came goes on to say that though he is disinclined to defend Craig’s argument about Deuteronomy 20 the issue is a red herring:

But whatever you make of Craig's view on this issue, it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not God exists. Hence it is quite obvious that Dawkins is opportunistically using these remarks as a smokescreen to hide the real reasons for his refusal to debate with Craig – which has a history that long predates Craig's comments on the Canaanites.

As a sceptic, I tend to agree with Dawkins's conclusion regarding the falsehood of theism, but the tactics deployed by him and the other New Atheists, it seems to me, are fundamentally ignoble and potentially harmful to public intellectual life. For there is something cynical, ominously patronising, and anti-intellectualist in their modus operandi, with its implicit assumption that hurling insults is an effective way to influence people's beliefs about religion. The presumption is that their largely non-academic readership doesn't care about, or is incapable of, thinking things through; that passion prevails over reason. On the contrary, people's attitudes towards religious belief can and should be shaped by reason, not bile and invective. By ignoring this, the New Atheists seek to replace one form of irrationality with another.

The interesting point here is that Came is arguing from a philosophical, not theistic, position and he is clear that he is not a theist. Came despairs at the arrogance and lack of intellectual rigour at the heart of the New Atheist enterprise and longs for a different tone to the debate:

The New Atheism is certainly a far cry from the model of civilised interlocution between "old atheist" Bertrand Russell and Father Copleston that took place and was broadcast on BBC Radio in 1948. The New Atheists could learn a lot from the likes of Russell, whose altogether more powerful approach was at once respectful and a model of philosophical precision.

Now here is what I think of the matter. It is about time we Christians stopped moaning about Dawkins and his pals. They have every right to spout about their particular brand of atheism and they have every right to decline defending it when confronted with anything bordering on a rigorous intellectual examination. I think we should spend more time praying for these people and less time complaining when they don’t do what we want. I suspect that would wind them up far more and, who knows, they may find their hearts strangely warmed by the Good News of Jesus Christ. As it is I can’t help feeling there is something of the hound of heaven about Dawkins’ increasingly vehement attacks on everything to do with God.

Avin a larf

Looks like the gloves may be coming off in comedy circles over faith and atheism. The issue has been around for a while with various familiar names lining up to identify publicly with the atheist cause including established comedians David Baddiel and Dara Ó Briain. Ricky Gervais caused a bit of a stir with his mock crucifixion pose on the front of The New Humanist magazine.

The ante was upped by Frank Skinner in an interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury in which he spoke about his faith and commented on comedians who speak about their atheism in order to establish their credentials as a ‘cool modern comic’.

On the back of the Skinner interview Christine Odone wrote a piece in The Telegraph called Subversive believers will have the last laugh. In the article Odone is really complaining about what she perceives to be an anti-religious bias at the heart of the liberal establishment, including the BBC. Odone goes on to identify various Christians operating in the media as a ‘subversive’ group. There is very little in the article about what Frank Skinner and Rowan Williams actually discussed as she uses a couple of brief quotes to hang a rather vague and meandering argument together.

On Saturday The Times magazine published an interview with Rowan Atkinson in which he made a disparaging remark about Church of England clergy being smug, arrogant and conceited. The comment was picked up by Ruth Gledhill, The Times religious correspondent (no link as it’s behind the paywall), who tried to spin the brief remark into a news story. If you read the original piece it was little more than a throw away line as Atkinson reflected on how he had portrayed clergy in sketches and on film. I found Atkinson’s portrayal of a vicar in the film Keeping Mum sympathetic and endearing. I do, however, find it ironic that an established member of the Oxbridge comedian set dismisses others as being smug and conceited.

Today, Brian Logan, comedy critic for The Guardian, has written a piece Divine comedy: how sacred is standup? in which he challenges the notion that there is an ‘atheist establishment’ in comedy. His article is as much a critique of Odone as of Skinner and Logan lists a variety of comedians and shows where faith is portrayed in positive terms. Logan’s own stance is clear as he argues: ‘In the bigger picture, religion remains, overwhelmingly, the establishment, and atheism a still-revolutionary challenge to that, which needs constant reassertion’.

