Christianity

...now browsing by category

 

Fear and Loathing in Liverpool: My Evening with Geert Wilders

Monday, March 25th, 2013

It was always going to be an awkward night. The arrival of Geert Wilders in Australia had been met with widespread condemnation in the media. Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, roundly denounced the Dutch parliamentarian’s fierce anti-Islamic views but chose not to deny him a visa. Tony Abbott was more cautious, stating simply that Wilders was “substantially” wrong. A small few were willing to publically defend Wilders. Controversial Liberal Senator, Cory Bernardi, broke party ranks to support his right to be here. Conservative commentator Andrew Bolt spoke in his defence and Alan Jones’ 2GB radio gave the Q Society (who organised the visit) airtime. For my part, I wanted to hear him for myself and make up my own mind. What was he actually proposing?

As soon as I parked my car I could hear the loud chants, “Muslims are welcome, racists are not”. Getting closer, I could see around 50 protesters separated from the delegates by a line of police officers. I was temporarily afraid to walk through the protesters who were screaming abuse at delegates as they arrived. As I write regularly for the online political journal Independent Australia, I decided to stand with the other members of the press and compose myself. As the journalists took turns interviewing protesters with their expensive cameras and voice recorders, I pulled out my mobile phone and decided to do the same.

The first protester I spoke to was a friendly young man named Abdul-Salaam. He was wearing traditional Islamic clothing and handing out pamphlets. I asked him what his motivation was. He replied that he wanted to address the misconceptions about Islam propagated by people like Wilders. I then spoke to another young man named Patrick who proudly announced he was a member of the Socialist Alliance. He commented on the ethnic and racial diversity in Sydney and insisted that Wilders’ racist views were harmful. He also had pamphlets that explained why anti-Islamic sentiments are racist.

I spoke with the protesters for over half an hour, partly to understand their point of view and partly to avoid having to cross the police line. I hoped that they would see me as a reporter, a genuine observer rather than a Wilders sympathiser. I eventually gathered my courage and approached the line. I was stopped by the police and could feel the protesters’ eyes on me as I produced a receipt from my registration and explained I was a paid delegate. I was allowed past but the end of the line was only five or so meters from the protesters. I was not spared their wrath. “Nazi skinhead scum,” one woman screamed at me. I wanted to run over to her and explain my short hair was purely a result of my balding head, not a sign of any extreme political ideology. I wanted to tell her that I abhor racism, that I support refugee rights, that I have done charity work in Africa but I knew it would do no good. Instead I looked shamefully at my feet and accepted the jeers and taunts, wishing desperately the line would move faster.

Security was extremely tight as delegates were required to produce their receipt, photo identification, pass through a metal detector and a bag search before entering the conference room. As I waited in line I began to chat with the delegate next to me. He commented on the hypocrisy of the protesters, claiming tolerance while being intolerant. When he mentioned he had flown down from Brisbane, the large gentleman standing behind us introduced himself. He explained that he was keeping a low profile but was in fact the Liberal National Party member for Dawson, George Christensen. As the two Queenslanders spoke I noticed the Reverend Fred Nile was being ushered to the front of the line. Although I oppose most of what he says, I did feel a moment of sadness observing his dignified and defiant presence. I could only imagine what was screamed as he and his wife braved the protest line.

Inside the venue, a stage was adorned with the flags of Australian, Holland, the United States and Britain. A speaker from the Q Society explained that they had been denied the use of over 30 venues. Freedom of speech was under attack we were told. It felt like we were a group of underground freedom fighters. The rhetoric of the speaker made you temporarily forget we were already living in a free and tolerant society. Wrapped up in the cheers of the enthusiastic crowd, it was easy to believe we were part of a noble struggle for rights.

The first speaker was a Muslim convert to Christianity named Sam Solomon. Articulate and charismatic, he made a clear distinction between Islam as an idea and Muslims as people. It is not racist to be against an idea he assured us. Coming from an Arab and former Muslim, the argument certainly carried more weight than it would have from Wilders. The problem with Islam was that it was not just a religion but an entire political ideology as well. In the West, religion is a small and private part of a person’s life whereas Islamic ethics cover every aspect of an adherent’s life.

I knew from my own experience that what he was saying was wrong. I thought of my friends from Hillsong Church. Their religion absolutely does consume their life. In the Evangelical/Pentecostal vernacular, a Christian would be called a “backslider” if they fitted Solomon’s description. I thought then of my Muslim friends for whom the religion is but a small part of their identity. Nonetheless, I had a lot of sympathy for Solomon. As an active supporter of Open Doors, I knew the terrible persecution Christians, especially converts, did face in some Islamic countries.

Solomon was a polished speaker. He quoted the Qur’an in Arabic and made a convincing case that Islam was not a religion but an intolerant, expansionist ideology. The crowd was cordial but gave only half-hearted, awkward support. Solomon was an evangelist at heart. When he passionately declared that he could be put to death in his home country for boldly declaring that “Jesus is Lord”, the many atheists in the room could only muster a polite clap of approval. When he proudly asserted that the morality of the West was based on Judeo-Christian values, he again clearly isolated himself from many. Having said his piece, the stage was surrendered for the main event.

