I should clarify why the Matthew Parris article impressed me. Jonathan mentioned DR had 'crowed' about this article and I didn't mean to give that impression myself. I don't think, oh here's the promise of a scalp for the Christians! I find this you/us, your gang/our gang thinking that is sometimes conveyed - and I'm not referring to J there - fairly fruitless. It doesn't take a degree in human nature to know that any kind of 'who's winning the argument?' approach tends just to make people defensive and hardened in their own stance.
What impressed me was this: a person being ready to acknowledge and humble enough to express a reality - not mere argument - that posed a challenge to his world view. And one of the most powerful realities there is: the profound observable - note, those of you keen on observable evidence - change that sincere personal Christian faith has wrought in the life and character of the Africans MP witnessed. The open-ness, the boldness, the freedom from former bonds - including that of abject fear of men in a tribal culture.
It's evidence of the raw spiritual power of the faith at work, in a continent riven by brutal conflict and dark forces. The reality and presence of the living Christ bringing peace, wholeness, sanity and love to people 'with all kinds of hang-ups'. A world away from the intellectual chess playing of constructing arguments against the existence of God in comfortable western sitting rooms (my apologies if you're an atheist reading this in your bedroom). Isn't it slightly odd that these should be the effects of a 'delusion'? If you're not grappling with the awesome weight of the power of religion in people's lives across the globe, including in cultures very different from our own such as MP observes here, then it strikes me you're missing a trick somewhere along the way.
And before I close, who's been watching Christianity: a History, C4 Sun nights 7pm, and Around the world in 80 faiths, BBC2 Fri nights 9pm? Both pretty interesting and informative.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
10 comments:
Hi Bruce, this post will be quite scathing. I hope you focus on the points and not take it personally. it is not a personal attack. Please actually think about the points. I often feel you keep filing the challenging ones under "must think about" and never get round to thinking about them or taking them on.
I find this you/us, your gang/our gang thinking that is sometimes conveyed, fairly fruitless
I may be wrong, but I think Jonathan's comment was more a reflection on the rather unpleasant nature of DR - who does deal in that sort of thing.
What impressed me was this: a person being ready to acknowledge and humble enough to express a reality - not mere argument - that posed a challenge to his world view.
That's part of the problem: it's his world view. Maybe his world view is restricted and doesn't think that non christians do good works. Incidentally, I have been told recently of christians preventing athiests from feeding the homeless - NICE!
And one of the most powerful realities there is: the profound observable - note, those of you keen on observable evidence
Bruce, please note all the bad stuff christianity has done for Africa - you wee given a list in the previous thread. Let's also add Mugabe who is a catholic. You seem to be highly selective in what you choose as evidence. Does africa need the religious wars, witch burnings and HIV transmittion brought about by christianity? To only look at half the picture is extreme intellectual dishonesty. Are you honest enough to admit to the crimes of christianity in Africa too? So far, I dont see that. If you did, you would have to concede that christianity also causes suffering.
It's evidence of the raw spiritual power of the faith at work, in a continent riven by brutal conflict and dark forces.
And how exactly is that evidence of spiritual power? What are the causes of conflict? Religion?
A world away from the intellectual chess playing of constructing arguments against the existence of God in comfortable western sitting rooms
And your point about ultimate truth is? To play devil's advocate for a mo, why should any of us actually care? (Remember passing fundies, I'm playing devil's advocate, not necessarily expressing my own opinion here). What law says I must care? Why would that be any more spiritual that saying I dont care? You see, the problem is that you assume this must display spiritual power - you have not actually shown that it does display spiritual power. What then are helpful atheists showing when they do good deeds (presuming christians let them)
So, when are you putting your money where your mouth is and heading off to Africa? Are you out feeding the homeless of Bradford? If not, why not?
Isn't it slightly odd that these should be the effects of a 'delusion'?
Isn't it slightly odd that Kamikazee pilots flew planes into ships if their belief that their emperor was a deity was a delusion?
Your statement is meaningless. If you are deluded, of course that is going to affect your behaviour. Again, you are meerly assuming that what you percieve as a good deed can not be a delusion. Your statement therefore contains no argumentative wieght whatsoever.
Delusion or Denial ?
I suppose its one of the reasons why people make the leap of faith - that existential lurch to believe in god : the world seems somehow more real - there is a match between what we crave and what god grants us - the hope of justice , redemption , immortality - for every believer it is different - but the core is the same - god in his wholeness is the fulfillment of our desire.
You can of course claim this is a delusion - but that does seem unnecesarily cruel. I cant really understand why anyone would not want to believe in god - the life of a christian seems so much richer , multifaced and exciting , than what appears to me the drab and grey contours of the reductionists world. The same problems are still there - but they appear in contrast - not in command.
Ive been thinking about some of the things that were mentioned on billy's blog about god having no existant referrent - the funny thing is I would say no existant refferent has god. For such a commonly used word it strikes me as amazing that its peculiar grammar is never really discussed. Indeed I would suggest most of the problems people have with god is that they dont manage to map the concept rewardingly in their own lives. They get a bearded old man ,absent tyrant , big bully , or as eddie izzard portrays - a distracted old man making a flan in an astral caravan.
Anyway I'm off to follow the links to the c4 series. Bruce Im still amazed at what a great thing telly really is - you dont even have to move and things happen !
Has anyone seen last king of scotland - with james mcilvoy and what's his name - fredrick forrester. I think it gives a good overview of the "african" problem. However cultural differences aside I think there is still good reason for calling a megalomaniac a megalomaniac - at least that's what pius ncube has called mugabe.