It will be interesting to see how the debate develops. My suggestion would be a Mock the Week style face off in which Christian comedians are lined up against atheist colleagues to riff on a variety of topics. Personally, I think the combination of Frank Skinner and Tim Vine would be a hard act to beat and if they found themselves up against Ricky Gervais then on current form there would be no contest.

Whatever happened to Camp Quest?

Quite a few of our young people from church are at various Christian holiday camps at the moment either as members or leaders. As I was thinking and praying about these camps I remembered all the fuss made a couple of years ago about Camp Quest, a secular summer holiday camp supported by the British Humanist Society and the National Secular Society. Camp Quest attracted lots of publicity and was heralded as a great step forward for ‘free thinkers’. I blogged about the first Camp Quest back in 2009, Hunting the Unicorn, and raised a couple of questions about how ‘free-thinking’ these camps might be.

Anyway, I headed over to the Camp Quest website to see what they were up to this year. I was interested to see that a Camp Quest was running in Danbury, a couple of miles down the road from my parish here in Essex, though I was surprised I hadn’t heard anything about it locally. I say was because when I went to the details for the camp I discovered it had been cancelled. I then went to the details for the other two camps. The one at Malvern takes 32 young people and has spaces left for 5 and the one at Somerset can take 36 and has 17 spaces left to fill. The camps are now underway.

I genuinely hope that the children who are attending these camps have a good time. However, I can’t help wondering, given all the publicity and the much hyped attractiveness of this opportunity for ‘free-thinking’, why Camp Quest hasn’t proved more popular?

Arrogance and ignorance

Martin Rees, theoretical astrophysicist and Master of Trinity College Cambridge, has been awarded this year’s Templeton Prize. The award has caused something of a stir in certain sections of the scientific community because the Templeton Prize describes itself in these terms:

The Templeton Prize honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works. Established in 1972 by the late Sir John Templeton, the Prize aims, in his words, to identify “entrepreneurs of the spirit”—outstanding individuals who have devoted their talents to expanding our vision of human purpose and ultimate reality. The Prize celebrates no particular faith tradition or notion of God, but rather the quest for progress in humanity’s efforts to comprehend the many and diverse manifestations of the Divine.

In other words, in the eyes of some, the prize is tainted by faith and religion. Martin Rees is clear that he holds no religious beliefs and yet he has been happy to accept the prize and is quoted in The Independent as saying:

‘I would see no reason to be concerned because they (Templeton Prize) support a variety of interesting and worthwhile research projects in Cambridge University and many other places,". "The fact they have given this award to me, someone who has no religious beliefs at all, shows they are not too narrow in their sympathies. I feel very surprised because I really thought that I didn't have the credentials, but obviously I'm extremely pleased because I'm joining a roll call of distinguished previous winners, including six members of the Royal Society."

Others do not share Rees’s view and the usual suspects have lined up to express their dismay at his willingness to receive the award. Richard Dawkins declared:

‘That will look great on Templeton's CV. Not so good on Martin's’.

Others have been even more scathing. Harry Kroto, a British Nobel laureate at Florida State University in Tallahassee, is quoted as saying:

‘There's a distinct feeling in the research community that Templeton just gives the award to the most senior scientists they can find who's willing to say something nice about religion.’

Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, said the Templeton Foundation is "sneakier than the creationists" by introducing the idea of faith into a discipline where faith is anathema.

‘Religion is based on dogma and belief, whereas science is based on doubt and questioning. In religion, faith is a virtue. In science, faith is a vice.’

I never cease to be amazed at the arrogance and ignorance displayed by some supposedly intelligent people. Coyne is clearly ignorant if he thinks that doubt and questioning do not play a part in religion. Does he know anything about Theology? If I dismissed the work of these men and the disciplines they study with the same banal generalities that they bandy around about faith and religion I would rightly be criticised or probably ignored.