The crowd leapt to their feet as Geert Wilders took the stage and I felt highly conspicuous as I remained seated. The Dutchman was quick to assert he was not part of the “extreme right” but simply someone who stood for “commonsense” and “liberty”. He explained that he was “marked for death because [he] criticised Islam”. He then unleashed the torrent of invective that has made him infamous. Islam was called, “evil”, “intolerant” and a “mental prison”. The prophet Muhammad was called a “war-lord”, “terrorist” and ‘paedophile”. The crowd roared their approval.

Calling for a “spirit of resistance”, Wilders asked the audience to support the only democratic country in the Middle East, Israel. He then passionately declared that “we all are Israel”. As with Solomon’s Christian apologia, Wilders’ support for the Jewish state only received modest support. I wondered how Christensen was reacting. In the lead-up to the 2010 election he was dogged by anti-Semitic remarks he had made at university. Was he now supporting the idea that we are all Israel? Two rows in front of me I noticed a heavily tattooed skinhead with his arms crossed as others clapped. What a conflicted message this must have been for him. Did he dislike Jews or Muslims more?

Like Solomon, Wilders made “a distinction between the people and the ideology”. Also like Solomon, he insisted “Islam and freedom are incompatible … even when the majority are moderates”. Moderate Muslims, he insisted, “are not preaching Islam at all”. Again, I knew this was plainly wrong. Who was he to define Islam? Who was he to say the Abdul-Salaam, peacefully protesting outside, was not a real Muslim?

Having spent the majority of his speech outlining the “Islamic threat” and highlighting its incompatibility with Western values, Wilders needed just a minute to give his solution. There should be “no more immigration from Islamic countries” he flatly declared. He did not expand, except to say, “no more mosques” either. The crowd were rapturous. I was completely disappointed. That was it? For all his rhetoric and grand standing, that was his serious suggestion!

The problem with Wilders and Solomon is that they do, at times, touch on the very real problem of Islamofascism. The death threats both men receive are real. The misogyny and anti-Semitism openly espoused by some Islamic scholars is real. The terrorism committed by al-Qaeda and other militant Islamic groups is real. But is that really the best solution Wilders could come up with? I wished there was a question and answer time at the end. I desperately wanted to ask, what about the persecuted Christians in Islamic countries? Does he not realise that under his extreme and unworkable solution his support speaker, coming from an Islamic country, would not be allowed in Australia?

The streets where dark and quiet as I walked back to my car. The protesters were gone but the police remained. Driving home, Sigur Rós were playing on the radio which only added to my reflective mood. I thought of my Iraqi barber who is always so friendly and kind to me. He sends his daughter to an Islamic school for the same reason my parents sent me to a Baptist school. There is no evil or indoctrinating intent, he simply believes the standards are better and he wants her to have some grounding in the family faith. I thought also of the many Muslim students I have taught over the years. Thinking of their smiling faces in class, so respectful, so eager to learn, I felt intensely sad for the crude pantomime presented by people like Wilders. Send them all back? What a horrible thought! It is the logic of a person unwilling or unable to look past cultural differences and see potential friends and fellow citizens.

I attended my evening with Geert Wilders with a genuinely open mind but I conclude he is a man with no answers. I openly oppose misogyny, homophobia, anti-Semitism and religious intolerance wherever I see it but it is wrong to stereotype the whole religion this way. A philosophy cannot be judged by its abuses and it is grossly unfair to use the attitudes of the extremists to characterise the moderates. Imagine if we did that with everyone. Does the Westboro Baptist Church fairly represent Christianity? Was Stalinist Russia an archetype atheist state? Australia had an isolationist and xenophobic immigration policy for far too long. It is not something we want to ever return to. Muslims can and do live harmoniously in Australia and add a layer of richness to the multicultural fabric that makes up this great land.

I’m glad Mr Wilders was allowed into our country. I’m glad he was allowed to speak and I’m glad I was allowed to attend. Most of all, I am glad that this country overwhelmingly rejects his extreme policy. It is not just and it is not right. I’m sorry Mr Wilders, I don’t agree with you.

photo_1361936956565-1-0

Posted in Christianity, Geert Wilders, Politics, Popular Culture | No Responses »
Tags: , , ,

Rod Benson and the non-arguments against same-sex marriage

Monday, September 17th, 2012

As an academic and an educator, I am guided above all by Plutarch’s immortal words, ‘The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.’ This idea sits at the centre of my pedagogical approach. I have been blessed with opportunities to teach in many different settings. I have taught at Australian universities, comprehensive and selective high schools and private coaching collages. In each case my unum ago was never to teach students what to think but how to think. To achieve this goal (and I believe it to be a noble one) I endeavour to teach my students some basics in Western philosophy. In particular, I find it crucial that they understand the logical architecture of a formal argument and understand how it can be tested for fallacies.

