The function of prayer

"The function of prayer", wrote Søren Kierkegaard, "is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays". Maybe, just maybe, that's why some choose prayer in times such as these. So enough with the snarking over "pray for Paris"; it may not be my way, but if it helps others it would be intolerant of me to say "no". And I'm pretty sure that, if anything, it's intolerance, not religion, that's at the "root of all evil".

Immortal Diamond

...all the past mistakes must be included as teaching moments and not just something to hate.

As befits one who seems to spend most of his days sat in the bedroom working on his laptop - I work from home, honestly - when I recently (or should that be finally?) finished reading Immortal Diamond I updated the status on Goodreads, which being linked to my Facebook account posted an update there. And then I had this extraordinary thought, given the subject matter should I add a comment to the effect that I’m not “one of them”.

I’m only half joking too, such are the negative connotations associated with religious belief amongst many of those I know. Nevertheless I’ll occasionally feel duty bound to correct the extremes, when feeling particularly bullish to remind some that atrocities supposedly in the name of religion (and there’s an argument to be had there too) pale in comparison to those of the last century, the bloodiest we’ve yet managed; it’s an old repeated argument I know, but theirs is much older. Still, even then I’ll sometimes mitigate my offense; I’m not “one of them”. Is this to add weight to my argument or am I sometimes the coward?

It was interesting, though a difficult book to read. Those moments that made me stop and think were outweighed by those of frustration at repeated references to scripture. I was disappointed, as if being excluded from the obviously decent and inclusive nature of Richard Rohr. Well, it is a Christian book so I can hardly complain. Was I any better than those silly people who interpret the Bible literally rather than spiritually or, if you will, metaphorically? Next time, if there is a next time, I must try harder.

I, Atheist

Atheist; it’s at best a useless description, carrying as it does a hint of the passive aggressive. I think we’re better off stating what we are rather than what we’re not. We can do without conveniently attributing the root of our ills to some other social group, you know, the one to which we don’t belong. Let’s show the courage, the common decency, to take ownership of the evil with which we’re troubled. It’s not that it’s our fault, but neither is it theirs.

Philosophy and spirituality and the whole damn thing

The diagram that follows is wrong. In a recent discussion, a friend’s description of religion sounded - or so I thought - like philosophy, later I decided spirituality, which led me to wonder, as most do, on the relationship between the three. I am not completely happy with any of it, meaning I’m partially happy with some of it; and then I added atheism, lest I forget, to skewer my ideas completely. Canon Giles Fraser pointed out to Richard Dawkins not so long ago the questionable merit of pronouncing on someone else’s belief. Hence my own notions can only ever suit my own imperfect ideas. I think of it as a start to a more internal discussion.

Two tweets are better than one

A head full of cotton wool, not literally of course, that would be dangerous, probably terminal; though it would explain the lack of discernible brain activity. I am reduced to blogging about blogging - would that be meta-blogging? Not my own though; in the absence of original thought I shall comment upon a couple of tweets. Would that be meta-micro-blogging or micro-meta-blogging or…

It is time to end the Dark Ages. Tax all religion.
28-Sep-2011

I am not entirely sure how to respond. Is this a hoax, a provocation designed to kick-start a debate, an “I don’t like religion” tweet - perfectly acceptable - or, and I may be giving more credit than is due, a suggestion that any favourable tax status should be reviewed. Difficult given that such status is the result of charity - and are we really in the realm of dictating who can be charitable? Taxing people’s belief; it is I suspect another example of ‘progressive liberal’ thought: penalise that with which you disagree.

Party defections by elected officials should always create by-elections. No exceptions.
29-Sep-2011

I am entirely sure of how to respond. This is either a misunderstanding of how our electoral system works, in terms of who and what we vote for, or another misguided attempt to pass the judgement of an elected official from the electorate to an unelected body. When in the polling booth, whilst in practice I scan for ‘my’ political party, in reality I am voting for a specific individual. It is a marvellous system, a system that could - if we curbed the power of the party whip - encourage our representatives to give due allegiance to their electorate, rather than the party to which they happen to belong. It is the very essence of local democratic accountability.

The logical progression to this - at an extreme end - is that an individual may choose to leave his/her party; whether because the individual or the party’s policies have changed, it is for the electorate to decide. Changing party is in effect no different to changing policy. Were a rule introduced to the effect that party defections trigger by-elections, this could be side-stepped by declaring an intention to leave, as opposed to actually leaving. Easy, you might respond, the party would then eject their unwanted member to get the desired result… only they could then eject all sorts of other ‘troublemakers’ too, and doubtless get more malleable MPs in return, bending to the will of their party first, their electorate second. Is that really what we want?

Wine into water

...our age is not willing to stop with faith, with its miracle of turning water into wine, it goes further, it turns wine into water.

I am 92% of the way through Fear and Trembling which, if I am to believe Amazon, is only 160 pages. Surely this is a miss-print, it feels more... substantial. Since a Kindle supports multiple font sizes, it deals not with page numbers but percentages; you always know exactly how much there is left to enjoy, or endure. Kierkegaard is not boring in any sense (though he is repetitive) but since it is a religious stance on the absurd, a philosophy I read previously in Camus, I find myself constantly having to walk in another’s shoes; which is no bad thing, but with Camus I could - at least in part - walk in my own.

Hence try as I might, I can never see Abraham as he does - though Kierkegaard does not claim to understand him - but I do admire his determination to question Abraham’s willing sacrifice of his son, to posit that without faith he is no more than a murderer; interestingly, for Kierkegaard, faith requires the absurd.

Faith ... is not an immediate instinct of the heart, but is the paradox of life and existence.