There is something else I’ve noticed about these men, I say men because the people quoted are usually men; they seem to have a very narrow view of who makes up the scientific community. For them there is no place for the scientist who has a religious faith and so they dismiss a great tradition of scientists who were not only people of faith but inspired in their scientific endeavours by their faith. Even more damning is their dismissal of contemporaries around the world who are scientists and hold religious beliefs.

Maggi Dawn has mentioned a meeting with Martin Rees on her blog and it is well worth a look. There was one thing that made me uneasy and reinforced my concern about the blinkered views expressed by some scientists. Maggi quotes from an interview given by Rees in The Guardian today where he says this:

IS: Do you see an importance in trying to diffuse some of the conflict that sometimes gets stoked up between science and religion?
MR: I think they can co-exist. They are very different activities. Obviously one opposes Creationism and such-like, but it’s fairly clear that there are some scientists for whom religion is important and most of us for whom it isn’t, but again I think they can be co-existent.

‘Most of us for whom it isn’t’. Who is the most of us? The world wide scientific community? Is Rees saying that when one looks around the world the large majority of scientists do not regard religion as being important? I would like to see the evidence for this, but I suspect that Rees falls into the all too common trap of generalising from his own particular experience. I would be interested to know what the proportion of scientists with religious convictions is in, for example, Asia or the Middle East.

It is predictable and depressing to see the bitchiness of some of the comments that have greeted the news of Rees’s award. I have no problem with people who do not believe in God expressing their views. When the views expressed are founded on arrogance and ignorance then they deserve to be challenged as robustly as they would challenge the views of those who believe in God.

The Good Book

You have to hand it to the philosopher A.C. Grayling, if you are going to make a statement about your work then you might as well aim high. Grayling has produced The Good Book which is described as A Secular Bible. Here is what the blurb about The Good Book says on Amazon:

Drawing on the wisdom of 2,500 years of contemplative non-religious writing on all that it means to be human - from the origins of the universe to small matters of courtesy and kindness in everyday life - A.C. Grayling, Britain's most popular and widely read philosopher, has created a secular bible. Designed to be read as narrative and also to be dipped into for inspiration, encouragement and consolation, "The Good Book" offers a thoughtful, non-religious alternative to the many people who do not follow one of the world's great religions.

Instead, going back to traditions older than Christianity, and far richer and more various, including the non-theistic philosophical and literary schools of the great civilisations of both West and East, from the Greek philosophy of classical antiquity and its contemporaneous Confucian, Mencian and Mohist schools in China, down through classical Rome, the flourishing of Indian and Arab worlds, the European Renaissance and Enlightenment, the worldwide scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th centuries to the present, Grayling collects, edits, rearranges and organises the collective secular wisdom of the world in one highly readable volume. Contents of this title  include: "Genesis"; "Proverbs"; "Histories"; "Songs"; "Wisdom Acts"; "The Lawgiver Lamentations"; "Concord Consolations"; "Sages"; and, "The Good Parables".

This morning Grayling and Giles Fraser, Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral, discussed the book on Radio 4’s Today programme and it made for an interesting debate. Grayling describes his work as declaring: ‘There are as many good lives as people who have the talent to live them.’  Grayling sees the Bible as being about a deity handing down commands about how to live a good life and he argues there are many other sources and traditions to inspire the moral life. Fraser rightly agreed with Grayling that you don’t need to be religious to be moral, but he then went on to say of the Bible ‘It’s not about being good… it’s about being saved.’ In other words the problem of the human condition, which the Bible addresses, is much deeper than our ability to follow sets of rules. Earlier Fraser had explained that it is the full blooded account of human life, set in the deep complexity of the world, which attracts him to the Bible, and this aspect has been stripped out in Grayling’s work. Fraser contrasts the Bible with what he describes as the tame stoicism and easy going morality of The Good Book.

The Good Book looks like an interesting synthesis of some of the great works of moral philosophy but does it offer an answer for Everyman? I suspect it may be fine for the Oxford don relaxing in his bath while reading Aristotle, however, I prefer a book which is more than a moral self-improvement manual. My problem is not knowing what is right. My problem is doing what is right and in that the Bible seems a bit more realistic, even if it can be dismissed as ‘foolishness to the Greeks’.