Having taught and studied political philosophy for close to nine years, I see the ability to engage in rational discourse as a crucial life skill not a mere academic pursuit. The ability to use reason and logic to test the myriad claims that surround us at both a conscious and unconscious level is key to making informed decisions. This is why I teach philosophy to even my youngest students. At 13 and 14, students have the capacity to weigh claims and to develop critical and creative thinking skills. Many of my most enjoyable classes have involved teaching logical fallacies to young people and then watching them apply those skills to the world around them (California State University has a great summary of logical fallacies).

I recently discovered the blog site of Baptist minister and ethicist, Rod Benson, who, among other things, is Public Affairs Director for the NSW Council of Churches. Benson is generally left-leaning (by Christian standards) and is a noted activist for several laudable causes including ‘climate change action, justice for Palestinians, religious freedom, and gambling reform’. Despite this, he is a staunch opponent of marriage equality for homosexual couples. Benson has recently published an article listing his five ‘non-religious’ arguments against same-sex marriage . For a person in such a position of authority, with such influence and education, it is truly sad to see him put forward this impotent apologia for prejudice. Sadder still, the youngest of my students would be able to identify the blatant logical fallacies passed off as arguments.

1. We are told that marriage ‘is intended as the lifelong union of one man and one woman’ and that this is the ‘natural basis of the family’. This fallacy is known as the appeal to nature and it should set off alarm bells for two reasons. Firstly, Benson seemingly believes that monogamous, heterosexual relationships are always the case in nature. If we leave aside the animal and insect worlds which certainly have a different interpretation of natural, Benson’s false premise can quickly be revealed if he flips through his Bible where polygamy and concubines are the order of the day. Benson is trying to suggest that Victorian era concepts of marriage are natural while (ironically) Biblical ones are not. The second inherent fallacy in the appeal to nature is that it presumes that natural must be better. This is clearly not the case. Hospitals regularly keep people alive with pig’s arteries, pacemakers and a litany of very unnatural devices. This is not an argument.

2. Benson tells us that marriage is ‘deeply embedded in human history and culture’ and that ‘those who oppose same-sex marriage do so because they respect the wisdom of hundreds of generations of human tradition’. This fallacy is called argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). I’ve already mentioned that Benson is guilty of historical anachronism when he suggests monogamous, heterosexual marriage has always been normative. King David had at least eight wives and ten concubines (2 Samuel 3:2-5), however, his son King Solomon took polygamy to the extreme with over a thousand wives and concubines (1 Kings 11:1-3). It was not just kings, though, polygamy was acceptable for any man who could afford to care for more than one wife. Leaving that aside, the appeal to tradition is about as weak as arguments can be. Slavery was condoned by hundreds of generations of human tradition also. The oppression of women has also been around for centuries. One might expect that an ethicist such as Benson would know that an injustice with great longevity remains an injustice.

3. Next, Benson looks into his crystal ball and tells us with unnerving certainty that ‘once the law is changed there will be calls for group marriage and other variations devaluing the meaning of marriage’. Really? What possible evidence is there to support this? Leave aside the stinging irony that so many of Benson’s Biblical heroes where quite the fans of group marriage, is there a lobby group for group marriage or have any of the same-sex rights activists ever indicated this is on the agenda? This logical fallacy is worst of the lot. It is called a non sequitur (does not follow) and means the conclusion does not follow the evidence. This is bottom of the barrel stuff. No attempt is made to explain how or why a heterosexual marriage will be devalued if loving homosexual couples are afforded equal rights and no attempt is made to justify the claim that this will inevitably lead to a push for group marriage or anything else. In the absence of a single logical argument, the strategy is to spread fear that the sky will fall in if homosexual couples are afforded the same rights heterosexual couples have always enjoyed.

4. We are told that ‘in the absence of children conceived and born through natural means, same-sex couples may resort to IVF or surrogacy to procure children’. Benson immediately stumbles into his own contradictions here and makes no attempt to explain why it is ethically fine for a heterosexual couple to explore these ‘unnatural’ avenues but not for homosexual couples. We are left with nothing but a value statement and a false, prejudicial binary. Heterosexual couples will be loving, nurturing carers of children. Homosexuals will not. Benson claims to worry only about the wellbeing of the children, noting the possible commodification of babies and human rights abuses in other countries. The most petty and cruel of his non-arguments is that IVF or surrogacy for same-sex couples would involve ‘the allocation of scarce medical resources’. Would he dare to tell a heterosexual couple using IVF that they are wasting scarce medical resources? The argument is completely invalid as Benson makes no attempt whatsoever to justify his premise.

5. Despite the promise, Benson does not have a fifth argument. Having exhausted his ideas he embarks on a short tirade against those who compare the struggle for marriage equality to the fight for civil rights in the 1960s. It is curious to note that the same logical fallacies, the appeal to nature, tradition and the ‘opening the door to other evils’ argument were all used by conservatives as they fought against racial equality. Desperate to avoid sounding like a bigot, Benson closes his article declaring, ‘to hold that marriage is the exclusive union of a man and a woman is neither discriminatory nor unjust, but common sense’. The article finishes as it began, with a logical fallacy, in this case argumentum ad populum (appeal to popularism). Just because something appears to be common sense and a large number of people agree does not make it true.