Hi Billy, don't worry I will get to your comment and think about the points you raise, but I'll prob catch up with former ones first.
I'm aware that when I'm trying to express a thought, a spot of humour and hyperbole and even mild sarcasm can come up, or I may overstate something. I am aware, for instance, that there are lines of secular and atheist thought worth listening to and engaging with, and I acknowledge the q of God isn't, at least from an intellectual viewpoint, 'obvious' either way. But I'll come back to what you say in due course...
Thanks for your comment too Rob,
'most of the problems people have with god is that they dont manage to map the concept rewardingly in their own lives...'
and following certainly rings true, snd I like the Eddie Izzard bit! I heard Russell Howard, comedian, say the other day that even atheists use 'God' fairly habitually in everyday talk, eg you don't hear them go 'Oh big bang' when having sex! (maybe some do. Once again I'm not trying to be facetious though...)
Sorry I'm not more interactive, but I do at least read all comments
eventually and they do influence what follows...
Billy-
"I may be wrong, but I think Jonathan's comment was more a reflection on the rather unpleasant nature of DR - who does deal in that sort of thing."
That was exactly my point. I was in no way suggesting that you were crowing, Bruce.
Rob Penman-
"Has anyone seen last king of scotland - with james mcilvoy and what's his name - fredrick forrester"
I think you mean Forrest Whittaker. :-)
Thanks J, don't worry I didn't assume this. I'll be revisitng your page soon again I hope, see where Pascal's wager etc is at.
Heard it's a good film Rob but didn't see, will have to wait till Christmas telly probably.
Did watch portillo's presentation of constantine - not really a period of history I know a lot about, but I was left wondering what constantine would have thought of portillo - seemed a much more interesting question than what portillo seemed to think of constantine.
Portillo's post-historical grumble at Eusebius - to me sparks bigger questions about the way we approach classical history. Eusebius was - according to portillo - Constantines "spin doctor". Even though in my opinion Eusebius would probably have been bemused by this modern concept. Peter Mandelson may be many things - but a classical rhetorician he is not.
It seems when you parse ancient history through the melange of a modern/post-modern historical approaches - the outcomes are always so intangible that in the end all you hear is the personal bias of the narrating historian - such as Mr Portillo.
To the ancients history appeared as a living vision stuggling for realisation. We have no historical momentum - only power plays - and we mistakenly think the world has always been so. In the end it is we who turn everything to suit ourselves - it is we who desparately demolish meta-narratives as would-be intruders into our own sensual and commercial freedom.
It seems ironic to me that the pseudo-objectivty of modern historians leaves us with such a highly subjective view of classical history. An oversensitivity to bias in the end leaves us with nothing but the bias of our own personal agendas - and even the idea of something bigger than ourselves - something historical - disappears in our attempt to secure it.
The theory of history is not something I know much about - having read only a few chapters of Fukyama 's book - but something smells rotten in a popular culture in which "real histories" are constantly exposed and then almost immedietly interchanged into their opposite - in some sort of deranged procession of the damned. "Hitler was a woman" "World war 2 bus found on the moon".
I did enjoy the mad revisionists site - http://www.revisionism.nl/ - although I'm not really sure what hes on about - maybe thats part of his gimmick....
Rob, what about the issues that constantine tried to sort out. Do you not think that politics shaped the bible? That is the real issue - isn't it?
Incidentally, Eusebius is a strong candidate for tampering with the testimonium flavium.
Just a quick plug in case any of your readers are interested, Lewis Wolpert is giving a talk in glasgow entitled "Belief and the evolution of religion"
http://www.royalphil.org/abstracts/2009-02-11.xml
Here is a reply to that article:
"Source: Africa Needs More Human-Centered Thought and Activism
Norm Allen
On December 27, 2008, the self-professed atheist Matthew Parris argued for religion in Africa in The Times Online, headquartered in the UK. In his article titled “As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God,” he spoke glowingly of “the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa….”
I readily admit that missionaries have done some great work in Africa—building roads, clinics, schools, etc. However, missionaries in recent years have also enriched themselves while exploiting the masses, discouraged millions of Africans from using condoms, thereby increasing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of Aids, promoted sexism, contributed greatly to the persecution and deaths of alleged witches, etc. Indeed, Africa provides the perfect example of what Robert Ingersoll said about the historic role of the Catholic Church: “In one hand she carried the alms dish, in the other, the dagger.” The same could be said of organized religion in general.
In Rwanda, Christians were complicit in the genocide that occurred there in the 1990s. Many people were brutally murdered in churches. In Nigeria, Christians and Muslims have been killing each other by the thousands. Throughout Uganda, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and many other African nations, Bible-based homophobia plays a major role in the persecution, and in some cases, murders, of LGBTs.
What Africa needs is what Ingersoll called “a caring rationalism.” The Bible simply contains too many ultra-reactionary and inhumane messages to be blindly embraced by believers. Christian ideas of tolerance are inconsistent with the biblical notion that acceptance of Christ is the only way to reach heaven. The Prince of Peace said he came to bring not peace, but a sword. It is no wonder that there are so many different conceptions of Christianity, not all of them benign.
A humanistic life-stance is the best way to approach the many divisive religious and ethnic conflicts that plague Africa. Human-centered thought and action offer much more for African uplift than piety and prayers ever could. Christian charity is, indeed, commendable. However our appreciation of the missionaries’ alms dish must never blind us to the dagger that so often accompanies it.
Stephen adds: Norm Allen does a great deal of work for CFI in Africa. "
Stephen law has posted a few articles on this recently.
We can also implicate christiansin the Rwandan genocides too.
You really cant just look at one part and conclude that it is all good
Post a Comment