Gracious debating

The day after William Windsor and Kate Middleton announced the news that they are to marry, I happened to be in a coffee shop reading The Times (free copy). Tucked away amongst the mountain of waffle about the royal wedding was a fascinating interview with Professor John Lennox about his latest book God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?. I hadn’t read much of Lennox’s work nor seen him in action, so I did a bit of digging around and the more I’ve read and heard the more impressed I’ve become.

John Lennox is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, and Pastoral Advisor at Green Templeton College. He’s developing a sideline in debating the New Atheists including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Lennox has also turned his sights on Stephen Hawking following Hawking’s claim that the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, Hawking argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws 'because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.' You can read more of Lennox’s response to Hawking in this article.

However, the point I want to make is not so much about Lennox’s arguments, but about the manner of the way in which he engages in debate and approaches his task. Lennox is both reasonable and reasoned. No frothing at the mouth. No raging against the dying of the light. Rather, Lennox has a commitment to get to know and understand his opponents and to engage in friendly debate. He has confidence in the truth, doesn’t believe it can be imposed on any one and has a real desire to set his beliefs out in the public square for consideration. Underlying his approach is the conviction that as Christians we are called to love the Lord our God with our minds as well as with everything else.

If I was to sum up John Lennox’s approach to Christian apologetics it would be to describe it as a confident humility. To me that seems to be a good approach to take, as opposed to some of the defensiveness and special pleading from other quarters. Judge for yourself…

9 lessons and carols for the Godless… again

This is the third year of Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless People so it’s becoming a bit of an institution. The brainchild of Robin Ince, previous shows have included such luminaries as Richard Dawkins, Ricky Gervais, Dara O Briain and Ben Goldacre. The aim is to provide a rational celebration of Christmas featuring talks about the wonders of science and the universe, with atheists seeking to demonstrate that they can enjoy Christmas but without the God bit.

Explaining the idea behind the original celebration in 2008 Ince wrote in the New Humanist:

Last year I was invited on a show to talk about whether Britain was becoming more secular, but by the time I arrived it had changed to “Who’s taking the Christ out of Christmas?” I got increasingly furious as Nick Ferrari and Vanessa Feltz passed off half-truths – and full-blown lies – about the way councils up and down the country were abandoning Christmas.

I said, “Actually I think Christmas is good, it’s nice to have some time for reflection,” and Stephen Green, who was in the audience, sat there saying, “I don’t think he does like Christmas, I don’t think he is happy with there being Christmas.”

So that was why I decided I would get together a 20-piece orchestra and a choir, and assorted atheist and agnostic comedians like Ricky Gervais and Phill Jupitus, and some scientists like Ben Goldacre, Simon Singh and Richard Dawkins.

Already people are annoyed, saying, “Oh, typical, you’re just having a go at Christians.” Well we’re not. When we say we’re having a Godless celebration, that means no god at all, from any religion.

Not one. It’s not about having a go at religion – it’s going to be a proper celebration; of the Big Bang, of evolution theory and of comedy. We will be visited by spirits, of course, through the help of a medium. The spirit will be the late great science broadcaster Carl Sagan, and the medium will be a DVD player.

This year’s repeat of the celebration has already sold out several nights at the Bloomsbury Theatre with a show in Brighton also on offer and the line up includes many of the old regulars. Procedes will go to the Rationalist Association.

I hope they have a good time, though I seem to remember reviewers of previous events suggesting that three hours of unremitting humanism was hard going for all but the most committed.

I would just make one observation. It isn’t really a surprise that these events are sold out. If you look at the line up, many of the acts sell out their own shows across the country and so one would expect them to attract a big audience when gathered together.

Now it is true that over Christmas Christians will also be putting on big celebrations featuring well known artists and musicians. There are also the more traditional big draws like Carols from Kings broadcast on television and radio as well as the Midnight Mass and other Christmas services. But many people will not be going to these great events to listen to well known celebrities. They will be going to their local parish church to gather with family, friends and neighbours. They will sing well known carols, listen to familiar readings from the scriptures and spend time offering praise, thanksgiving and prayers. And at the centre of the worship will be the miraculous truth which secular humanists find so difficult to understand; that the Creator of the Universe, the one behind all the wonder which rationalists rightly marvel at, loved us so much that he embraced our humanity in the person of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Who’s the Nazi?