We were promised five but Benson has failed to present one single logical argument against same-sex marriage. His blog promises that he will soon present five religious reasons to oppose marriage equality. This is telling and I suspect he will feel on much safer ground if he can appeal to the Bible rather than logic. The argument against same-sex marriage is not rational or logical, it is grounded in bigotry and Christianity, sadly, has been partly guilty in spreading and perpetuating this needless prejudice. There is a large and growing wing of Christianity which is able to see this discrimination for what it is. I truly hope that Rod Benson, who fights for so many wonderful causes, will eventually reconsider his position on this one. The psychological trauma this draconian attitude causes for same-sex couples, especially Christian same-sex couples, is enormous. If you do believe in a creator God, then God made homosexuals that way and He doesn’t make mistakes. I would encourage you to listen to Matthew Vines excellent response to years of institutionalised homophobia in the Church. When asked what was the greatest commandment, Jesus said simply ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and … Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ (Matthew 22:37-39). If more Christians were dedicated to loving their neigbour rather than judging their sexual preference, the world would be a better place.

Note to Rod: If you feel I have taken you out of context or if you would like to reply to this article I would be more than happy to publish your response in full on this site.

Posted in Christianity, Politics, Popular Culture | Comments Off

On Passion and Tolerance (or the two most painful insults I’ve ever received)

Monday, October 25th, 2010

I am right. At least I think I am. If I did not believe myself to be right then how could I keep on going? Would it not be necessary to change everything and adapt accordingly if I found myself to be wrong? And so it is with everybody. We continue living the way we do, thinking the way we do and acting/reacting in the way we do because we believe ourselves to be basically right. This is all well and good for the hermit on the hills but what of those of us who choose to interact with others, others who perhaps think they are right too? To state my thesis bluntly, passion and tolerance are two ends of the same emotion and, as ever, the best way to be is somewhere in the middle.

As a man who regularly dabbles in debate which are often of a deeply personal nature I have witnessed many different styles of argument and have observed with no small interest how these styles have been received. On the one hand there are people who push their views with such ferocity that little thought or care is given for feelings. On the other hand there are those who present their views with such humility and patience that the importance and intensity of the argument may be lost completely.

Perhaps the most personal and (certainly for one camp) important debate that can be had, is that between theism and anti-theism. This is a debate which cuts through the stifled and emotionless heart of the academic because each of us are inescapably bound to one world-view or the other and the impact of virtually every aspect of one’s life is dictated accordingly. The theist believes that human life is intrinsically linked to a spiritual dimension and that the borders of this universe and the sum total of matter are not the limits of transcendental experience. The anti-theist holds that there is nothing outside of time and space and that all the answers of existence can be scientifically explained and in time most likely they will be.

In my debating career and in the vigorous philosophical discussions I have chosen to engage in which this topic is concerned I have experienced two kinds of insult that cut rather deeply. I am happy enough to call them with no undue exaggeration the two most hurtful insults I have ever received and one has come courtesy of the theist and the other from the anti-theist.

From the theist I have been told that the Christian tradition to which I belong (Roman Catholic) is evil, its members are not ‘saved’ and that I needed to repent of my Catholicism. As a matter of course, I honestly can say, to use a football analogy, I try to play the ball and not the man. When you are faced with a comment along those personal lines, however, it is very hard not to instinctively want to fight back. It may well be asked also, what does the person who makes such a comment hope to achieve? On the one hand there is something admirable about how strongly they stand for their beliefs but at the same time it is also horrendously pig-headed and just plain rude. When dealing with issues so intensely personal surely an attacking constitution will only serve to alienate people and to grow intense and bitter rivalries.

Being attacked like that has certainly given me great empathy for the atheist. It must be truly annoying if not outright upsetting to be told that you lack morality, that you are inherently evil and that you need to instantly repent of your ways. Of course the theist may genuinely believe what they are saying is true, they may indeed be acting out of love, nonetheless, compassion and consideration are never useless values.  At the end of a day a person will never be attracted to a camp which is seen as arrogant and insulting. There is literally no point in aggressively proselytizing your beliefs and condemning others who hold different beliefs. If a person is questioning their worldview and looking to explore others they will be attracted to those who seem content and quietly confident not to those who seem to be theological bullies.

The other insult which cut particularly deeply was from the anti-theistic camp. It is not so much a particular insult so much as a long-running insinuation that theists are less intelligent than their anti-theistic counterparts. This insult is revealed in many forms. G-D is often referred to as an imaginary friend. Bertrand Russell’s beloved flying teapot had been joined by a pink unicorn and a flying spaghetti monster in ridiculing theistic belief. Beyond that, a false dichotomy is made between science and faith with the implication that theists are necessarily opposed to scientific advances.

The real frustration here arises from having untrue assertions made simply because someone holds the belief that G-D may exist. There is so much variation within the realms of theism. From new age spiritualism to voodoo and the myriad polytheistic beliefs, theism is nothing if not a broad church. Usually when poking fun, anti-theists focus on fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who read the Bible and Koran respectively as literally true. There are two problems here.