When holy books become wholly metaphor

Lots of reports today on a study of census data taken from nine countries; which has extrapolated religious extinction. It’s an interesting conclusion because, Voltaire’s comment aside - “if god did not exist it would be necessary to invent him”, I had always assumed this end. However, I have history in blurring the boundaries; my experience of religion, when religious, was generally of the positive. To me, even when I did belong the Bible was more metaphor than fact. I can’t remember whether I stopped believing before or after I began to see the ‘will of God’ as more important than the figure, since foremost had always been the message; Love.

An atheist in sheep’s clothing

Here’s the thing; despite what my profile may say, I’m probably an atheist. All this agnosticism is an attempt to disassociate myself from that rampant in-your-face element. Edward Aveling once said:

'Agnostic' was but 'Atheist' writ respectable, and 'Atheist' was only 'Agnostic' writ aggressive.

I get that. I don’t want to fight anyone and I’m not concerned with changing their belief, kicking out a crutch provides no satisfaction, being merely cruel. On the other hand, practicing atheists (for want of a better term) seem determined to give battle. Why do they care so much about other people’s faith?

The tenet that religion is the ‘root of all evil’ is a convenient fiction; a conviction that absolves one section of society from any blame. The reality is that our ills stem from a lack of tolerance; Christian to Moslem, Moslem to Christian, theist to atheist, atheist to… everyone else. I don’t doubt there have been terrible abuses, but if religion is culpable am I to blame atheism for the appalling (and more recent) crimes of Stalin, Mao Tse-tung and others?

Yes, Pat Robertson’s comment on the tragedy in Haiti was idiotic, as most of his comments are, but I find it interesting that Richard Dawkin’s response was less critical of Robertson than it was of those Christians who denounced the remarks. One might suspect that a Christian condemnation didn’t ‘fit’ and was therefore ignored as an anomaly, but of course his argument was that Robertson, unlike his critics, was being consistent with Christian teaching. You see Dawkins is like many of my hard-line brethren; in addition to only believing the one truth (sound familiar?) they like to interpret everything they read literally – oh, the irony! That must make for a terribly boring life, and one that leaves me to ponder yet again; how is it that some intelligent people can be so utterly simple? Bless them…

Welcome to the temple of Richard Dawkins

There are would-be murderers, all around the world who want to kill you and me, and themselves, because they are motivated by what they think is the highest ideal.
--Richard Dawkins

I'm agnostic. I believe the theory of evolution, that’s ‘theory’ in its scientific rather than popular sense. There’s a part of me that wonders why I should have to qualify myself, but the larger part thinks it easier that way.

With the recent anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth I somehow found myself reading a Richard Dawkins blog. This was in response to a colleague of mine who had read of a report showing an ‘alarming’ percentage of science teachers who didn’t believe in evolution. It later turned out that actually it was a percentage who weren’t convinced that evolution offered all the answers… then later again we agreed that not only did we not know the result of the survey but that, since we didn’t know the question asked, the previous discussion had been rather pointless… but still a lot of fun.

Regardless, I found myself reading Dawkins’ blog and it wasn’t long before I had this strange feeling of déjà-vu. If I remember correctly (I don’t care to go back because it was an ugly read) the discussion originated on correspondence between Dawkins and a journalist; in which the journalist had the temerity to infer that Richard Dawkins appropriation of Darwin’s significance was counter-productive to the teaching of evolutionary theory.

The journalist suggested that the teaching and acceptance of evolution was best served by keeping it separate from any debate on religious belief. Dawkins reply missed the point; he repeatedly commented that this was irrelevant as the science stands for itself. He either couldn’t, or wilfully refused, to entertain the idea that a person forced to choose between truth and love will sometimes choose love. Personally I think this rather wonderful; though Dawkins and his acolytes would doubtless roll their eyes at the very suggestion.

Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and an atheist; like most of us he combines what he knows (which is considerable) with what he believes. This is perfectly natural and in Dawkins case it helps to shift a lot of books; but in presenting the two tenets of evolution and atheism as a package he undermines that with which we can all agree. I say this because I don’t know any Christians who disagree with the theory of evolution. If he were to separate the two then science as a whole would find it easier to educate, and sloppy ideas such as ‘intelligent design’ would lose their grip and slowly die away.

So why doesn’t he? Judging from the many contributors to his blog I found it difficult to escape the feeling that they enjoyed the conflict; the intellectual bullying of people considered their inferior. It was unpleasant but I can hardly blame the great man for his following. There’s a certain irony in this fundamentalist approach to following their highest ideal, for they fail to consider the possibility that it’s not so much religious belief that is the ‘root of all evil’ but religious intolerance; and in that respect they condemn themselves.

Faith

Is any of it real? I’ve been thinking how much of what we live for is illusory. I don’t mean that in a “what’s the point of it all” sense, more that those things that give our lives a purpose have no scientific basis. A small percentage of us may improve the physical lives of those around them, but the vast majority such as I will fail.

But then I’m not living for a cure for cancer, nor to be witness to other great scientific achievements. None of these things, worthy though they are, give my life meaning. Instead I choose to believe in those elements that provoke an emotional response. Science enables me to live but does not tell me why. It provides no reason for great literature or kindness and compassion; yet none of us doubt these things exist. They are more than mere biology; the whole invariably outweighs the sum of its parts, so how can they be real?

They are real because, regardless of the evidence, we choose to believe. Perhaps then when someone believes in God, then God too is real for that person, and that is all that matters. Perhaps all of us, religious, agnostic and atheist, have a belief system of sorts. Mine may not include God but it encompasses other essentials that have no proof; they only require… faith.

And since we have faith, we should allow for others who have a different kind of faith. Proof is irrelevant. If I deny people their God, then I deny myself the right to love.