The Pope had hardly landed in the country and opened his mouth and the secularist and atheist commentariat were up in arms. This is the line from Benedict  XVI’s speech at Holyrood Palace that caused so much offence:

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny” (Caritas in Veritate, 29).

In minutes the offended issued their rebuttals. The British Humanist Association responded with:

The notion that it was the atheism of Nazis that led to their extremist and hateful views or that it somehow fuels intolerance in Britain today is a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God. The notion that it is non-religious people in the UK today who want to force their views on others, coming from a man whose organisation exerts itself internationally to impose its narrow and exclusive form of morality and undermine the human rights of women, children, gay people and many others, is surreal.

Of course the high priest of atheism, Richard Dawkins, could be counted on to go in to full rant mode, which he did both in his speech at the Protest the Pope rally and on his website where he accused the Pope of being the enemy of humanity. Highlights include:

Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II, was respected by some as a saintly man. But nobody could call Benedict XVI saintly and keep a straight face. Whatever this leering old fixer may be, he is not saintly. Is he intellectual? Scholarly? That is often claimed, although it is far from clear what there is in theology to be scholarly about. Surely nothing to respect.

At first I was annoyed by the Pope’s disgraceful attack on atheists and secularists, but then I saw it as reassuring. It suggests that we have rattled them so much that they have to resort to insulting us, in a desperate attempt to divert attention from the child rape scandal.
It would be unkind to prolong this point, but Ratzinger’s speech in Edinburgh on Thursday was so disgraceful, so hypocritical, so redolent of the sound of stones hurled from within a glass house, I felt that I had to reply.

Joseph Ratzinger is an enemy of humanity.

He is an enemy of children, whose bodies he has allowed to be raped and whose minds he has encouraged to be infected with guilt. It is embarrassingly clear that the church is less concerned with saving child bodies from rapists than with saving priestly souls from hell: and most concerned with saving the long-term reputation of the church itself.

He is an enemy of gay people, bestowing on them the sort of bigotry that his church used to reserve for Jews.

He is an enemy of women – barring them from the priesthood as though a penis were an essential tool for pastoral duties. What other employer is allowed to discriminate on grounds of sex, when filling a job that manifestly doesn’t require physical strength or some other quality that only males might be thought to have?

He is an enemy of truth, promoting barefaced lies about condoms not protecting against AIDS, especially in Africa.

He is an enemy of the poorest people on the planet, condemning them to inflated families that they cannot feed, and so keeping them in the bondage of perpetual poverty. A poverty that sits ill with the obscene riches of the Vatican.

He is an enemy of science, obstructing vital stem-cell research, on grounds not of morality but of pre-scientific superstition.

Less seriously from my point of view, Ratzinger is even an enemy of the Queen’s own church, arrogantly endorsing a predecessor's dissing of Anglican Orders as “absolutely null and utterly void”, while shamelessly trying to poach Anglican vicars to shore up his own pitifully declining priesthood.

Finally, perhaps of most personal concern to me, he is an enemy of education. Quite apart from the lifelong psychological damage caused by the guilt and fear that have made catholic education infamous throughout the world, he and his church foster the educationally pernicious doctrine that evidence is a less reliable basis for belief than faith, tradition, revelation and authority – his authority.

Amidst the general offense taking, ranting and abuse there were some who offered considered commentary and reflection. On the meaning of the Pope’s comment is this from Andrew Brown in The Guardian: Pope Benedict XVI was talking about the Nazis, not Richard Dawkins, where he makes the following observations:

We're not used to Germans coming here to talk about the war, so many people have jumped to entirely the wrong conclusion about Pope Benedict's attack on atheist extremism. He didn't mean us. He didn't even mean Richard Dawkins. He was talking about the Nazis, who, he said "wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live."