Firstly, it is unfair and academically lazy to lump together Christian freethinkers and fundamentalists, orthodox and non-orthodox Jews, Jihadist and progressive Muslims in the same unintelligent basket. Secondly, even when dealing with the more extreme theists, it is unhelpful and plain rude to presume superior intelligence based on a difference of philosophical belief. Those who would like to term themselves and their anti-theistic counterparts as ‘brights’ are doing little more than revealing their own arrogance and most likely insecurities also. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once put it, ‘you may have genius, the contrary, however, is more probable.’

So where does that leave us? We all have issues that are deeply important to us. It is not at all limited to spirituality but may well be politics or an ethical issue, even sports. Whatever the case, to be passionate is a wonderful virtue, to be rude and obnoxious is not. From the two examples of things that have insulted me personally, I would suggest then two rules. I note humbly that I am probably guilty of both in the past. Firstly, do not when presenting your case infer or state that the opposing view is evil or wrong. If your case is strong and your example is valid that will be enough to win over those who can be won over. Secondly, do not infer or state that those who disagree with you are unintelligent. This is perhaps the lowest form of argument available and is in fact not an argument at all. Ridiculing and humiliating other people is a form of cowardice. It is rude, patronising and rather unlikely to win any converts to your way of thinking.

By all means argue the case that you believe in. Fight with vigour but also with valour for what you believe to be true and just. At the same time you must acknowledge that the world is not uniform and homogenous. There is beauty in diversity and I don’t think anyone truly desires to see a world where we all think the same way. So blend your passion with tolerance. Accept from the start that not everyone will accept your argument and your position. Resign yourself to the fact that we are different and all the more beautiful for it. After all, If the argument cannot be won with grace and dignity, it is not worth winning at all.

Posted in Christianity, Politics, Thematic Musing | No Responses »

On Faith and Doubt

Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

Despite the dazzling variety which makes up the universal Christian mosaic, it is my belief that all Christians can be described as either conservative or free thinking. To create a simple dichotomy I would posit the former is closed minded and the later is open minded. People of course do not fall easily into stringent intellectual boxes. In reality people will merge between the two categories or may by conservative in some regards and free thinking in others. Be that as it may, there is still some gain to be made in investigating the two camps, crude though they may be.

So what makes a person conservative or free thinking? I think it is important to establish immediately that it is not related to any certain belief. You can easily find two Christians who believe virtually the exact same thing and yet one is closed minded and the other open. The difference between theological conservatism and free thinking has everything to do with the reaction to contrary or heterodox beliefs rather than the maintaining of accepted beliefs. Hence, this analysis could quite comfortably be extended to closed and open minded people in general, however, for the purpose of this article we will narrow our eyes to the Christian prism.

It can be psychologically distressing for a person to encounter a person who fundamentally rejects an idea or ideas which you hold to be obviously true. Historically the Christian Church has something of a disastrous record stemming from its conservative tendency. The discoveries of Galileo are a case in point. Rather than being thrilled by the prospect of new knowledge, there was a knee-jerk reaction to muzzle and reject Galileo because his discoveries in astronomy contradicted certain dogma which had built up.

Although there were of course political reasons also, the crusades and the treatment of Jews by the medieval Church are also indicative of conservative Christianity. The conservative mind by nature is terrified by ideas contrary to the ones held to be true. Hence, the conservative Christian is visibly uncomfortable in the presence of Jews, Muslims and people of other or no faith. The physical violence and other persecution inflicted upon minority religions by the medieval church reveals a zealousness, not to promote or protect Christianity per se, but rather to snuff out any rival voice.

Why do conservative Christians act thus and so? Increasingly modern psychology is agreeing that the dogmatic insistence that a person’s beliefs are completely correct is not a manifestation of faith but rather of doubt. It is more or less accepted by the psychological community that when humans have a trauma which the conscious mind does not want to deal with it is pushed into the unconscious mind. When applied to conservative Christianity, the evidence appears to suggest that closed minded behaviour is a psychological mask for deep rooted insecurities. People who find it too terrible to contemplate that perhaps part or all of Christianity is wrong, comfort themselves by insisting all the more loudly that it is absolutely right and blocking voices which disagree.

So perhaps the difference between the conservative and the free thinking Christian is the ability to admit their doubts. The free thinking Christian brings their doubt from the unconscious to the conscious mind and is therefore able to deal with it rationally. As a result you get the thoughts of the French philosopher Blaise Pascal and his famous wager. A Christian free thinker is open to the idea that there may be truth to be found in other religions and there may be untruth in our own. Consequently a critical evaluation is always in play with Christian free thinkers. It is no small irony that conservative Christians will accept the fundamental shift in ideas brought about by Saint Augustine, Saint Julian of Norwich, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther or the Second Vatican Council but will reject the catalyst for all innovation and progress in Christian thought; open minded, freethinking.

It is tempting at this point to introduce a few specific topics where I think conservative Christians really need to check whether their conviction is based on reason and truth or merely dogma and tradition but I feel that may dilute what I wanted to be a simple observation about two types of Christian.