For him, a nation that turns away from God entirely has nothing to keep it from treating people as disposable means, rather than ends in themselves. The liberal appeal to reason, to choice, and to human rights doesn't go far enough. He believes in all three, but he thinks they must be derived from something else. That something else was once generally understood to be Christianity. If that is no longer true, Benedict believes we are all shrunken and impoverished: "Let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a 'reductive vision of the person and his destiny'."

So he believes that what gave Britain the strength to resist nazism was its long Christian heritage, in which the powerful and effective were animated by their faith.

Where secularists see religion as a divisive force, and their own beliefs as the self-evident and true base on which a healthy society can be built, Benedict sees that secularism itself can be challenged. Human rights are not self-evident. What rights we have depend on what kind of people that we think we are, and that is exactly the kind of question which social change and multiculturalism sharpen. It's not a question to which there is any agreed answer in Britain today.

The second piece is a comment on Dawkins’ response to the Pope and comes from Stuart Sharpe on his blog Sharpe’s Opinion. Stuart writes as an atheist but his critique of Dawkins is devastating. Here are a few excerpts and the whole post is worth a read:

I watched this video of Richard Dawkins speaking at the ‘Protest the Pope’ rally with a mixture of disappointment, alarm and brewing anger. Disappointment at the way he failed utterly to use reason, or logic, or rationality in his speech, preferring instead emotive platitudes and fallacious diatribes. Alarm at the crowd of protesters cheering his every sentence, reserving their loudest jeering for his portrayals of the Pope as ‘an enemy’, and for his characterisation of ‘them’ as running scared from ‘us’. Brewing anger at the way the name ‘atheist’, which I have identified with ever since I first heard it, has been dragged through the mud over the last weekend by both the Pope’s ridiculous taunting and by Dawkins’ brawling mob of ‘secular humanists’ or whatever it is they’re calling themselves now.

When the Pope told us, during his overly-expensive-but-otherwise-mostly-harmless State Visit, that Hitler was an atheist and secularism is the root cause of the Holocaust, my first reaction was to laugh. I mean, Hitler? Really? Obviously, it’s unlikely the Pope’s ever been on a Usenet discussion group (though HM The Queen was sending email in 1976, so anything’s possible) but have none of his speechwriters, helpers, aides or support staff ever heard of Godwin’s Law? Whether Hitler was an atheist or not makes no odds, so apart from a little light ridicule, who gives a damn?

Apparently Dawkins does. Not only that, but he’s hell-bent on proving to you that Hitler not only wasn’t an atheist, Hitler was a Catholic. He devotes some five minutes of his speech to this – nearly half of the video. It’s still utterly fallacious; still pathetically stupid, still pretty much playground debating (‘you’re a Nazi!’ ‘No,you’re a Nazi!’) but nevertheless, the crowd aren’t saying ‘now hang on a minute’, they’re going bonkers for it. Yeah! The Pope’s a Nazi! And a kiddy fiddler! Woo!

Is it merely the existence of religion which so gets his goat? I’m as versed as anyone in the atrocities carried out in the name of religions, but is Dawkins really so certain, so absolutely sure, that religion itself is the very root of these problems, rather than merely being itself a symptom of a deeper problem with humanity? If Dawkins really believes that atrocities like the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, the Holocaust, the 9/11 attacks or the abuse of children by figures of trust and authority couldn’t possibly have happened without religion, where is his evidence for this? He does believe in the need for evidence, doesn’t he?

And yet looking at Dawkins now, I see not a defender of rationality, not a beacon of light in an dangerous world of faith-based stupidity. I’ve begun to see a figurehead of a new and somewhat sinister religion. One which cares not at all about those genuinely positive things which have come from faith on a personal or global level. One which isn’t interested in introspection, or analysing the faults in the arguments on which it is based. One which is built on a foundation of hatred towards the members of all other religions, which is willing to persecute Catholics on the basis of atrocities they didn’t commit, and which sees all of this as a battle between ‘us’, the enlightened forces of good, and ‘them’, the irredeemably evil ones. The enemy.

I don’t know what that is, and I don’t know what to call it, but I’m certain that it isn’t the atheism I grew up with.Star Wars seems to be about as close to a religion as the people I’m closest to have ever had, and strangely enough I feel like Star Wars has a lesson which can be applied here – Anakin Skywalker fell from grace because he began to hate, and to see others as his enemy. This sermon could end on no better note than with the words of Master Yoda – “fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate; hate, leads to suffering.”

From where I’m sitting, Dawkins already seems to have lead us to hate. I dearly hope that’s as far as his new crusaders go.

The Pope’s visit was bound to stir up emotions. I had serious reservations and believe there are legitimate questions to ask about the nature of the visit and about the conduct and teaching of the Roman Catholic church under the present Pope and indeed his predecessor. But one thing the Pope’s visit has achieved is to highlight the fallacy that some of religion’s most vociferous opponents are either rational or enlightened in their opposition.

Update: I missed Andrew Brown's excellent follow up article on the subject: Pope Benedict and Nazism.  Here's a taste:

To recruit the unimaginable and almost incredible horrors of the twentieth century into the service of internet flame wars is a kind of blasphemy against humanity. Shouting "nyah nyah, Hitler was on your team!" is pissing on the corpses – or the ashes – of the dead.

Anyone seriously thinking on how to derive their morals from their beliefs must of course work out how it is that their own beliefs and morals are incompatible with totalitarianism. To that extent the pope must always conclude that true belief in God is incompatible with Nazism; and Bertrand Russell would have to conclude that true humanism was. But this exercise is necessary precisely becasue neither atheism nor faith in themselves protect us from inhumanity. No one should take the apparently logical next step and conclude that those who disagree with us theologically are therefore morally inferior or closer to evil. Certainly no Christian should, who believes in the reality of sin.

Andrew had to switch off the comments on his column 'for obvious reasons' which tells us all we need to know about some of the vitriol doing the rounds on the subject.

Shalts and Shan’ts

Caught up with the third programme in Channel 4’s series The Bible: A History on the Ten Commandments. I was interested to see what issues were covered as I am just finishing ploughing my way through the book of Exodus. The episode was presented by Ann Widdecombe and maintained the high production standard of the series; plenty of photogenic locations and an interesting mix of characters. The format began with a retelling of the Exodus account of Moses and the giving of the Decalogue on Mount Sinai, before going on to explore the place of the Commandments in Jewish life, in the development of Christianity and in English history and law.

All very straight forward except that at various points the problem of using well known personalities as presenters for the programmes was clearly exposed. Widdecombe has a passion for the Ten Commandments and believes that a society is better off with them than without them. However, Widdecombe is no theologian and at various points she seemed to have real problems in grasping some of the basic insights and questions of Biblical scholarship. The fundamentals of source criticism and Biblical archaeology seemed to take her by surprise; she struggled to maintain her belief that everything happened exactly as recorded in the Pentateuch and was authored by Moses. I’m not quite sure how Moses wrote Deuteronomy 34 which gives an account of his own death.

At one point in the programme Widdecombe briefly interviewed Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry on their attitudes towards the Ten Commandments. Unsurprisingly both men were vehemently hostile and Widdecombe seemed to lack either the intellectual capacity or the debating skills to take on their arguments. A good example was Fry’s argument when he demanded to know why God had not banned slavery. Exodus 21 has quite a bit to say about slavery and some of it very radical in an Ancient Near East context but Widdicombe seemed unaware of this. At another point Fry challenged the tenth command about covetousness, suggesting it creates little more than a thought crime; I’m not sure the youngster mugged for his trainers or mobile phone would agree with him. For much of these snippets (they didn’t last very long as Hitchens flounced out) Widdecombe sat open mouthed as if she just couldn’t believe what her opponents were saying and struggled to marshal counter arguments.

Widdecombe was more effective in highlighting how society is impoverished through its rejection of the Ten Commandments. She goes on to suggest that we ‘would have happier, more fulfilled lives today if we still followed biblical law’ and this is where the programme concluded. I don’t agree with her statement about biblical law given the content of some of the other 613 commands contained in the Law of Moses. Though the 613 commands were mentioned, Widdecombe didn’t explore why she is happy to accept some commands and to ignore others, including the food laws which were featured in the programme.