I will content myself with saying this; we are imperfect creatures with imperfect minds and we are incapable of possessing absolute truth. We are mere travellers on this planet who can from time to time glimpse perfect beauty and truth but can never be the master of it. We all have doubt. Whether we push it into our unconscious or can admit it will make us closed or open minded. We should not be ashamed of our doubt. It is part of our human condition. It does not make our faith or the truth we hold to any less real. Doubt is not a fear of commitment or the trait of a weak Christian, it is the acknowledgment of the full complexity of the Christian worldview. Free thinking Christianity is a humble admission that we may not have all the answers. The father of the sick child in Mark 9:24 put it well when with tears in his eyes he said, ‘I believe; help thou mine unbelief’.

Posted in Christianity | 5 Responses »
Tags: ,

Schopenhauer, Animal Rights and Biblical Literalism

Saturday, May 1st, 2010

The German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, and New South Wales share a common birth year, 1788. By the time of his death in 1860, he was acknowledged as a skilled thinker and posthumously is viewed as one of the great contributors to the Western philosophical tradition. In 1851 he released Parerga und Paralipomena. Although it covers many areas the interest here is with his views on animals.

Here is what he says:    

Another fundamental error of Christianity is that it has in an unnatural fashion sundered mankind from the animal world to which it essentially belongs and now considers mankind alone as of any account, regarding the animals as no more than things. This error is a consequence of creation out of nothing, after which the Creator, in the first and second chapters of Genesis, takes all the animals just as if they were things, and without so much as the recommendation of kind treatment which even a dog-seller usually adds when he parts with his dogs, hands them over to man for man to rule, that is to do with them what he likes; subsequently, in the second chapter, the Creator goes on to appoint him the first professor of zoology by commissioning him to give the animals the names they shall thenceforth bear, which is once more only a symbol of their total dependence on him, i.e their total lack of rights.

It can truly be said: Men are the devils of the earth, and the animals are the tormented souls … It is obviously high time that the Jewish conception of nature, at any rate in regards to animals, should come to an end in Europe, and that the eternal being which, as it lives in us, also lives in every animal should be recognised as such, and as such treated with care and consideration. One must be blind deaf and dumb, or completely chloroformed by the foetor judacicus, not to see that the animal is in essence absolutely the same thing that we are, and that the difference lies merely in the accident, the intellect, and not in the substance, which is the will.

The greatest benefit conferred by the railways is that they spare millions of draught-horses their miserable existence.    

The first thing I would highlight is that Schopenhauer’s dismissal of ‘creation out of nothing’ must be read in its historical context. To modern ears it sounds rather weak for what is the Big Bang theory if not creation out of nothing? In Schopenhauer’s time, however, the popular arm of anti-theism supposed that the universe was itself eternal and many of the Romantic poets of the day, essentially worshipped nature. Schopenhauer, as the extract reveals, was a theist but not a Christian under any orthodox banner. He believed in a transcendent spirit of good and bad but denied their personification as G-D and the devil.

Schopenhauer’s views on animal rights cannot be seen entirely as a Christian versus non-Christian debate. On the one hand he was arguing the similarly anti-Christian Baruch de Spinoza who held rather an antithesis view on the matter. Inside the Christian world there was also a range of opinions. The Catholic canon is littered with discourses on animals and their role in the world. Many sects of the Protestant tradition held a ‘dominion over the animals’ mentality, however, this way of thinking declined rapidly in the nineteenth century. London’s Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was formed in 1841, much to Schopenhauer’s delight. Less to his delight, one imagines, would be the dominating presence of Christian ministers and lay-people in both the London chapter and the equivalents which sprang up around the world.       

I suppose what appeals to me most is Schopenhauer’s rejection of biblical literalism. Those familiar with my thoughts will be already aware that I strongly reject the literalist approach and feel the Bible needs to be rescued away from Fundamentalists. Hence, I very much see eye to eye with Schopenhauer when he insists that Genesis can not be entertained as an accurate work of science. Whatever truth lies in the Bible is surely to be gleaned through a philosophical and metaphysical prism (and it is there Schopenhauer and I part company).

To my mind, the Bible can not reasonably be called the word of G-D. It is, to paraphrase Bishop Spong, the word of men trying to reach the mind of G-D, but their humanity got in the way. The Bible contains a wealth of wisdom and, its greatest component, the philosophy of the most influential man to ever live. Be that as it may, it is pregnant with cultural and time specific bias. Modern Western cultural norms with regards to women, slavery and mental illness (i.e demon possession) are completely alien from the various historical periods when the books of the Bible were penned. To this list Schopenhauer happily adds the treatment of animals.

It is truly ironic that for Fundamentalist Christians the Bible itself has become the golden calf it preaches against. If the Bible is read blindly, as if an invisible general gave you specific orders concerning every facet of your life, it can lead only to elitism, homophobia, sexism and all shades of discrimination. It is used poorly when the intellectually lazy hide behind it as their excuse for not thinking. If, however, it is taken in proper historical and philosophical context, the Bible may just be the greatest book you ever read.        

Posted in Christianity | 4 Responses »
Tags: ,

Pulp Fiction and the existential crisis

Monday, April 19th, 2010

Quentin Tarantino is one of the finest directors of his generation. He is an obsessive devourer of film and a dynamic creator. He has an acute talent for blending sound, colour and dialogue into a rich tapestry which both acknowledges and builds upon some of the greatest filmic traditions. His work is famous for being shocking and provocative. That said, Tarantino is not a philosopher. I do not watch his films with a curious mind seeking to expunge the syllogisms and maxims being presented. As such, I was surprised to hear a lecture in which the professor of Apologetics at Oxford, Dr  Ravi Zacharias used a scene from Pulp Fiction to illustrate how secularism, though a good thing in and of itself, has been abused and contributes to our post-modern crisis; the loss of meaning.

The scene Zacharias is taken by appears early in the film where John Travolta’s and Samuel L Jackson’s characters are driving to a location with the intent of committing a mass murder. As they drive, however, there is joviality in the car. They are calm and enjoying a casual conversation. The trip has a relaxed atmosphere despite the fact they are about to commit a shocking crime. The dialogue is as follows:

VINCENT: In Paris, you can buy beer at MacDonald’s. Also, you know what they call a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris?

JULES: They don’t call it a Quarter Pounder with Cheese?

VINCENT: No, they got the metric system there, they wouldn’t know what the fuck a Quarter Pounder is.

JULES: What’d they call it?

VINCENT: Royale with Cheese.

JULES: Royale with Cheese? What’d they call a Big Mac?

VINCENT: Big Mac’s a Big Mac, but they call it Le Big Mac.

So what is going on here? Had you asked me before I would have said it is quite simple. The innocent sounding chitchat is a filmic device used in juxtaposition to the gravity of the scene about to come. Tarantino is deliberately trivialising murder in order to shock his audience and perhaps to make a comment on how society at large also trivialises murder.

Whether or not Tarantino intended it, Zacharias reads far deeper into this little piece of dialogue. The statement being made here is that cultures retain sovereignty over definition. There is no essential difference in the food but culture retains the right to define it however it pleases. Nothing has an intrinsic self but rather we confer value upon things.

This may seem an unimportant distinction when we are talking about burgers. When this theory, however, is applied to the Western secularised conciseness, the consequences become dire. If nothing has an intrinsic self anymore then good and evil can longer survive as intellectual categories. Rather than we conforming to them, they must conform to us and be watered down until they resemble nothing more than your personal preference and my equally valid preference.

What then happens to the idea of sin? It is another ontological category which cannot survive the existential blade. If cultures are given sovereignty over definition then we lose any objective point of moral value. The murderer and the rapist are no longer sinful but merely sick. And what of the myriad of smaller sins? What of the greed, lust, anger, jealousy and bitterness which manifests itself every day? When these were called sin they would produce a sense of shame. But there is no need for shame anymore, we can call these things whatever we want.

Robert Fitch put it this way in 1959, “Ours is an age where ethics has become obsolete. It is superceded by science, deleted by philosophy and dismissed as emotive by psychology. It is drowned in compassion, evaporates into aesthetics and retreats before relativism. The usual moral distinctions between good and bad are simply drowned in a maudlin emotion in which we feel more sympathy for the murderer than for the murdered, for the adulterer than for the betrayed, and in which we have actually begun to believe that the real guilty party, the one who somehow caused it all, is the victim, and not the perpetrator of the crime.”

This is the scenario facing us as we strive intrepidly to remove G-D completely from all public life and, if militant Atheists had their way, from private life also. The greatest Atheistic thinker of all time, certainly of the nineteenth century, Friedrich Nietzsche spoke very honestly about the ramifications of removing G-D from society. In his famous parable, The Madman, he commented on the death of G-D:

“Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning?”

Nietzsche recognised that without an objective point of moral reference there would be no up and down, no black and white, no right and no wrong. Because man killed G-D, Nietzsche asks, “must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?” This is the ultimate manifestation of the anti-theistic worldview which has come to dominate the academy and which is trying to dominate society at large. We have become god ourselves and we alone will decide what is right and wrong.

Looking back on the horror of the twentieth century, a century which has spilled more blood than the previous nineteen put together, I wonder what is in store for us in this new century. Can we afford to entertain a worldview which allows two young men to drive to a mass murder with no sense of shame? Shame comes from the acknowledgement of sin being committed. Sin comes from the acknowledgement of a moral code or good and evil. A moral code requires a moral code giver and only G-D is big enough to do that. Without G-D all our morals are meaningless. They are the sum total of our societal laws and cultural preferences. They are ephemeral, like the wind they are here one day and gone the next.

Have you ever seen your own heart? Anti-theistic thinkers cling blindly to the theory of a Tabula Rasa. History’s rivers of blood continually debunk this notion. The human heart is desperately wicked and longs for redemption. As long as we retain the sovereignty over definition we will never condemn ourselves. We will always make excuses and devise even more sinister ways to feed the evil which is already there. It is only when we accept G-D’s definition that we see ourselves as we truly are and can accept the truth which stands large behind every episode of human wickedness; humanity needs a saviour. 