Strangely, because I’ve never been a fan, I found myself warming to Widdecombe as someone who does have a genuine concern for the moral wellbeing of people and her faith and passion are evident throughout the programme. There was one segment where she explored the issue of assisted dying that was sensitively handled and quite moving. Although I felt she didn’t hold her own against Hitchens and Fry, I nevertheless found myself siding with Widdecombe in their encounters. There is something deeply irritating about the preening and posturing of the ‘new atheists’, whose arrogance seeps through in their smug disdain for anyone stupid enough to believe in God. This is becoming a regular feature of the series.

Two reviews of the programme that are well worth a read are by +Alan Wilson who considers the programme in the wider context of religious broadcasting and Doug Chaplin who is more critical than I have been of Miss Widdecombe.

hunting the Unicorn

Camp Quest, the atheist children’s summer camp, opens this week and has already received much attention in the media. Several of my friends and colleagues are attending New Wine, a Christian summer camp, taking place in the same county as Camp Quest, so one wonders whether there might be the opportunity for an exchange visit. Who would feel more threatened by such a suggestion; the self proclaimed free thinking atheists or those Richard Dawkins and his chums so glibly dismiss as closed minded fundamentalists? I’m all in favour of children’s camps and many of the activities at Camp Quest are exactly what I hope my children will be doing during the holidays; plenty of activities to stimulate the body and the mind.

However, I do have some reservations about Camp Quest. I had a brief look at the biographies of the camp counsellors and was interested to see how many were keen to explain their atheism in ways no different from how Christians leading their camps might write. There is the whiff of zeal about those leading Camp Quest, a zeal which many atheists are quick to dismiss in those articulating a faith position. I was also amused to learn that one of the activities on the camp is ‘the famous invisible Unicorns challenge’ in which children will be encouraged to disprove the existence of these marvellous creatures. The problem is that most people know these creatures died out because they were too stupid to get aboard Noah’s ark when the great flood came. Seriously, it does seem rather defensive and reactive to laud an activity with the primary aim of disproving the existence of something.

I’m a big fan of children’s summer camps as in the early 1980s I helped run the children’s programme at a Christian conference centre and during the late 80s and early 90s was involved as a leader on CYFA ventures. I have seen the big impact these holidays have had on the lives of many young people, including members of the church youth group I lead as a curate. These holidays also had a big impact on me as a Christian leader. I learnt many important insights into what we called ‘servant leadership’ that have stayed with me throughout my ministry. But the biggest impact on my life is that on one of these ventures I met the person who is now my wife!

Anyway, I hope the young people on Camp Quest and the many other camps and ventures taking place around the country have a great holiday. I also hope and pray they are given the time and space to marvel at the wonders of the world around them and to reflect on the why questions as well as the how questions of life.

the not quite atheist bus

The Atheist Bus Campaign finally got under way yesterday. For those who don't know, it is basically a series of adverts on City Buses saying 'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.' The campaign is the 'brainchild' of comedian Ariane Sherine, who I'd never heard of until reading about the project in The Guardian, and about £140,000 has been raised for the adverts.

Just a few brief comments about the project. It isn't really an Atheist Bus Campaign but more an agnostic bus campaign - the word probably being the issue and supporters of the campaign seem to disagree about whether it should have been included.

The campaign has had a massive amount of publicity, with numerous articles in the national media and a significant item on last nights BBC news, so I'm not sure why its supporters are so surprised at the amount of money they raised. The usual suspects have signed up including those dependable atheists A. C. Grayling, Polly Toynbee and Richard Dawkins. The report of the press launch which I saw yesterday showed a rather large heated tent with the three of them sitting in the front row and behind them quite a few empty seats. Dawkins did his piece to camera and The Guardian has posted a video of Toynbee interviewing Dawkins.

The problem for the campaigners is that their advert seems to have misfired. On the whole Christian organisations have welcomed the campaign because it gets people talking about God. As a representative from a Christian advertising network said on B.B.C. London News, the real concern for Christians is apathy.