Posted in Christianity | 3 Responses »
Tags: , ,

The absurdity of forced belief

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

Imagine being chained to a bench in a dark, Soviet-style cell. Imagine being beaten and tortured mercilessly. Imagine being left alone for days without any human contact and then without seeming cause or reason, tortured again. You cry from agony and despair, you shriek from exhaustion and desperation, ‘what do you want from me?’ ‘What does 2+2 equal?’ ‘Four’ you mutter in confusion. ‘But let us suppose’, your interrogator continues, ‘Big Brother says 2+2=5.’ ‘What then does 2+2 equal?’ ‘Still four,’ you exclaim. The torture resumes even more intensely. ‘What does 2+2 equal?’ you are asked again. ‘Four! Five! Four! Anything you like, just stop the pain!’

This was the fate of Winston Smith, the humble hero from George Orwell’s nightmarish vision of the future, Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is well documented, of course, that with few notable exceptions, a person being tortured will do or say anything. For every Saint Thomas More, preferring to be burnt at the stake than renounce his Catholicism, there are hundreds of millions who will do anything to avoid physical pain. Even in More’s case, as Blackadder once pointed out, he must have been kicking himself as the flames licked higher that it hadn’t occurred to him to say, ‘I recant my Catholicism.’ Who of us, broken, bloodied, starving and sleep deprived would not scream at the top of our lungs, ‘yes, 2+2=5’? But even then, could any of us really mean it? Despite every sadistic, manipulative tactic, could anyone make you really believe that 2+2=5?

The Christian Church has historically held a central thesis which can be expressed by the popular epigram, ‘turn or burn.’ It is worth considering though, is this any different to Big Brother’s tactics in Orwell’s dystopia? The only real difference is that Big Brother tortures his victims immediately, the ‘turn or burn’ brand of Christianity scares its members with eternal torture in the next life. Even then, as utterly horrendous as an eternity of unimaginable torture sounds, deep in your heart, could you actually make yourself believe that 2+2=5?

To my mind, especially in post-modern times, this tactic, readily viewable in the Evangelical community, is both vacuous and self-defeating. Evangelicals will often use as a selling point that they, unlike the rest of us, know for sure what happens after they die. This ideology is drilled into the faithful; certain Heaven awaits our ranks, certain Hell awaits those who reject our message. The altar call asks, ‘if you died tonight, do you know for certain where you would go?’ They seem never to ask, ‘if you don’t die tonight, what will be the logical basis for your moral and ethical compass? On what rational grounds will you hold your belief? What will be your reason for living?’ The whole premise which keeps this maxim alive is that no one questions the essential rightness of the Church’s message and no one is allowed to even think that maybe parts or all of it is wrong. ‘I know that I know that I know’ is an acceptable argument for belief in fundamentalist circles but as Winston Smith despaired in his journal, ‘Thoughtcrime does not entail death, thoughtcrime IS death.’

The culture of thoughtcrime which permeates through so much of modern Christianity is jejune and counter-productive. If G-D is loving and just, it makes no sense to believe He sits perched on a judgmental cloud condemning people because they don’t believe 2+2=5. Why is the Church’s first reaction to demonise and discredit people like Galileo and Darwin? Where does this opposition to free thinking and intellectual exploration come from?

Let me clarify something. I do not for a minute claim that Christianity is illogical in the way 2+2=5 is. I suggest this; if your proselytising tactic is fear of torture, then it doesn’t matter what the message is. Logical or illogical, people will say anything to avoid pain in this or any other life.

The pathetic irony in all of this is that so many of the great heroes of the Christian faith were free thinkers. Many were ex-communicated or threatened for challenging the established Church. From Augustine to Aquinas, from Joan of Arc to Martin Luther, from Mary MacKillop to Jesus Christ, every step forward began with questions. Is this right? Is this fair? Is this logical? Should this change?    

If the Christian Church, in its myriad forms, is to retain any relevance and meaning in a post-Galileo world, in a post-Darwin world and in a post-Freud world, this ‘my way or the highway (to Hell)’ mentality must be turned on its head. The demand that Christianity must not be questioned should be superseded by a demand that everything be questioned. Not everything will survive. Some ideas will bleed to death under the logician’s blade. The draconian treatment of Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual and Trans-gender people by mainstream Christianity is one such feature which can’t survive rational interrogation. But at least the Christianity which does survive this level of intellectual critique will be strong, intelligent and full of hope. The Christianity which invites scrutiny can offer answers to a hurting world and can truly evoke Christ’s purpose, to show people how they might have life abundantly.

Does Christianity have anything to offer the world? If the answer is no then it might as well start a new crusade and use the meanest violence to solicit forced conversions. If, however, the answer is yes then the Church needs to surrender its wig and gavel and start engaging with humanity on a level playing field. Every other idea in the world submits itself willingly to intellectual evaluation, why not Christianity? Why like some celestial bully would G-D simply wave his clenched fist shouting, ‘believe or else?’ If the Church posits with humility rather than haughtiness some of the logical reasons why a world based on Christ’s principles of love, forgiveness and reconciliation may be a better one, then people may less inclined to view Christianity with suspicion and contempt.

Our intellect, our sense of reason, our powers of observation and deduction are not curses to torment us but blessings to help us. We have the ability, to think, to critique and to believe; we should do all three.

Posted in Christianity | 8 Responses »
Tags: