a better hope

You Have This Basic Right

2011-08-25T23:48:00.000Z

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Prof Alvin Plantinga on Reasons for God

2011-08-20T18:41:00.000Z

Drawing Lines Around Science

2011-08-19T01:00:00.001Z

What exactly is science? If you think that you have a clear answer to this, then you had better think again. This is one of the most controversial and difficult questions. While we might agree that it's superficially easy to define what science is, when someone asks you to write it down then things can get a bit more tricky.

One philosopher of science called Moreland says, 'There is no definition of science, no set of necessary and sufficient conditions for something to count as science, no such thing as the scientific method, that can be used to draw a line of demarcation between science and nonscience. Nothing about science essentially excludes philosophical or theological concepts from entering into its very fabric. Science is not an airtight container isolated from other fields of study.'

This is an interesting way to approach the science and religion debate. Especially when we need to try and say whether or not something is scientific, or that science has yielded 21st Century man with such advances as modern medicine, space travel, materials engineering, CERN etc.

I don't think that it was simply science that opened the door to the technological progress that we have seen in the last 200 years. It was also a way of thinking. A way of expecting something from the natural world. A set of presumptions about that world. We began to believe that we could understand and study it, and then we invented our microscopes and test-tubes. The modern scientific revolution was driven by ideas, not simply by the observational, scientific method.

UK Riots 2011: Sheldon Thomas (Target Against Gangs) / Gavin McKenna (E...

2011-08-15T21:56:00.000Z

John Coe: Spiritual Renewal, Part 1 - Biola University Chapel

2011-08-14T14:44:00.000Z

God's unconditional love - Jerry Root

2011-08-14T14:39:00.000Z

Os Guinness: A realistic view of evil

2011-08-14T14:36:00.000Z

Peter Berger on Secularism and Relativism

2011-08-14T14:34:00.000Z

Is the internet psychotic?

2011-06-14T23:40:00.000Z

Can we know reality?

2011-05-09T10:07:00.001Z

Can we know reality?

View more webinars from Tom Price

David Bentley Hart on Suffering

2011-02-11T15:56:00.000Z

Can this, and should this be made law?

2011-02-11T11:28:00.001Z

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
Article 18, UN Declaration of Human Rights

Can we legislate this? Should we?

I don't know if it can, but I think we ought to try. It may be too late. What do you think?

I Change the World Quietly

2011-02-04T22:30:00.001Z

Hello. It's your television here. How are you?

I've been thinking about a question. Here it is: what is the most influential force in the world?

If it isn't economics professors (I'm deadly serious) then perhaps it's me? What do you think?

I know, I know. I'm only your humble TV. I'm the one that sits reassuringly in the corner of the lounge. My red eye quietly but ever so persistently reminding you that I stand ready. I'm ready to show you advertisments for products that you don't need, but will end up buying. I'm ready show you news that is filtered through a lens, which keeps the status quo intact. I will show you films which move you to tears and change you as you watch them. I can even supply your family time. Your time together as a couple. Your community. Your intimacy. Your feeling of closeness to others. I'm ready to do all this. Just sit there, and take it all in.

I can show you the world from the comfort of the sofa. I can expose secrets and take you to places that you would never be able to see. I'll show you outer space and the bottom of the blue sea. I'll show you the surface of other planets and worlds. Through my window you can visit galleries, and museums. I can tell you everything. And I can always be trusted to give you the honest truth. When you are starving I can show you shelves full of food in supermarkets. When you fight I show you the battle. When you question your leaders I can help them to communicate with you.

Before you notice what I've done, I'll be gone. I'm leaving my friend to carry on my work. She's currently in the study in the beige box, but you'll soon be moving her into the lounge and connecting her up. Her superhighway can tell you anything you need to know. Do you think she'll change the world as much as I have?

Debate: William Lane Craig vs. Richard Dawkins

2010-11-25T13:55:00.001Z

Answers Must be Matched with Questions

2010-11-22T12:20:00.003Z

"Do we make crucial statements of Christian truth too glibly, too eagerly? Do we sufficiently take into account that a statement or an exhortation will persuade or compel only if the receiver is in a frame of mind appropriately adjusted to reception?"

"These questions occurred to at least one listener when he heard on the radio a few passages from a recent Quiz programme, in which, amid discussion of this or that, eternal truths of Divine Revelation were pithily - even chattily - summed up by an eminent ecclesiast. For we must admit that this readiness with answers has never been the way of the world's great teachers. Consider Socrates, for instance. How long and laboriously he worked upon his audience before he brought out a compelling proposition directly expressing his own conviction! What patience and perseverance there was in questioning and counter-questioning before the moment arrived for uttering the conclusive truth! And how these truths gained - in persuasiveness, force, and authority - through being dug laboriously out of the soil of error and half-truth! How memorable and compelling it made them, this process of discovering them like hidden remains, and not distributing them at random like advertising leaflets."

"This proves how deeply Socrates was aware of that difficulty in communication which some of our contemporaries seem to treat as newly-discovered problem in the world of thought."

"And a very little analysis of Socrates' technique of persuasion in the Platonic dialogues will show how his elaborate manipulation of his auditors served to put them into the frame of mind in which truths - perhaps unpalatable truths - could be accepted wholeheartedly, their compulsiveness depending upon their sheer relevance to the questions at issue. This criterion of relevance is crucial. R.G. Collingwood has argued that a statement can be fully understood and judged only if one is aware of the question which it answers. True answers are not enough. They must be matched with appropriate questions. In these days when, in the realm of Christian apologetics, we hear so much about the 'Christian answer' to this and that, it behoves us to ensure, not only that the answers are true, but also that they are correct; not only are they consonant with the Christian Faith, but also that they are strictly in accord with the questions asked."

"It is possible that a great deal of Christian apologetics missed fire through carelessness in this matter. If we are going to give our contemporaries the right answers, we must first ensure that they ask the right questions."

"In an age marked by apathy, rather than by hostility, to the religious issue, it is perhaps more immediately important to put questions into the minds of our contemporaries than to try to put answers there. Indeed it is useless to distribute answers to people who are not asking questions. We who try, in the pulpit or on the printed page [or blog], to bring the Christian challenge before our countrymen, must be wary lest we fail, not through lack of zeal or fervour, it is faitly absurd to fail through inadvertence."

"Perhaps it is unnecessarily far-fetched to drag in Socrates for our pattern in this matter. A little aquaintance with the gospels will suffice to prove that our Lord himself was economical in direct public persuasion."

(Blamires, Henry. The Will and The Way (SPCK, 1957))

A Muslim Student Challenges Ravi Zacharias from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.

Human Trafficking

2010-11-21T00:32:00.000Z

The Facts*

Two children per minute are trafficked for sexual exploitation
1.2 million children each year (UNICEF)
It is a 10-12 billion dollar industry

This is the band Muse's video for their song 'Exit'. I love it when artists say something that really makes you think. It's one of the most subversive, inspiring and beautiful things. If you have these gifts then why don't you use them for justice?

Would you be able to consider supporting RZIM's Wellspring? It's a charitable arm of RZIM, Zacharias Trust and says, "...Assists individuals in need and existing organizations serving women and children at risk. Our mission is to provide a holistic apologetic -- an answer -- at the convergence of physical, emotional, and spiritual need and to empower donors to make informed descisions about thier giving and participation in a broken world that longs for hope."

* (from 'Stop The Traffik' published by the United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking)

Carol Service Messages

2010-11-20T17:09:00.003Z

Many Christian pastors, speakers and vicars will be starting to think about how they can best use the Christmas messages at carol services to connect with their listeners. There is a need to help people to see that the Christian world and life view is deeply relevant and enriching - and it's also true. How can they do this well?

I've done a few of these and I'm often asked by others for ideas, so here are some suggestions for you to think about. I hope that they are helpful to you.

Link into serious theological realities. Start with theology as you think about the talk, but don't start by talking about theology. The main themes from theology for Christmas are ideas about:

Incarnation of God
Rescue of God
Humility of God
Love of God for people

But there are other themes from theology, which also could be great landing points for your message

Community - be part of something bigger
Revelation / Communication
Truth / Intolerance
Purpose

Connect relevantly. Seriously consider looking in popular culture (film clips, quotes from secular recording artists lyrics etc.). Build from common ground, not your authority, or your own dramatic powers. Don't try to be John Piper, or some big deal preacher. You are you. And you're great the way God made you. Just be honest and try to identify the questions and ideas that you are going to connect to. Do it in such a way, that you know that people will be ready for you to help them understand how the theology that you are going to teach is the answer. What are they into? What do they love? What do they do for a living? What are their challenges? How do they communicate? How well do you understand where your listeners are?

So, for example: don't start by saying, "The incarnation answers the problem that we face, when we wonder if God is far away from us." Instead of this, you could change your approach and tell a short, but hopefully memorable, funny and human story of a time when you wondered if God was interested in you, and your questions/concerns. Then, move gradually towards the incarnation perhaps.

Don't be too heavy. If you are concerned, then test it out first on a sympathetic but sensitive friend. Ask them honestly: am I being offensive? Do I seem to be overly serious? Is there a sense of fun, and enthusiasm as you listen? So, don't for example, start going on about hell and final judgement. And remember, you don't need to treat the gospel like a magic message, so that you have to say certain phrases like, 'Jesus paid for your sins on the cross' in order to for people to be moved. It's actually also your honesty and your own hard work in identifying and connecting with where people are that is where people are most fruitfully engaged.

Ask lots of questions. Throw loads of great questions outwards, and leave time for people to consider their answers. Don't rush it, leave some good periods of slower speech so that people have a chance to really reflect as they listen. Throwing questions out there like: why do we feel we need a sense of purpose? Do you ever say to yourself, "I wonder if there is something more that I could discover to this life I've got?"

Give a clear structure. A common fault is a meandering and unclear structure. If I'm listening to your sermon I want to hear what you are going to do in a couple of stages. It helps me to understand how what you are saying relates to the whole. Don't leave me guessing. So, for example, "First I'm going to show that "purpose" is a very popular and understandable concern, then I am going to imagine that there is a purpose for us to find. Then I'll talk about ultimate and everyday purpose, before giving you an interesting question to consider for yourself"...

Lead into a passage of scripture. Leave peoples minds in a passage. Too big and its hard for anything to stick. Too short and it might be lost in the fray of competing quotes and illustrations. Perhaps lead into a parable. What about the parable of the two men praying in the temple, if you are speaking on the humility of God, who stoops down to be with his people - identifying with them.

Give a next step. Encourage people and give clear direction for what they could do to find out more. Do a course/read a book? What should they do?

Sharing suggestions and ideas
It would be great to collect together some other ideas of connection points with potential theological counterparts. If you'd like to share your ideas in the comments then I'm certain that others will find this very useful.

EG.
Connection
Who Am I? (Identity)

Theology
Jesus claims to be God

Debate - La Ciudad de las Ideas 2010 - Does the Universe have a purpose?

2010-11-15T11:49:00.000Z

Bill Gates: How to Fix Capitalism

2010-11-03T21:14:00.000Z

Does Atheism Really Create a Better World?

2010-10-25T22:51:00.000Z

"Dawkins has argued, for example, that suicide bombers are brainwashed in religious schools. Yet none of the 9/11 hijackers or the Madrid train-bombers attended a religious school, and the one London Underground bomber who did so attended only briefly. Indeed evidence shows that in Muslim communities the deeper a person's religious scholarship, the less likely he or she is to be involved in jihadist activities."

"The suggestion by Harris and others that the world would be less violent without religion - and especially without Islam - also looks hollow when you consider the crimes against humanity committed by atheists. Prior to 2001, for instance, one of the most prolific dispensers of suicide terrorism was the secular Tamil Tigers. In trying to understand, or predict, terrorist activity, it makes scientific sense to look beyond religion, such as to the social dynamics of particular friendship networks and the recruitment strategies of jihadist organisations whose agendas are usually avowedly political."

"The scientific atheists' disregard of evidence when making their case "makes me almost embarrassed to be an atheist", says Atran. He is on strong ground: gathering data first-hand is not something Atran seems shy of, even if it means risking his own life."

From a New Scientist book review of Talking to the Enemy: Faith, brotherhood and the (un)making of terrorists by Scott Atran (HarperCollins/Penguin: 2010)

Gran Torino

2010-10-22T22:10:00.000Z

I just watched Gran Torino (2008). Was completely blown away by this subtle, brilliant story. It's a remarkable tale. I highly, highly recommend it. Impressive film. Straight into my top 10.

Have you seen it? What did you think?

Why Secularism is a big mistake

2010-10-20T07:57:00.003Z

When it comes to religion and moral beliefs closely linked to religious convictions, secularists would prefer you to think that secularism doesn't mean this (see above)

They would like you to think that secularism means this (see above). They believe that they can create a more stable society using this kind of structure, and the battle is raging in politics and culture right now. I wrote another blog post in response to Hazel Blear's comment that we live in a 'secular democracy'. And another one noting that Gordon Brown had said that 'we are not a secular state'.

Here is another model that you have probably heard of.

Religious or non-religious Tyranny/Facism
This is a society built on, "We know what is best for you to think, so you think what we tell you to think." The movies 1984 and V for Vendetta both presented this kind of system quite negatively.

It could be argued that secularism is actually very close to being a type of tyranny/facism, because it prescribes certain thinking and ideas E.G. "Don't talk about religion in public life - schools & education, politics, workplace"

And here is another model of society, one that I think you will like...

Liberty with a civil public square
This is a society built on a clear definition of tolerance ("I respect you, regardless of your ideas"), as opposed to the current definition of tolerance ("I respect you, and will never try to change your mind/convert you"). Under this system religion is part of public life (so we can talk about it in schools - within reasonable limits, and in the workplace). The religious would be less defensive than they currently are, be willing to have schools teach certain subjects (that they might not agree with), but instead of hiding from these subjects and challenges - instead have a bit more confidence that if they teach kids how to think and read that they will be able (within reason) to think these things through for themselves.

Why should you reject secularist models of society and instead opt towards a civil public square?

A civil public square is not a Christian tyranny in disguise. It is a balanced and open society, where freedom of the press etc. are welcomed.
Secularist societies cross over some boundaries (using legislative powers to enforce thinking about religion).
Secularist societies don't have a great historical record. Granted religious societies don't either, but I'm not arguing for either of these options.
Secularism is profoundly religious, it has deep world view convictions about the irrelevance of religion in the formation of character and roles in society. E.G. I think public money should be given to religious schools because they are doing a good job at teaching (with the religious content included).
Secularism doesn't enable multicultural societies to grow. It causes people groups who are closely tied to religious convictions to stay, largely out of political life. E.G. develop own legislative system. It doesn't provide a way for those people to be valued and included in the secular state - they are faced with a stark choice: the state or religion.
A secular society relies on the family teaching about values and religion. If someone comes from a really messed up family, then what hope of a different value and trajectory do they really have? They should at least be presented with the idea, without pressure, that they are of real metaphysical value and purpose in this universe during their education. Conversation, and consideration rather than conversion.

Following Jesus - How To Tell Who You Are Actually Following

2010-10-15T17:56:00.001Z

There are hundreds of people in this world who will give you hundreds of reasons why you should follow them. There are even some who will look like they are saying follow Jesus, but are really pointing towards themselves or something else. I want to lay down a little test that will help you see where you are. The more that this kind of question worries you, the more worried I would be.

Q. How can a person tell?
A. The real test is freedom, personal, intellectual and social.

Personal Christian Faith
Are you really free? Do you really know that you have been made righteous? The real test is that you can agree that NOTHING else, other than internal (not external) repentance and faith matters. Unless you 'get' the value of that, then genuine personal freedom doesn't exist.

Intellectual Beliefs
You are always free to ask - is this really the most reasonable/rational/sensible interpretation of this passage/verses? If another interpretation is smarter, and if this is rejected, then you are probably not very intellectually free.

Social / Community
Would your friends still be your friends if you changed some of what you believe? If not, then there are some social pressures on your freedom. The stronger the social reaction to a change in belief - then the more concerned you should be.

If you consider yourself to be a follower of Jesus and you answered negatively to either the personal, intellectual or social challenges, then you need to face the facts. And get free any way that you can.

Responses?

Millennial’s Think Tank - Responds to Fading Memory of Christianity

2010-10-12T11:00:00.001Z

The best thinking is probably done in the pool while having a BBQ, after a round of golf

Replying to 'Young People have Fading Memory of Christianity' The Millenial Think Tank publishes its first article here

"Generation Y may be uninterested in church but many churches have become uninteresting. The question isn’t why are Generation Y uninterested in church, but asking why are those who are in church interested?..."

"It is certainly worrying that such a low number of Generation Yers attend church and in many ways there are markers specific to their generation that point to why church attendance is so low. Generation Y are, by and large, all adults now and are attempting to find their identity in a society sculpted by the previous interminable youth culture of Generation X. Gen Y find themselves in a society that has undermined most of the morality, institutions and beliefs left by Generation X’s forebears, they have inherited a volatile economy, obsession with celebrity, and a jumble of lessons on self-esteem, cynicism and individualism."

"The ‘Millennials Think Tank’ is dedicated to providing insight into Generation Y, a generation that contrary to some research is made up of many whom are intensely interested in faith, purpose, the meaning of life and the transformation of society. Generation Y are political, opinionated and have higher rates of volunteerism than many of their forebears, and, as the recent study has pointed out, are not really antagonistic to matters of faith, so much as uninitiated."

"Whilst extensive research has been put into finding out that Generation Y has no interest in God or the Church, The new ‘Millennials Think Tank’ has embarked on researching those in Generation Y that are interested in God and the churches that are engaging successfully with this generation. Instead of looking at why Generation Y aren’t attending church or why they appear to be uninterested in faith we need to take seriously the reasons why those who do attend church continue to do so and examine closely those churches who have thriving Gen Y congregations."

"The majority of churches have failed to engage with these young adults. The enfranchised Generation Y have grown up expecting a stake in decision-making, leadership and responsibility they enjoy team work and shared goals and are inspired by issues of social justice such as eradicating third world debt, stopping wars and protecting the environment, many churches have simply not facilitated for this. Instead of focusing on what the church is doing wrong and being disheartened by the dwindling number of Gen Yers in our congregations we believe it will be more instructive to spend time with those highly motivated young adults who are engaged with their churches, who have chosen to buck the trend by embracing a personal faith in Jesus Christ, who seem, if anything more intensely committed and passionate than those who may have gone before them. They are going to churches which stress community and commitment, which place emphasis on bible teaching and worship, which have congregations of over 200, have effective evangelistic ministries and by and large are in cities. These churches are equipping Millennials to become leaders, inspiring them to transform their communities and are rising up a generation that are passionate about their faith and long to see their peers lives changed."

"We must stand against the belief that Generation Y are uninterested in God and point critics towards the churches successful young adult ministries and to the armies of Generation Yers that are populating these churches. We must look at successes like Alpha that is attended by more Genertion Yers than any other age group. By examining the markers of thriving Generation Y ministries we will be able to help inspire the wider church to capture the imagination and heart of Generation Y. The Millennal’s Think Tank is run by Generation Yers themselves and we are committed to seeing our generation passionate about God, His Word and His Church, and we believe that by making church interesting we create interest in faith. By examining what it is that makes a successful (and interesting) young adult ministry we can be instrumental in equipping more churches to rise up effective ministries and to see this generation reached, raised, released and changed."

Christian Belief - A Fading Memory?

2010-10-12T08:40:00.000Z

"Religion is largely irrelevant to most young people, who rely instead on a “secular trinity” of themselves, their family and their friends to give meaning to their lives, a new book claims... The book suggested that the “chain of Christian memory” has become “eroded” in Britain, particularly as the authority of the church has declined, society has become more interested in technology to solve problems, and globalization has led to a “spiritual market” of competing beliefs.

“It is undoubtedly the case that the Christian memory is very faint and in many respects Generation Y are a largely unstoried and memoryless generation,” the study said.

The 2001 census found that 62 per cent of young Britons still call themselves Christian, although in a more recent survey only 27 per cent of 18 to 24 year-olds felt they belonged to a Christian denomination.
(more here)

Do you think that this is true? And if so what is the answer?

Digging deeper
For more research you might want to get and read the Book 'Millennials' - available from the Minster office (frog@latimerminster.org), St Andrews Bookshop, Holy Trinity Brompton or available as an ebook from Amazon.

abetterhope on Technology Will Save Us

Martin Rees on Religion, Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins

2010-10-09T18:06:00.001Z

Martin Rees (Scientist, not a Christian) has delivered a scathing attack on Hawking's recent comments about there being no need for God in order to explain creation.

"Stephen Hawking is a remarkable person whom I've know for 40 years and for that reason any oracular statement he makes gets exaggerated publicity. I know Stephen Hawking well enough to know that he has read very little philosophy and even less theology, so I don't think we should attach any weight to his views on this topic," he said.

"I would support peaceful co-existence between religion and science because they concern different domains," Lord Rees said. "Anyone who takes theology seriously knows that it's not a matter of using it to explain things that scientists are mystified by."

Sir Paul Nurse on Religious Belief

2010-10-09T17:49:00.000Z

On 14th October 2010 in The Times Eureka! magazine, some of the most important scientists of our age will be named. The top 10 are.

Paul Nurse
Mark Walport (disease and genemic research and funding)
Stephen Hawking (physics)
Alec Jeffreys (DNA)
Jonathan Ive (apple engineer !?)
John Sulston (human genome project)
David Attenborough (broadcaster)
Martin Rees (astronomer)
Andre Geim (physics)
Nancy Rothwell (biologist)

Others named in the list included Iain Lobban, Director of GCHQ, the Government's secret electronic eavesdropping agency (12), Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer (23), Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the Internet (52) and Jim Virdee, leader of CMS at CERN, Europe's Big Bang particle research group (62). The Prince of Wales was ranked 94 in the list (!?) (more here)

Paul Nurse
So Sir Paul Nurse is named as the most important scientist of our age. Who is he? Paul Nurse has spent seven years as president of the Rockefeller University in New York but will now succeed Lord Rees as the president of the Royal Society. You can read and watch Paul's Nobel lecture on Controlling the Cell Structure for which he won his Nobel prize in Medicine in 2001. His work has important implications for cancer treatment. You can read his full autobiography here

On Religious Belief
"It was during my time at secondary school that I abandoned religion. My mother was a Baptist, and as a young teenager I was also a committed believer. But I had real difficulties reconciling a literal belief in Genesis with evolution, and my attempts to accommodate the biblical account of creation by viewing it as a poetic metaphor suitable for an unsophisticated nomadic people was completely rejected by my church. I gradually slipped away from religion over several years and became an atheist or to be more philosophically correct, a sceptical agnostic."

On Purpose
"For the first time I fully recognised the excitement of intellectual endeavour and realised that this was what I wanted to do with my life."

"I have an idealistic view of science as a liberalising and progressive force for humanity. Better understanding of the natural world not only enhances all of us as human beings, but can also be harnessed for the better good, leading to improved health and quality of life. It is also a truly international activity which breaks down barriers between the peoples of world, an objective that always has been necessary and never more so than now. Scientific understanding is often beautiful, a profoundly aesthetic experience which gives pleasure not unlike the reading of a great poem. It has been a privilege to pursue knowledge for its own sake and to see how it might help mankind in more practical ways. I hope that the future will allow me to continue that pursuit for as long as I am able."

More Personally On Origins
Recently during a visa application to work in the USA Nurse found out that his family background was not exactly as he had expected. "She handed me the new long birth certificate and the next few seconds of my life were both unexpected and transforming. The name of my mother given on the certificate was the name of the person I thought was my sister and the space for my father's name was blank. I had been brought up by my grandparents thinking that they were my parents...My mother became pregnant at 18 years and was sent away to her aunt's for the last months of pregnancy and my birth. My grandmother then came and pretended that she was the mother and returned to the family home with her "new son." My grandparents then brought me up to protect their daughter. My mother got married when I was nearly three and there is a poignant photograph of the wedding with her holding her new husband with one hand and me with her other hand.

Everyone kept the secret so even my two brothers (now my uncles) did not know the truth of my origins. And of course I still do not know who my father is beyond a rumour that he may have been a serviceman, perhaps even an American serviceman which would presumably please the US Department of Homeland Security. Does any of this change anything? Not really, I was brought up by loving grandparents and had a happy childhood. All my relations have changed of course, with parents becoming grandparents, brothers becoming uncles, nephews and nieces becoming half brothers and sisters. In fact, it was quite nice to acquire new half siblings at a late stage in life. Both my grandparents were also illegitimate so I inherited the name 'Nurse' twice through the maternal line in three generations: so apart from being somewhat unsettled, which I suppose is understandable, nothing really has changed, although I continue to wonder who my father is. Of course I regret not having had time with my real mother or the opportunity to discuss my origins with her later in life, and then there is the final irony that even though I am a geneticist my family managed to keep my genetic origins secret from me for over half a century."

More thinking about Science and Religious Belief
Bethinking.org on Science
Christians in Science
The Faraday Institute
Philosophia Christi

Dawkin's meanwhile enjoys coverage by British Comedians Mitchell and Webb

What is... hope?

2010-09-25T14:29:00.000Z

It's a good question, but you might not feel that you relate to it immediately. Here are some things that stir me to hope for something better.

The ongoing moral fight that I am in every single day to try to do the right thing
War and conflict
Experiences of suffering and pain
Grief and death
Psychological / mental illness
Physical illness and weakness
Spiritual disinterest
Poverty and injustice
Human evil and depravity
Orphans
Car crashes and calamity
Racism and prejudice

What would it be like to live in a world that didn't have any of this? That is the question: what is hope?

Stephen Hawking - Gravity Made Us

2010-09-03T08:12:00.001Z

In the Telegraph Stephen Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist...It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

Prof. John Lennox (one of the lecturers at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics) replies in the Daily Mail, "I would say that Hawking's claim is misguided. He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict. But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions. "

"What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine."

"That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own - but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent."

"Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved. To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton's laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms."

Top Ten

2010-08-18T22:32:00.001Z

As my wife and I celebrate the life changing birth of our first little one 'Mia', perhaps having a look at my most popular posts will keep you ticking over?

Some of the most popular since 2006 (by number of comments)
A survey of those leaving church shows 73% mentioning lack of apologetics
Do christians believe in freedom of artistic expression?
Loving logical faith
Richard Dawkins changes his mind once, twice, three times
Karl Barths suspicious epistemology
How lonely are you?
Scientists teach gorilla it will die
Come into light of grace friends
How can you tell the difference between delusion and reality?
Church of Richard Dawkins
Questions about the Marmite Jesus
Won't heaven be boring?
Christian teaching must change
Please let me into Camp Dawkins
Some questions christians are scared of

Some of the most popular posts since 2006 (by number of views)
Feeling vs. Choice
Atonement: how to teach what the bible says
What do you think of the death penalty?
Richard Dawkins Responds to Anthony Flew
William Lane Craig vs. Lewis Wolpert
What is the Cultural Mandate?
Christian anti-intellectualism
Who is the real monster?

Discussions that I particularly enjoyed writing and talking about
Love
Worldview level questions about secular democracy
What did you think of the sermon?
Technology will save us
Fads and Crazes
Questions
Karl Barth and Kantian subjectivism
What is apologetics? Why does it matter? How do we do it?

I see it - C.S. Lewis

2010-08-13T14:29:00.001Z

We usually read the second part of this sentence ("by it I see"), but the first part ("I see it") is very important. I think Lewis is saying, "Invite them in, explain the biblical worldview and story, but also show them that it is true without simply relying on that being enough."

People immediately think of natural theology, and a dreary death under a pile of incomprehensible arguments and definitions. But, this is not what Lewis did. He put his arguments simply and clearly. You can read them in his book Mere Christianity.

Karl Barth and Kantian Subjectivism

2010-08-12T14:18:00.001Z

I argued in Karl Barth's Suspicious Epistemology that Barth was epistemologically pessimistic (we can't know) about things outside of a full, and direct revelation from God. We had some good discussion about whether or not Barth was, as I had painted him. I've just found this passage in Barth's Church Dogmatics which seems to answer the question pretty clearly: what is the status (true or real?) of anything outside of the knowledge given to human creatures through Christ?

"Our consciousness of ourselves and the world, i.e., our awareness and conception of our ego, and of people and things existing outside ourselves, might well be a matter of mere supposition, of pure appearance, a form of nothingness, and our step from consciousness to being a hollow fiction. It is not true that we have an immediate awareness of our own or any other reality. It is only true that we immediately suppose that we have such an awareness. (CD 3.1, p. 345)"

In Barth, Modernity and Postmodernity (Companion to Karl Barth) Graham Ward confirms this interpretation, "Jesus Christ is the ontic and noetic possibility for any true and objective understanding of what we, other people, and the things of our world are as created...Barth following Kant, accepts that we cannot know 'things in themselves'; we work with the mediated representations of these things and, on this basis, we live in the world 'as if' we had immediate awareness...CD 2.1 explicitly critiques the correspondence view of language, working within a neo-Kantian framework. Barth understands language as picturing the world such that human consciousness of the world and what the world is in and of itself are distinct. Only the noetic operation of the Spirit of Christ, establishing analogia fidei or analogia Christi, can enable us to have some understanding of the world as it is." (p. 285)

Pantheism and Monism

2010-08-11T11:44:00.001Z

Pantheism is not the worship of cooking utensils, or undergarments.

Pantheism as a world and life view has had a broad and persistent influence in the world. Much of the Far Eastern world, for most of its recorded history has been influenced by pantheism. The Western world has also been heavily influenced by pantheism.

Panthemism is the opposite of Deism.
Deism stresses God’s distinction and distance from the real world
Pantheism emphasises God’s identity with the real world
Pantheism believes that God is in the world, or rather that God is the world

This is why Francis Schaeffer called pantheism

‘pan-everything-ism’

Because….

Deism stresses God’s transcendence
Panthemism stresses God’s immanence
The big story, or big picture (metaphysical) background of pantheism is monism

Monists believe that reality is ultimately unified. All is one and one is all.

Central concepts...

The central pantheistic conception of God is the absolute unity and transcendence of God
The supremacy and unity of God are the core of ultimate reality and the basis for everything derived from him

Creation is ex Deo, out of God
God is the source of everything. All is rooted in his being. Creation springs out of God either by manifestation, emanation, or some kind of unfolding. Creation is not ex nihilo, out of nothing, that is meaningless.

Both creation and evil flow from God
The absolute is not personal and creation is not a free choice. It flows from God necessarily. And whatever evils, lacks, or deficiencies are seen in the emanations or manifestations are there because they must be there.

God is neither personal nor conscious
God is not a He but an It. Personality comes about at best by emanation or manifestation on a lower level.

The universe is ultimately One, not many.
In absolute monism there is no reality status to anything but absolutely one being. In other pantheisms there is agreement that whatever lesser reality there is in multiplicity and finitude, the many is always in the One, but the One is not in the many. That is unity is the basic reality from which multiplicity flows, not the reverse.

I'm not a Pantheist, or a Monist. Are you? Why?

Boredom

2010-08-09T13:48:00.003Z

Boredom is always seen as a bad thing. But is it always? Perhaps we should look at it differently?

In an applaudable act of technological heresy Michael Ots has decided to downgrade his phone and turn off facebook for a bit, so that he can make sure that he is spending more time with the people he is actually with. I'll have to figure out a way to sms (which he can still get) my twitter updates to him. Poor chap will starve, no?

Peter Bregman says, "Boredom is a precious thing, a state of mind we should pursue. Once boredom sets in, our minds begin to wander, looking for something exciting, something interesting to land on. And that's where creativity arises." (Why I returned my ipad)

I think that there is something to this, which is why I keep my phone on silent, almost all of the time. I don't want to know about the email, sms, or phonecalls. This has meant fiddling with phone settings, but you can figure it out if you want to. The red light on the top of your blackberry doesn't have to flash, you want it to.

A book on a similar theme from L'Abri's Richard Winter explores some of these themes in depth, and additionally contains some of the sharpest social/anthropological/cultural observations that I have ever seen. It's one of the best books on contemporary culture I've read.

Still Bored in a Culture of Entertainment: Learning to Live with Passion and Wonder

Boredom can also be a really bad thing. It can be painful, and numbing. I don't want to minimise that - if that is your experience. Sometimes the frustration of this kind of boredom can be redeemed and used as an impetus or motivation, and then at other times, it must be endured gracefully with good cheer, as part of the journey. The everyday suffering of a boring job, or role, exchanged for a humble and teachable heart?

Can Apologetics Encourage the Integrity of Christians?

2010-08-08T17:09:00.001Z

Having integrity isn't just something that concerns the followers of Jesus. It's also quite serious when you are in charge of who to lend money too. Haven't we just seen a financial collapse that had a moral aspect to its cause? If it wasn't directly caused by a failure of human morals and/or integrity, then it certainly was made worse by this kind of failure. I'm not saying that a financial system like ours (free market, democratic capitalism) won't grow and contract. But creating toxic debt, by lending to people who couldn't deal with that debt seemed to be a profit at the expense of others. Watching Worldcom, Madoff and others, has led us to a similar conclusion. Economic failure is made worse, or caused by moral failure, and a disconnection with reality. Michael Ramsden has spoken about this in his lecture called 'The Divorce from Reality'. If you have never listened to it - I highly recommend it.

So, we all must face this challenge. To live with an integrity. An honesty. So for Christians, they cannot simply brush their questions under the carpet. God never asks us to do this anyway. Instead he invites our questions. This is crucial for the follower of Jesus to understand. Denial of reality is not faithfulness. Having integrity means staying true to God and his word, yes. But it also means being honest about where you stand, with respect to that. Integrity is not a one way street. Charles Colson writes in Why Christians are losing the culture war that, "We need to formulate and live out a Christian world view — an overall view of the world we live in. Otherwise, we may know our Bible well and even cite chapter and verse, but we lack the broader framework that connects our moral and spiritual beliefs to the issues we face in a secular culture."

So, perhaps apologetics and philosophy of religion have a lot more benefit yet to be fully recognised and taken hold of? "The next major revival of evangelical Christianity, as strange as it may sound, may well come through the intellectual re-engagement of the church, as her people discover sound arguments for Christian faith and answers to the objections lodged against it -- and so, strengthened by the conviction that Christianity is not just "true for them" but objectively true for all, become emboldened, winsome, and intelligent witnesses for Christ in a decaying culture." [From Trajectories in Philosophy and Apologetics, Craig and Copan]

Roald Dahl on God

2010-08-08T02:26:00.001Z

Dahl standing in front of his writing shed

"They had been to the church at Little Missenden and were carrying some bunches of richly variegated holly to decorate Olivia’s grave. Ophelia asked her father why God had allowed her elder sister to die. Roald admitted that he did not know and then told her about his meeting with Fisher and how certain “the Boss” had been that although Olivia was now in Paradise, her beloved Rowley would never join her there."

“His whole face closed up,” he recalled. “I wanted to ask him how he could be so absolutely sure that other creatures did not get the same special treatment as us, but the look of disapproval that had settled around his mouth stopped me. I sat there wondering if this great and famous churchman really knew what he was talking about and whether he knew anything at all about God or heaven, and if he didn’t, then who in the world did? And from that moment on, my darlings, I’m afraid I began to wonder whether there really was a God or not.”"

Full article here

Avoiding the obvious?

2010-08-06T18:27:00.001Z

"If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong? And for many years I simply wouldn't listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept on feeling "whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn't it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren't all your arguments simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?"

C.S. Lewis (Broadcast Talks, (Whitefriars:1953), p. 40)
Make your own mind up...

Inception: how can we deal with pain and regret?

2010-08-04T14:45:00.003Z

There is no denying that Inception (2010) from Writer/Director Christopher Nolan (Dark Knight, Insomnia, Mememto) has been a box office smasher. It's certainly one of the best films this summer. It's probably slightly over-rated, because it doesn't really worry us, and as one friend of mine said... "There was a really, really flat eye of the storm in the film. He suddenly announces that if killed they won't wake up because they are sedated. And everyone goes, 'Oh, right.' And when the 'dreamer' gets shot… 'Oh, we failed. Ah well.'"

Plot
"Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a skilled thief, the absolute best in the dangerous art of extraction, stealing valuable secrets from deep within the subconscious during the dream state, when the mind is at its most vulnerable. Cobb’s rare ability has made him a coveted player in this treacherous new world of corporate espionage, but it has also made him an international fugitive and cost him everything he has ever loved. Now Cobb is being offered a chance at redemption. One last job could give him his life back but only if he can accomplish the impossible—inception."

Inception raises a number of interesting questions

Can we know reality?
Why do we dream?
Are ideas the most dangerous thing?
What is the subconscious mind?
Is dreaming a purely physical process?
Are ideas sometimes weapons?
Is it possible for dreams to be shared, consciously?
How can an idea captivate and capture a person?
Is Leonardo Dicaprio a goat trapped in a man's body?

At a much deeper level than the questions about reality, and ideas is a more human, more intimate question. It's a question about how we deal with regret and pain, and the reality question only enters as a function of that. Cobb must come to terms with the power of ideas, and his own pain and sense of guilt, if he is to reconnect with reality. This is his own redemptive journey, it is understandably hard for him. And this is true in the real world too. We find immediate happiness by running from reality, but it doesn't last. True happiness, immediate (eventually) and longer term happiness only comes through confronting who we are, what we are like and what we have done. I sometimes like to describe prayer as connecting with reality. In confession I can't hide, everything is open between God and myself. He is there and he sees.

It's also interesting to ponder why they prefer the dream world in the first place? In the utopian quest to create heaven, it might end up with more of them than they bargained for. If we designed our own heavens, then we might well end up on great big farms, with lots of toys, hundreds of miles from each other - self-sufficient, but utterly cut off from each other. This is the picture of a self-imposed hell that C.S. Lewis describes in The Great Divorce. Isolation. Which doesn't sound very heavenly after all.

Ideas (big ones) are usually chosen because they accord with our 'ground motives', which are often emotional, or desire led. Our ground motive might lead us to embrace the spiritual or transcendent, in search of something more. Or our ground motive might predispose us to refuse any external, supernatural explanations or help. And an idea, chosen, with such a motive behind it's very 'inception' has huge power to inspire, but also capture, and lead the person into denial/self-created incarceration. Some people want to escape from that deep dream state, isolated from reality. To try to connect with the human, the real, the authentic, the non-dream. Some don't.

So the prayer of reconnection doesn't stay in confession. It also moves to reconnecting with hope for something better, something more authentic. A glimpse of heaven now, or something like it. Where are you? What did you think of the film? How many stars would you give it?

Loneliness

2010-08-03T11:42:00.003Z

"''I'm perpetually lonely. I'm lonely when I'm in relationships"
Lady Gaga

"Everyone has been lonely at some point in life, sometimes even when their days are filled with family and friends. Where does this experience come from and why does it happen?"
Listen to Ravi Zacharias on 'The Inner Ache of Loneliness" (13 mins)

Magnolia: What Can You Forgive?

2010-08-02T16:58:00.001Z

Magnolia (1999) is one of the best films ever made. It isn't an easy film to watch, and it isn't for everyone. Those who are sensitive to strong language or are impressionable/sensitive to strong emotional themes would need to steel themselves or avoid the film altogether. Many people never get past the language used by Frank T.J. Mackey (Tom Cruise) or some of the seemingly random plot twists. For those who persevere, who re-watch and think about this film there are rewards aplenty.

Magnolia asks a central human question and it doesn't relent, step back or count on your willingness. Each character pummels the viewers heart and repeats the same question. Some shout it, some whimper it, but they have the collective effect, and some the same subtlety as a main battle tank at full charge. Magnolia's writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood, Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love) weaves a complicated story, which for the patient becomes clearer and clearer with each viewing.

It could be unkind, but true to say that this film has nothing to offer those who just want a film to provide some escapism for a couple of hours. I have always pointed them elsewhere, sometimes even to Aristotle. Where there is a difficulty understanding and engaging with film it is common to find a similar reluctance to examine other questions and issues. "Let the thinking people think... I'm not wired like that... I just want to enjoy a good film...Pass the popcorn!"

I wouldn't want to force anyone to think about film, or life in a way that they didn't want to, but equally if you had found something wonderful, then wouldn't it be self-centred to keep it to yourself? With this in mind, we need to be more open to thinking about film a bit more - you never know, perhaps something wonderful might happen? It did to me, when I watched this film it set me on an incredible journey, because I really identified with the question that it was asking, at its most fundamental level. What then, is this question that the film communicates?

It is this...

What can you forgive?

Karl Barth's Suspicious Epistemology

2010-07-30T16:30:00.000Z

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. How we know what we know. In the area of epistemology Karl Barth was strongly influenced by the philosopher Immanuel Kant.

Kant opened the door to a new kind of subjectivism and epistemological pessimism. Kant said that our minds shape what we think we see. And that if this is happening then perhaps we have a problem. Perhaps we can't know reality (EPISTEMOLOGICAL PESSIMISM).

Whatever Kant thought, we do seem to know some parts of reality. We can know things in the world, and things in ourselves too. (EPISTEMOLOGICAL OPTIMISM)

Barth would struggle with epistemological optimism, because God is not directly involved in this process. So Barth actually expresses quite a strong epistemological pessimism. Many people don't realise this about old Karl, but it is in fact true.

The Journey - Os Guinness

2010-07-30T00:40:00.002Z

Os Guinness The Journey: A Thinking Person's Quest for Meaning
I was utterly humbled to meet Os a couple of weeks ago. I listened to him analysing culture for 5-6 hours. He's a fascinating guy. Totally real and he has a brilliant mind. Have you heard of him? What do you think of this lecture?

Is there something else other than all this stuff?

2010-07-30T00:16:00.000Z

Alvin Plantinga For Immaterialism at The Veritas Forum (70 mins)

Good God and Evil World?

2010-07-29T00:46:00.000Z

Paul Copan on Good God & Evil World (in 18 Minutes)

What did you think of Copan's answer?

"What did You think of the Sermon?

2010-07-27T13:38:00.008Z

"What did you think of the sermon?" is a question I love and dread. I love the question "What did you think of the sermon" because I like to think about what I hear - faith is about thinking, as well as doing - so it's part of the process. I have a tendency to be too cerebral, so I'm trying to pay close attention to practical applications. I've found people like Francis Chan helpful in this area. Then I dread the question because I have to work harder to encourage and build up, than to deliver critical feedback. Caroline has frequently pointed out to me that my first reaction to something that I hear is often negative. I'm not proud of this, so I've been trying to understand why this is often true.

I've spent a little bit of time around some quite well known Christian conference speakers (not Zach Trust or Damaris people) and they've quietly told me that the presumption of feedback has really put them off doing some kinds of events/speaking work. It's even customary in some places for a team meeting to turn into a group of people collectively criticising a speaker for their talk/address. There is a sort of humility that says, "I want to learn, so help me by telling me what you think" but the reality is much more brutal. Having your errors or failings pointed out publicly doesn't do anyone any favours. And these situations are destructive and unhelpful to individuals - even if they think they are doing it for the right reasons. If this kind of feedback is wanted then it should be much more one on one, and more careful. Many times in the past I have been on the receiving end of critical feedback that I have not invited or requested. It has simply been offered and it is usually heartbreaking. I think this is because the same relational skills needed to avoid making this mistake are needed for the conversation itself.

If I can't see that it is going to be quite offensive and unkind that I volunteer my uninvited critical feedback, then I'm likely to exercise the same cluelessness in the rest of the conversation. It's bad news right from the start.

What is the answer to all this?
I think I'm going to leave us with more questions than answers here. First there is the question of analysis. Obviously we need to hold together positives and negatives. Reflect on the challenges. Receiving a message with thankfulness and excitement. And rather than being sheep, we all need to consider whether the view presented is true or not. I don't think that it is biblical to simply assume that because someone has a good track record, we should open ourselves uncritically to their ideas. Even the apostle Paul found that the Bereans were unwilling to grant truthfulness until they had carefully examined the scriptures. Do you do that when you listen to your favourite speakers and preachers?

Then secondly there is the question of communication. How do you deliver your analysis? Do you ask yourself the questions: should I speak about this? How say this, so that I can leave the person stronger and more encouraged? How can I make sure that the way that I speak is different in a Christian culture that struggles with encouragement and thankfulness? Do you set up these kinds of feedback sessions? How can you do it differently?

So, over to you. What do you think? Is there a problem here or am I chasing shadows? Are we too critical and negative? Have you experienced this? Perhaps you might think that it is an important way of avoiding pride and growing in humility? Does that actually work - as a way of living? How much criticism is appropriate in biblical self-esteem? Is self-esteem (derived from God) itself capable of being biblical? What other questions need to be asked here?

Dig deeper?
An Error Worse Than Error (First Things)
Worship (Andrew Fellows, L'Abri)
Google "Critical Spirit"

How to put video clips into a talk

2010-07-27T00:01:00.003Z

People often ask me how they can put video clips into presentations and talks, to illustrate or develop a point. If you wanted to do it with a Windows PC:

You'll might need....

Something to teach (your illustrations serve your point, not the other way around - go to the bible first?)
A fairly decent computer/laptop (clips are usually quite big and need some computer muscle or everything grinds to a halt)
CCLI licence (This gives you a permission to show clips or entire films depending on the licence type that you get)
A copy of PowerPoint 2007 or PowerPoint 2010 (you can use other presentation software, but this is the best I have found for a Windows PC)
A copy of ImTOO DVD Ripper Platinum
A DVD that is covered by the CCLI licence
The Time codes for the clip you want (watch the film and write them down)

Tips:

When using ImTOO

You need to open the DVD in ImTOO before you can access it
Use subtitles, and a resolution of at least 480 x 480 and a video Video Bit rate of 5000
Creating an MPEG 2 file is the most reliable kind, but WMV is also a good file type

Setting up PowerPoint 2007/2010

Insert the video clip into a slide
Set the clip to play automatically, but have a slide before which has a picture of the cover of the DVD, with the directors name and year of release.
Do a full test run - don't depend on the technology working

Showing the clip

I explain a clip verbally, giving something for the audience to look for and notice
I usually explain the story or plot line of the film before I play the clip
I often put a quote from the clip on a slide that comes up after the clip has played - this focuses the discussion going forwards

Hope that is helpful to some of you.

Fighting Evil Monsters

2010-07-22T01:01:00.006Z

Evil isn't something that we like to talk about. It isn't exactly uplifting conversation is it? But have you ever noticed how many movies rely on evil, and the cosmic battle between good and evil, for the plot to function. I think it's actually rare to see a film that doesn't at some level explore evil - especially if you break it down into more "everyday evil". And it doesn't work to say that its just Western cinema because it is historically influenced by Christianity. The discussion seems to be there in every culture I've seen.

How can we define evil? Is it a beast out there hiding in the dark - snapping its jaws - or is it the occasional impulses experienced by a person sitting at a computer screen reading a blog? Is the evil out there, and/or is it in here too? Is the struggle with evil something you have had to acknowledge in your life? How do you fight it?

We have a functional definition of evil. And we generally use 'evil' to mean 'bad' or 'immoral'. But if we ask the question: what is it to be 'immoral', or 'bad'? We often find ourselves unable to describe what we mean by 'evil'. So what is evil?

Most of us know what it is, but we don't know how to explain it. It's like your own nose. From far away it is clear as day in the mirror, but just try looking at it up close without one. It's hard to describe evil clearly. We know when we see it, but as soon as someone asks us to say what it is that we have seen - it is nearly impossible to describe what we mean. I want to describe three features, or characteristics of evil, which are not exhaustive - but I hope that they will be useful as you think about evil and how to take it on - in your home, workplace, world, life, school.

Evil is a sticky vortex
A vortex sucks you in. Like a chair that has just been painted with gloss paint - all tacky - when you instinctively grab it, you find your hand stuck to it. When you use the other hand to try to free yourself, you find yourself in an even bigger mess - now your other hand is stuck too. Evil is like this. When we mess around with money, sex and power we often find that we have become quite dependent, or fixed to it.

Do you remember this substance in Spiderman 3?

Perhaps this is why a philosopher wrote, 'Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you.' (Friedrich Nietzsche)

Evil is me, me, me

Another feature of evil that we can readily identify is its self-interest. If the opposite of evil is good, and if a clear example of good in action is the laying down of your life for someone else, or a disposition/nature to be willing to do so - if the situation demanded it. Then evil is the opposite of this self-giving. It is to look primarily to my interests, rather than another's. It is to spend the majority of my energy, resources, time and love on what pleases me. Narcissism is one name given to this condition. In an honest moment perhaps we would all admit that we are in a bit of a scrap with our own narcissism? If God can't be evil - or self-centred then perhaps this is why it makes sense for God to be three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), because this allows freedom, and self-giving between the members of the trinity right in the very centre of things? The Father lifting up the Son. The Son submitting to the Father. The Holy Spirit revealing the nature of the Father and Son to us.

Evil is a disconnection

Often evil is possible because there is a disconnection. Between moral views and action - for example, the practice of strangling newborns if they are female in some cultures. This seems so clearly evil, that we would be likely to cite it as an example of what evil is. But the thing that most people (myself included) is how a human being can actually cope with doing it. It must involve some kind of desensitisation, or destruction of moral principles, or the normal knowledge of these things - to be able to actually go through with it. I think that we see - in cases of evil - a slow background process of disconnection, slipping away from the reality of knowledge of right and wrong. Have you noticed this too? Doesn't it make our definition of evil as 'Hitler, Fred West, Harold Shipman' much less secure to face up to the fact that these people don't seem to have been born monsters, but they slowly turned into them. We are in denial on this, and we like to put people in different rooms. These monsters can go into the 'born evil' room. That's understandable, but is it disconcerting to you too that the longer you look at the monsters - the thinner the walls get between us and them?

Lastly, I am not afraid of evil - and neither should you be. There is a person, who has power that can transform the human heart from evil to good. It is available. Where are you?

Corinth vs. Acts 17

2010-07-19T12:51:00.003Z

What happened at Corinth? Did the apostle Paul change his tactics?

Some have argued that Paul failed at Athens (only a few became Christians as a result of his preaching in Acts 17), so when he got to Corinth he changed his tactics to simple, 'gospel only' unargued proclamation. Acts 17 is therefore a mistake - and is preserved as a reminder of how not to do it, rather than how to do it.

I want to disagree with this view. I think it is an untrue, and practically damaging interpretation. If this is your view, then I want to try to give you some reasons why I think that you should reconsider.

When Paul speaks in Corinth, he is speaking to an audience that is different to the one in Athens (Acts 17). The Corinthians had some pretty specific expectations of their public speakers. Paul didn't measure up to these expectations. They wanted someone with an impressive physical presence (think Olympian athletes), who would give a robust performance. It was a big show for everyone to enjoy. The topic was often determined by the audience (like the comedy show 'Whose line is it anyway') and the speaker would have to talk impressively on that subject.

The audience demanded fine words and rhetorical language - and would be unhappy if they didn't get it. So Paul was a big disappointment to them. He was physically weak (and he had something wrong with his body a 'thorn in the flesh'). Paul was not only a physical disappointment to them, he was also a disappointment as an entertainer. He wasn't prepared to play their games. He had much more serious things on his mind. Paul was only prepared to talk about Christ. His language was ordinary. “I did not come with eloquence… I resolved to know nothing except Jesus Christ…I came in weakness and fear.” (1Cor 2:1-5).

In Acts 17 Paul attacked the foundations of the Athenian worldview. He connected with their ideas, but he also attacked. He was no defensive driver. This was the church lunging forwards. Talking about the God who didn't live in temples made by human hands (a critique of some Athenian beliefs), declaring the one who raised Jesus from the dead (they sneered at this because it was such an affront to their beliefs). In Corinth, we see Paul doing exactly the same thing - but he is doing it with his style and content. In the same way that he confronted and persuading Athenians with his proclamation in Acts 17, he is confronting and persuading Corinthians with his critique of their expectations. They expect the gospel proclaimer to "wow" them. He is telling them about a God who is able to "wow" but is not going to play their games of rhetorical skill and athletic prowess.

This is the path of true spiritual rationality. Why? Because someone can be a terrible orator, and have a crippled body and still be telling the truth. Stephen Hawking sits in a wheelchair, and speaks through a computer. How long would the Corinthians have listened to him for? Not long. But he is brilliant. Truth and reality are not defined by power or status. In Paul's mind - the truth and reality of the gospel are not going to be sacrificed on the Corinthian altar to human brilliance.

So Paul isn't adopting a different approach, after all it was to the Corinthians that he wrote of “pulling down strongholds. He tells them that, "We demolish arguments and every lofty idea raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” (2Cor10:5). Persuasion was such a part of the agenda that some Jews in Corinth complained that he was “persuading people to worship God.” (Acts 18:13)

"Outreach and evangelism was for Paul, a lively exchange of views, in which he presented the gospel. He engaged with the culture in Acts and Corinth. Challenging assumptions. Clarified the issues. Stormed their defences. Provoked their questions. Addressed their doubts and presented the gospel in a compelling manner. This sort of “inter-faith” dialogue was not merely about finding common ground or seeking mutual understanding. It was far more than that. Paul engaged in dialogue in order to win his hearers to Christ." (Peter May 'What is Apologetics')

A further consideration is that there is a genre difference between 1 Cor and Acts. Acts is historical narrative, and 1 Cor is an epistle, or letter. Generally speaking historical narrative in the NT gives worked, practicel examples. Whereas letters and epistles give doctrinal instruction. So if we look at Acts 17 vs Corinth through this lens of genre then Acts 17 gives the practical application of the doctrine unpacked in 1 Cor. There is then, no conflict in this case. Acts 17 is what it looks like - Paul declares Christ crucified (some have said he doesn't but what we have is a summary, given by Paul to Luke afterwards, and you have to do the death of Jesus if you want to talk about the resurrection) in Acts 17. On this view, if we could read a historical narrative version of Paul's strategy in Corinth, then perhaps it would look remarkably like Acts 17.

Sometimes people say, 'Paul wasn't fruitful in Acts 17.' But this is an understandable, but mistaken view too. The hypothesis that Paul wasn't fruitful is actually based on an error - a poor translation of Acts 17:34 from the Greek. It doesn't sound like Paul has done very well when we read in (v.34) that, 'A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.' The presence of a woman in the group of men should indicate that there is an inaccuracy in play, but the poor translation becomes much clearer when we learn that the same Greek is used in Acts 17:4, but this time it is translated, 'Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.'

Suddenly Acts 17 sounds like a fantastic success. Especially when you remember that it was to a group of philosophers. Philosophers move through ideas very slowly, and they don't often change their views. So, that should give you a hint at how tremendously powerful, fruitful and effective Paul's engagement with the Athenians in Acts 17 was. It was mindblowingly effective - here is the Holy Spirit breaking into hearts. If a university, city or church mission was as fruitful as this, then we'd be swimming in courses and books about the 'Athenian strategy'. A simple misinterpretation, and mistranslation helps us to justify keeping the gear stick in neutral.

We are too happy to die the quiet death of irrelevance while the incredible treasure of what we have discovered about God should lovingly move us, in freedom, to tell others. Unless we really take a long hard look at what we do - and what Paul did - and the huge differences between the two, then we are likely to continue to be the irrelevant voices on their sacred reservation. Rather than those, who - like Paul in Acts 17 and Corinth - were able to cut into, and attack the ideas of the day - persuasively, attractively, relationally, lovingly, forcefully. When are we going to really see, what happened in Acts 17 and Corinth for what it really was? When are we going to start teaching, and preaching as if we believe that Acts 17 really is part of the New Testament? How long will we tolerate irrelevance? How much longer can we afford to?

See also:
Introducing the Athenians to God: Paul’s failed apologetic in Acts 17? Bruce Winter

Starting with Questions

2010-07-10T13:32:00.001Z

Starting with a question seems like a good idea to most people. It helps to bring a sharper focus. It's conversational. It reveals gaps in knowledge. It's quite natural - kids seem to use questions instinctively to find out about the world. Of course, there are lazy questions and there are thoughtful questions. The difference is hard to explain, but anyone who has ever heard, or asked a good question - asked at the right time - will immediately know why good, careful, thoughtful questions are always worth asking.

Christians have often pointed to the example of God asking Adam and Eve, 'Where are you?' (Genesis 3:9), and Jesus as he interacts with people in the New Testament records of him. Here are some of Jesus' questions

What are you looking for?
Why are you looking for me?
What do you want me to do for you?
Who do people say that I am?
But who do you say that I am?
Why do you ask me about what is good?
Why do you call me good?
Who is my mother? Who is my brothers and sisters?
Who appointed me as your judge and arbitrator?
How long will I endure you?
Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me?
What are you thinking in your hearts?
Why do you harbour evil thoughts?
If you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you?
If you do good only to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you?
Do you want to be well?
Who touched me?
What is your name?
How long has this been happening to him?
Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven" or to say "Rise, pick up your mat and walk" ?
Do you see anything?
You see all these things do you not?
Can a blind person guide a blind person?
Do you see this woman?
Why do you make trouble for her?
Where are they, has none condemned you?
What good is it to gain the whole world but forfeit your soul?
What could one give in exchange for his life?
Can any of you by worrying add a single moment to your life?
Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?
Are you not more important than the birds of the sky?
Who is greater, the one seated at the table, or the one who serves?
What is the reign of God like? To what can I compare it?
Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth?
Which of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread, or a snake when he asks for a fish?
Where is your faith?
Do you believe that I can do this?
Why are you terrified?
Do you not yet have faith?
Why this commotion and weeping?
Why does this generation seek a sign?
To what shall I compare the people of this generation? What are they like?
How can you believe, when you accept praise from one another and do not seek the praise that comes from the only God?
Did I not tell you that if you believe you will see the glory of God?
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?
Do you believe now?
I am telling you the truth, why do you not believe me?
Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath or not?
Show me a denarius; whose image and name does it bear?
Why do you not understand what I am saying?
Do you not yet understand or comprehend?
Are your hearts hardened?
Do you have eyes and not see, ears and not hear?
Do you still not understand this?
If I tell you about early things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?
Do you understand these things?
Why do you not interpret the present time?
Does this shock you?
Why do you call me "Lord, Lord," but do no do what I command?
Why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
What were you arguing about on the way?
Why are you testing me?
Is it not written: my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples?
Will you lay down your life for me?
Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink?
Do you also want to leave?
Do you realise what I have done for you?
Why ask me?
Why are you trying to kill me?
For which of these good words are you trying to stone me?
Do you think that I cannot call upon my God and he will not provide me at this moment with more than twelve legion of angles?
Would you like some breakfast?
Have you anything here to eat?
Why are you troubled? Why do questions arise in your hearts?
Have you come to believe because you have seen me?
I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die; do you believe this?
What are you discussing as you walk along?
Do you love me?

So, perhaps starting with questions isn't such a bad idea after all is it?

Even so, some Christians are suspicious of starting with questions. This is probably party due to the legacy of Karl Barth, who restored an important focus on revelation in the Christian mind - he was speaking against liberal, anti-miraculous, naturalist, revisionist critiques of the bible. Barth was suspicious of the motive, and result of starting with non-revealed material and data. He thought that led into idolatory and man/self-centredness. His argument doesn't actually ring true, but his legacy has contributed to a nervousness among those influenced by him to 'do questions'. So many Christians are now trapped in an ineffective strategy, but are worried about being unfaithful to God if they use, and engage properly with questions. But, as you can see - Jesus isn't very Barthian. Which for me, is the strongest reason to thank Barth for his focus on revelation, but to reject his views of apologetics, questions and natural theology.

You'll find these resources useful too
Conversational Apologetics - Michael Ramsden
What should I say? Learning to answer out friends questions - Pete Lowman
How to Answer Questions - Amy Orr-Ewing and Michael Ramsden
The Importance of Asking Honest Questions - Ellis Potter

Want to go a bit deeper?
Get and read "Can Philosophy Argue God's Existence?" in The Rationality of Belief & the Plurality of Faith: Essays in Honor of William P. Alston, Tom Senor (ed.), (Cornell University Press, 1995).
Brian Leftow examines Karl Barth's claim that it cannot. Barth essentially has two arguments against natural theology: (1) the use of equivocal language due to God's great transcendence limits our application of God as the first 'cause;' (2) natural theologians' motives stem from sin-beliefs. Leftow argues both of these arguments fail.

Technology Will Save Us

2010-07-10T02:10:00.000Z

technology noun (technologies)
1 the practical use of scientific knowledge in industry and everyday life.
2 practical sciences as a group.
3 the technical skills and achievements of a particular time in history, of civilization or a group of people.
ETYMOLOGY: 17c: from Greek technologia systematic treatment, from techne 'art' or 'skill'.

Is there anything that technology can't do? It's given us the internet, sanitation, antibiotics, microprocessors, anaesthetic, the printing press, plumbing, tools, cooking, brewing, ships, boats, cars, planes, space exploration, undersea exploration, weapons, phones, cameras, buildings...

Yes. There are some things that technology is still trying to conquer. Firstly, there is the messed up nature of human beings. We can be very evil. Everyone is capable of it, but there is no hope of an iphone app to fix it. Secondly, there is the problem of mortality - or death. The ultimate statistic. Technology hasn't yet solved that problem either. I think that we suspect intuitively that technology won't solve these challenges (human nature and death). The excruciatingly slow development of vaccines for cancer and AIDS reminds us of how little we know about the biological systems that we are trying to engineer and master.

God isn't needed (not because he has been disproved philosophically or rationally - an urban myth) since technology is considered to be an exclusively human invention, rather than a divine gift to human beings (E.G. the rational faculties to do it, the intelligibility of the world/laws, potentialities and powers in the physical universe). Human beings figure that we can fix it - eventually. It's certainly true that we have fixed a lot. Mortality rates, and quality of life in countries that can access the right technologies are much improved, but we should not get arrogant as we drink the champagne of (partial) success.

You see, these problems: death and human nature have been confusing us for some time. In fact, as long as we have historical records we can read about our attempts to avoid death and moral failure. Our oldest failures and our greatest challenges. Christians can say something more at this point. Death and human nature are impossible for humanity to conquer. So they have been answered by God himself - the resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15), and the transformation of the human self, through rebirth (Ezekiel 36:24-27; John 3:5-8).

"I want" a facelift

2010-07-04T02:07:00.001Z

Something doesn't fit here. I'm feeling confused by the lack of continuity between "Katy Perry buys her mum a facelift - and Dad's delighted" (msn) and her Mum's (Mary Hudson) alleged comments about Katy's song I kissed a girl,

“I hate the song. It clearly promotes homosexuality and its message is shameful and disgusting. Katy knows how I feel. We are a very outspoken family and she knows how disappointed her father and I are. I can’t even listen to that song. The first time I heard it I was in total shock. When it comes on the radio I bow my head and pray. We cannot cut her out of our lives as she is our child but she knows we disagree strongly with what she is doing and the message she is promoting regarding homosexuality which the Bible clearly states is a sin. But the Bible also promotes understanding and forgiveness, which I keep reminding myself. Katy was raised in a very strict Christian household. She started performing in church at nine. She was a special child, she loved to sing and had an angelic voice. That is why this is all so disappointing and sad...I fear she has been led astray by the Hollywood crowd. I pray all the time that God will work through her and help her find salvation.”

What am I missing here? I glad that they are on better terms - of course - family ruptures are dreadfully painful. But just stop a minute think this through with me? So Katy gets condemned to hell in one moment for not sticking to the bible, but when Mum's vanity is put on the table (Want a facelift Mum?) this very same book is thrown out of the window? Doesn't this sound a bit odd? I'm not squeaky clean myself, but really - this strikes me as rather bold. Of course, my assumption is that Christians shouldn't be getting facelifts - but if you need to be persuaded of that, then I'm not sure that I have a long enough ladder to get to where you are. Let's take that as a given for the moment, or perhaps you might want to ask me more about that?

Why does it bother me that a celebrity and her mum are crazy? It doesn't really, but something else does. My deeper concern is that this is exactly the sort of lack of "Christian" integrity that onlookers find utterly disgusting. The Hudson's have set themselves up as leaders/teachers. It looks very like religion is being used to justify things that "I want" but ultimately when "I want" something else, then the absolute right of the self, to have what it wants is completely unchallenged. It just doesn't compute does it? I don't want to be judgemental, but I do judge this as a bit mental? Don't you?

Os Guinness

2010-07-03T12:32:00.001Z

Link to lots of Os Guinness material. Highly recommended

Os Guinness on Globalisation

2010-07-01T16:11:00.001Z

The Third Man (1949)

2010-06-27T20:56:00.005Z

The Third Man (1949) is one of the best British films ever made. It stars Joseph Cotten as Holly Martins, Alida Valli as Anna Schmidt and Orson Wells as Harry Lime. The quality of the photography and cinematography is breathtaking, and the script by novelist Graham Greene is peerless. Each conversation is important, and the plot throws the characters forwards through the streets of war torn Vienna.

The plot traces the journey of Martins as he tries to discover the truth about what happened to his friend Lime. Was he murdered? Was it an accident? Is there a deeper mystery? To his horror Martin's discovers that his friend Lime has been selling watered down penicillin. He can't believe his ears when Lime tells him that he is completely unmoved by the consequences. One of the main contrasts of the film is the contrast of healthy vs. unhealthy humanity. While Martin's healthy humanity has led him to the truth about what happened to his friend, the same humanity is completely missing in Lime's character. But Martin's must decide what to do about both Lime and his girlfriend, Anna. And the viewer also finds himself trying to navigate through the murky sewer with Martins towards the bright light of the right decision, for justice, truth and humanity to triumph. What would you decide if you were Martins? Isn't Lime right if there is no God?

(start from 3:40)

Holly: Have you ever seen any of your victims?

Harry: You know, I never feel comfortable on these sort of things. Victims? Don't be melodramatic. [gestures to people far below] Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax - the only way you can save money nowadays.

Harry: Nobody thinks in terms of human beings. Governments don't. Why should we? They talk about the people and the proletariat, I talk about the suckers and the mugs - it's the same thing. They have their five-year plans, so have I.

Holly: You used to believe in God.

Harry: Oh, I still do believe in God, old man. I believe in God and Mercy and all that. But the dead are happier dead. They don't miss much here, poor devils. What do you believe in?

Harry Lime: Holly, I'd like to cut you in, old man. There's nobody left in Vienna I can really trust, and we've always done everything together. When you make up your mind, send me a message - I'll meet you any place, any time, and when we do meet old man, it's you I want to see, not the police. Remember that, won't ya? Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Remember what the fella said: In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly.

Tune into... Chesterton and Martin Rees

2010-06-20T22:19:00.001Z

Three great radio picks:

Great Lives: Richard Ingrams on GK Chesterton
Chesterton's 'The Man Who Was Thursday' (bbc iplayer)

Martin Rees - Reith Lecture "What We'll Never Know" (bbc iplayer)

In the third of this year's Reith Lectures, recorded at the Royal Society during its 350th anniversary year, its President Martin Rees continues to explore the challenges facing science in the 21st century. He stresses there are things that will always lie beyond our sphere of comprehension and we should accept these limits to our knowledge. On the other hand, there are things we've never even dreamt of that will one day be ours to explore and understand. The outcome of the quest for alien life will revolutionise our sense of self in the next two decades. But some things -- like travelling back in time -- will never happen.

Disclosure

2010-06-16T10:18:00.000Z

Religious Pluralism

2010-06-15T12:10:00.003Z

Are there many roads, or just one? Are people who claim that there is one guilty of overstepping personal, moral, cultural and philosophical boundaries? What is your view of people who claim to 'know' the way to God, or ultimate reality? What do you think of people who claim to have "found God"?

Questions like these are interesting and worth thinking about:

Is there AN answer, or are there many, exclusive, but simultaneously real answers?
Are we stuck, unable to know, until we are presented with first hand data (eg. an after death experience)?
Is it logically possible, for humans to receive a "message" from beyond that sphere of what we currently know, which gives us reasonable/logical grounds to make claims about the nature of ultimate reality?
Imagine God emailed you in one minute from now, identified himself as 'x' and told you about all your secret secrets, and provided decisive proof. Would it be logical to listen to x if x then emailed again and told you that y and z, were dead ends, and you didn't have such strong verification for y and z? Would it be rational, in this case - to adopt a more exclusive view, if you had that verification?

What do you think?

William Lane Craig deals with Richard Dawkins "strongest argument"

2010-05-19T11:43:00.002Z

Peter Hitchens Interview

2010-04-27T11:15:00.002Z

Peter Hitchens Author Interview--The Rage Against God

Promotional video for his new book

The Rage Against God by Peter Hitchens

Scientists Teach Gorilla It Will Die

2010-04-20T14:13:00.003Z

Spoof video raises questions like:

What is distinctive about human beings? Is it the ability to understand our own existence/mortality?

Six Numbers

2010-04-19T11:56:00.004Z

Martin Rees says, that our whole Universe is governed by just six numbers, set at the time of the Big Bang. Alter any one of them at your peril, for stars, planets and humans would then not exist. He has written a book about it called Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe

"Mathematical laws underpin the fabric of our Universe - not just atoms, but galaxies, stars and people. The properties of atoms - their sizes and masses, how many different kinds there are, and the forces linking them together - determine the chemistry of our everyday world. The very existence of atoms depends on forces and particles deep inside them. The objects that astronomers study - planets, stars and galaxies - are controlled by the force of gravity. And everything takes place in the arena of an expanding Universe, whose properties were imprinted into it at the time of the initial Big Bang."

"The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible" is one of Albert Einstein's best-known aphorisms. It expresses his amazement that the laws of physics, which our minds are somehow attuned to understand, apply not just here on Earth but also in the remotest galaxy. Newton taught us that the same force that makes apples fall holds the Moon and planets in their courses. We now know that this same force binds the galaxies, makes some stars collapse into black holes, and may eventually cause the Andromeda galaxy to collapse on top of us. Atoms in the most distant galaxies are identical to those we can study in our laboratories. All parts of the universe seem to be evolving in a similar way, as though they shared a common origin. Without this uniformity, cosmology would have got nowhere."

Then he says

"Our Universe, extending immensely far beyond our present horizon, may itself be just one member of a possibly infinite ensemble. This 'multiverse' concept, though specula-tive, is a natural extension of current cosmological theories, which gain credence because they account for things that we do observe. The physical laws and geometry could be different in other universes."

So, over to you. Do you buy the multiverse hypothesis? If so, why? What reasons sit on either side of the debate for you personally?

Martin Rees says, "The alternative to the multiverse is the creator... but I prefer the multiverse."

Multiverses are inaccessible to us, and as far as I have read, there isn't any evidence for them. As I understand it, multiverses are an explanatory framework for some other experimental results - but I'm not familiar with those results, and don't possess the requisite expertise to evaluate their data carefully.

So, what can we do, when we don't have hard data and we need to nail the facts down a bit? Some have suggested that you just choose, just make a choice - what you like. I can't do that. Why? Because I haven't yet been persuaded that reality as a whole is inaccessible, or that our choices don't matter. In fact. I think the opposite. My choice to cross the road at a particular time matters a great deal - its either the bus, or me - not both at the same time. And my choice not to fly a plane into a cloud of volcanic ash really matters, because if I make the wrong choice, reality just can't become flexible and help me get to my destination. Reality bites, as we say.

Richard Dawkins invokes Occams Razor (which says that given two explanations you should choose the simpler one) in the choice between multiverses vs. God, you should choose multiverses because it is far more complex to suggest an intelligent being like God.

Lennox responds to this with, "Is it more complex? Postulating millions of universes sounds like a very complex thing - some of these universes are bound to be more complex than this one. I think Dawkins has forgotten that we live in a pretty complex universe to start with, and that this must be part of the multiverse (if its true), so other universes must be much more complex than this one."

We can push this even further, because as Plantinga has pointed out, in one of these universes, that give every possible, possibility, there must theoretically be a universe in which there is a God, at least as complicated as the Christian God. So if the existence of God is complex (x), then any multiverse hypothesis complexity (y) must be (x+y), to give the total complexity of the multiverse explanation. But since explanation (x) doesn't necessarily have to entail (y), it seems that Dawkins reasoning, on the basis of Occam's razor is incorrect, logically.

What other lines of thought have you considered here? Do you like the multiverse theory? Or do you reject it? Can you share your thinking with us?

Binge-drinking: discipline issue?

2010-04-18T09:22:00.005Z

"Maybe the new shamelessness is connected to what some perceive as a breakdown in discipline in so many areas, especially schools. The reluctance to respect authority converts easily into a reluctance to respect each other and, ultimately, to respect ourselves."

"Binge-drinking: What happened to our sense of shame?" It’s Saturday night, and Britain reaches for the bottle. John Humphrys reports on the plight of town centres where there is no longer any stigma in being drunk and disorderly

Do you agree?

Punishment and the Cross

2010-04-16T14:27:00.005Z

The traditional Christian view of what happened on the cross has been criticised by some. I've already blogged on the basic theological structure of the atonement, so I won't do that again, but I've often heard or read two reasons given to reject the view known as Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA), or Vicarious Substitutionary Atonement.

Two reasons I've sometimes heard to reject PSA are:
1. It seems unfair for the Father to make the Son go to the cross
2. Punishing someone for something that they didn't do isn't right

The first objection is easily and cleanly rebutted, by pointing out the Son's willing involvement in the cross-plan.

The second is slightly more tricky. Here are two interesting directions for you to consider.

In 'Do We Believe in Penal Substitution?' David Lewis writes that we ALL believe in penal substitution to some extent. For example in the area of paying fines. And it doesn't matter if someone else pays the fine for me; justice is met even if I myself do not pay it.

In C.S. Lewis Humanitarian Theory of Punishment he argues that punishment is vital because it connects the offence to the offender, '...the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust.'

Does the Multiverse View Make Rational Sense?

2010-04-16T14:25:00.001Z

Creator or the Multiverse from CPX on Vimeo.

Christopher Hitchens calls for Justice and Punishment

2010-04-11T21:16:00.003Z

"The institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment."
Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great

Paul Copan writes on the moral argument...

Philosopher John Rist is right; there is "widely admitted to be a crisis in contemporary Western debate about ethical foundations." It seems that, ultimately, the crisis is the result of approaching ethics without reference to God. When morality is severed from its theological roots, secular ethics cannot sustain itself - it withers and dies... Some secularists would suggest that we can have ethical systems that make no reference to God (e.g., Aristotle, Kant). However, while they may make some very positive contributions to ethical discussion (regarding moral virtue/character or universal moral obligations), their systems are still incomplete. They still do not tell us why human beings have intrinsic value, rights, and moral obligations.

What about naturalistic evolutionary ethics, in which we develop an awareness of right or wrong and moral obligation to help us survive/reproduce? Ethical awareness has only biological worth. Such an approach leaves us with the following problems: First, can we even trust our minds if we are nothing more than the products of naturalistic evolution, trying to fight, feed, flee, and reproduce? Charles Darwin had a "horrid doubt" that since the human mind has developed from lower animals, why would anyone trust it? Why trust the convictions of a monkey's mind?6 The naturalistic evolutionary process is interested in fitness/survival-not in true belief; so not only is objective morality undermined so is rational thought. Our beliefs-including moral ones-may help us survive, but there is no reason to think they are true. Belief in objective morality or human dignity may help us survive, but it may be completely false. The problem with skepticism (including moral skepticism) is that I am assuming a trustworthy reasoning process to arrive at the conclusion that I cannot trust my reasoning! If we trust our rational and moral faculties, we will assume a theistic outlook: Being made in the image of a truthful, rational, good Being makes sense of why we trust our senses/moral intuitions.

In addition, we are left with this problem: if human beings are simply the product of naturalistic evolution, then we have no foundation for moral obligation and human dignity. This could easily undermine moral motivation. The sexual predator and cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer acknowledged the seriousness of the matter: "If it all happens naturalistically, what's the need for a God? Can't I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself."

To reinforce further the point about the God-morality connection, a number of atheists and skeptics have noted it. The late atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie said that moral properties are "queer" given naturalism "if there are objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus we have a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a god."Agnostic Paul Draper observes, "A moral world is very probable on theism."

As the Declaration of Independence asserts, humans are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." This good Creator is the true foundation of ethics and the ultimate hope of rescuing it from its present crisis.

Full Article The Moral Argument

The Nature and Necessity of Worldviews - Dallas Willard

2010-04-06T11:20:00.002Z

New Hope

2010-04-06T10:14:00.004Z

"They took the body down from the cross and one of the few rich men among the first Christians obtained permission to bury it in a rock tomb in his garden; the Romans setting a military guard lest there should be some riot and attempt to recover the body. There was once more a natural symbolism in these natural proceedings; it was well that the tomb should be sealed with all the secrecy of ancient eastern sepluchre and guarded by the authority of the Caesars. For in that second cavern the whole of that great and glorious humanity which we call antiquity was gathered up and covered over; and in that place it was buried. It was the end of a very great thing called human history; the history that was merely human. The mythologies and the philosophies were buried there, the gods and the heroes and the sages. In the great Roman phrase, they had lived. But as they could only live, so they could only die; and they were dead... On the third day the friends of Christ coming at daybreak to the place found the grave empty and the stone rolled away. In varying ways they realized the new wonder; but even they hardly realized that the world had died in the night. What they were looking at was the first day of a new creation, with a new heaven and a new earth; and in a semblance of the gardener God walked again in the garden, in the cool not of the evening but the dawn."

GK. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man

What is a healthy/Christian perspective on Shopping?

2010-03-10T10:47:00.007Z

Collectively we're doing it less, but we still spend a lot of time and money on shopping. For many, missing the opportunity to make a trip to the shops or mall for a bit of "retail therapy" can be the cause of withdrawl symptoms. For others - like myself - passing through the weekend without a trip to the world of escalators and pay on foot/pay-and-display, is reason for a minor celebration. Shopping is for me, and many of my male friends, a rather distressing experience, especially if we are not able to hide in HMV or sit reading the paper, twitter on the phone or make some progress through a good book in a coffee shop

As you already know there are different shopping strategies, largely across lines of gender. My wife likes to browse, and often can return satisfied from a shopping trip without much to show for it. This is success for her. To me it is abject failure. If I have an approach after avoidance, then my approach to shopping is a combination of disinterested boredom, SAS assault tactics and the game known to many as "playing chicken". It works like this. If it is something that I am going to buy - rather than the more regular scenario of my wife taking pity on me and getting some socks/trousers/jumper for me - then I will throw myself into a careful research programme. Looking thoroughly at my prospective purchase using the interweb, reading reviews and articles. Often spending hours wondering what the difference between four and five stars really means. This all precedes the conception and deployment of the fastest "in and out" strategy that can be enacted at the last possible opportunity to purchase, from the retailer who often has only one of the required items remaining. I can be tempted at this point let my imagination take over and this gives an immense feeling of self-congratulation, perhaps on the basis of some deluded triumph over an imaginary competition, who are vanquished once again.

But... Have you ever stopped to think about shopping, the choices we make, what we feel as we do it, what we are part of when we do so? Often we reduce our discussions to the moral implications of the choices we make, but as important as this is, there is more to the subject.

Should I shop in Primark?
Is it greedy to want this?
Do I put my security in these things?
Why does shopping make me feel good?
Should Christians believe in a free market?
Should Christians be socialists?

Many of us will also have all kinds of questions, about the relationship between Christian faith, our values, and shopping. And we don't have to be Christians to find thinking about it useful. One of the most crucial issues is the status, and importance that you and I put in the acquisition of things, or stuff. I read an article where one of the directors of Tesco was attacking the UK educational system. And she said that society actually gains stability from the process of gaining material possessions.

“More broadly, a society where people don't feel the need to work to gain material possessions will not be a stable or successful society." (Tesco executive director Lucy Neville-Rolfe)

This is just a fascinating remark, because I think that it has some truth to it, but it also expresses something that we don't often see - the underlying social/political philosophy of our time. We often hear about what destabilises society: British Airways workers wearing crosses, Nurses who offer to pray, and doctors who share their faith with patients - who are lumped in with all the extremists and fanatics (both Christian and Muslim).

This statement raises another question: does Jesus have a positive view of things? Where does he stop with regard to things?

On one level it seems pretty clear cut. Especially when Jesus says things like this...

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Matt 19:21)

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Matt 6:19-21)

Over to you...

What questions do you think we raise here?
What is a Christian view of shopping?
Do you enjoy shopping?
Do you think that material possessions or things are bad, neutral or good in basic value?

Questions Christians would like to answer better

2010-03-05T16:27:00.004Z

A few weeks ago I asked a group of Christians to write down the questions that they were most afraid of being asked.

If you say God created science, why are there miracles?
How can you believe in something you can’t see?
How would you explain extreme suffering and death in young children/adolescents?
How can you explain the existence of God?
How can you demonstrate that God made us and we don’t come from monkeys?
Can you show me that God exists?
If God loves us so much why does he send us to hell?
Why does God kill in the OT but not after Jesus?
If God is omniscient and omnipotent, and also the creator, he must have knowingly and wilfully created Satan, is God not therefore morally culpable for all evil, should he not hold himself responsible before we are! (Given Adam fell at the hands of Satan)
Prove that the ‘God’ of Islam cannot be the God who created this world?
Why did God create us if he knew that we were going to sin?
Why do we ask God to change/stir people’s hearts, when they should have free will?
Why is there hunger/suffering in the world?
Does a person who commits suicide go to heaven?
Does God ever change his mind?
How does prayer actually change?
Why should I trust the bible?
Why does God seemingly only answer some prayers E.G. for healing
If God is sovereign, and love, why do various natural disasters and disease happen to people?
Why are you Christian?
When did you realise that you are Christian?
If God is all-knowing, why did he set us (humans) up to fail, and then making his son die the only answer?
Why is it possible to pray to God and experience nothing?
Why do some people ‘experience’ God and some don’t?
Why are the Old Testament stories so wacky, can you believe them all at face value?
Some theories would suggest that a person’s suffering makes them stronger and this is why God allows it. What about people who die from their suffering; especially children E.G. cases of child abuse where the child is killed?
Whether or not suffering teaches us something as a species, how could a loving God let nearly half a million people die in earthquakes in the past five years?
If God is capable of healing, why doesn’t he do it more often?
And if Christians are already a ‘new creation’ covered by the blood of Christ, why is it consistently so difficult to trust God and live the Christian life?

Questions people have about hope/destiny

2010-03-05T15:39:00.003Z

Here are some questions that audience members asked me at a film discussion on Slumdog Millionaire and The Lord of the Rings last night.

If God is in us and gives us hope – why do we yearn for love through our fellow humans?
Hitler believed in destiny – that he was destined to rule Germany and he did. So was this destiny wrong or right?
How can we realize or find our destiny?
Why is Jesus the only way?
How can I be sure?
What is the greatest hope you have for your life?
Hope and destiny or fearless and free?
How can I be sure that there is enough of Christ in me, to look forward to a glory with him for eternity?
Is my whole life planned out before I am ever born?
Is the only hope Christians can be assured of is that which is at the very end? E.G. Eternal life. That is, we have no assurance that in this life we will not suffer the worse death?
Don’t you think that the most beautiful thing about Slumdog Millionaire is the fact that the lead boy and girl became a couple after the filming? I think it’s great!
Is there a conflict between free will and destiny (or predestination)?
The bible speaks of hoping in what we do not see. So how do we know, when it comes that this is what we have hoped for?
How is there freewill and choice, but also destiny, and how do they interact?
Is hope the only way to reach things in life?
Can hope be measured?
Why does God love us so?
How does God’s love reach people filled with hatred and violence?
The long term hope of heaven isn’t always encouraging for the need of short term hope to cope with pain. How does Christianity help with daily hope?
The hope for a romantic and passionate love story is omnipresent in Hollywood. Does this hope point to something deeper?
What about numerology, Chinese fortune calendar etc. Which defines your destiny? All roads to the same destination?

Tony Watkins on Experiences of Beauty

2010-03-04T11:38:00.006Z

"We feel these moments deep down inside; we are moved emotionally. They are transcendent experiences, not intellectual ones, and many non-religious people regard the experience of great beauty as a spiritual thing. This is why I have come to feel that the experience of beauty is somehow associated with the experience of hope. The beauty takes us beyond ourselves, pointing to something greater" (Tony Wakins)

Focus: The Art and Soul of Cinema

If you like films and movies then I really recommend this book by Watkins

Do recent scientific discoveries point to the reality of a creator?

2010-02-26T22:40:00.004Z

Although I was once sharply critical of the argument to design, I have since to come to see that, when correctly formulated, this argument constitutes a persuasive case for the existence of God. (Professor Anthony Flew)

Interesting new website looking at design in the universe just launched.

God: New Evidence

Closer To Truth

2010-02-11T23:38:00.002Z

High quality videos on big questions

http://www.closertotruth.com/

Episodes

http://www.closertotruth.com/episodes

Click thinkers name - watch videos

http://www.closertotruth.com/participants

Arguments proving the existence of God

2010-02-11T23:08:00.003Z

Prof. Brian Leftow (one of the leading thinkers at Oxford) says, "Atheism is all the rage. It sells lots of books, and they are angry books. It is also close to being the majority creed of the UK. A recent survey has it that 28% of Brits believe in a personal God. Another 26% believe in "something," but do not know what (no mean feat). (Maybe it's a toaster.) By contrast, 26% believe in UFOs. 42% think religion is harmful, and I think it's a safe bet almost all of those are atheists. The new sort of atheist is aggressive. They would like to convert you. One move they all tend to make is to challenge you to prove God's existence, and claim that you're irrational or stupid to believe in God if you can't provide an argument that does so to their satisfaction. The criticisms they offer for standard arguments are mostly pretty poor. Alvin Plantinga reviewed Dawkins' book, and said that he'd call the philosophy in it sophomoric except that this would be too hard on sophomores. But the more basic idea the polemicists take for granted- that you need something like an argument for God's existence that would convince anyone to be rational believing it- is what I want to challenge."

Read the rest

"If God is so obvious then why don't more people...."

2010-01-31T12:49:00.008Z

You might have noticed that people disagree a great deal about whether or not God is there. Some people are convinced on pretty flimsy reasoning, others seem to be cold to what seems like quite a persuasive case. Have you ever wondered: why doesn’t everyone agree, one way or the other? I happen to think that the evidence for God's existence is excellent, but not all of you will be so convinced, and I'm not naive enough to think that I can come close to convincing you. What kind of an answer can a Christian believer offer to this objection?

Knowledge of God, or knowing things about God, and about whether or not he is there is unique in that it is affected or conditioned by moral and spiritual factors. In some of the gospel records about Jesus we see him talking about people who seemed to be "spiritually blind" or closed minded. In one story he heals a blind man in two stages, this conversation takes place in Mark 8

22 They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. 23 He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man's eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, "Do you see anything?"

24 He looked up and said, "I see people; they look like trees walking around."

25 Once more Jesus put his hands on the man's eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. 26 Jesus sent him home, saying, "Don't go into the village."

A spiritually indifferent person can have a profound knowledge of physics, or literature, or history, or sociology, or even of theology. But a spiritually indifferent person cannot know God. According to the Bible, the knowledge of God is promised to those who honestly seek him.

Jeremiah: 'And you shall seek me and you shall find me, if you seek for me with all your heart.'

Jesus: 'Seek and you will find, knock and the door shall be opened, ask and it will be given you. For he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it shall be opened, and to him who asks it shall be given.'

We should be willing to acknowledge that it is possible that we are not in an appropriate moral or cognitive position to be able to handle knowledge about, and of God’s existence reliably. That isn't to say that we throw evidence, rationality, and reasoning carefully out of the window - and just revert to telling people the 'simple gospel', not at all. Don't forget what a high view of the mind, and thinking Paul had - his approach could be summarised as 'reasoning, persuading, loving'. So don't chuck your brains out of the window, or expect others to do the same.

God is after all – a very special kind of agent – with distinctive purposes, not a household object or a laboratory specimen.

We humans can not easily abide a gracious being who evades our self-approving cognitive nets

Dawkins is right to admit that we don’t have proof for very much in life; And perhaps when it comes to God we can sometimes demand an unreasonable amount of proof as a way of hiding from really engaging with the discussion; or subject matter in hand.

I want to say that we should become more loving in the way we handle the evidence for God’s existence. God is not a philosophical object, and knowledge of him is not a spectator sport.

We might manifest dangerous arrogance in assuming that we can have proper knowledge of God without undergoing profound transformation. In genuine cases of knowledge of God, knowers must be transformed to become like the known in character.

I wonder how much freedom, we would have, when it comes to knowing God, or not knowing God, if things weren't set up like this? What do you think?

Good Films are Necessarily Religious

2010-01-20T18:01:00.011Z

Let me unpack the title a little...

1. Religion is more than talking about God and theology

Many people think that Christian religion is all about trying to be good. Religion is all about keeping the rules: don’t lie, don’t swear, try not to murder people.

The problem with this narrow view of religion - that religion is doing kind things like helping old ladies over the road - is that it is incompatible with Jesus’ teaching. The Pharisees were good at being religious, but Jesus wasn’t very impressed with this.

When it comes to being good, Jesus has a deeper understanding of what goodness is, and he seems to think that it concerns the whole of life, not just old ladies, and not just the way we think, or what we might believe about God and theology

Jesus also teaches about worship, explaining that it is more than singing songs. To be a true worshipper is to work, rest and play in God’s presence, thanking him for good things and asking him to help you with the tough stuff.

“ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” (Luke 10:27)

So, religion, as Jesus sees it, isn’t just about having the belief that God is there, and that he loves you. That’s great, but Jesus invites us to have a real, living, transforming relationship with him, and this changes everything.

Everything is part of our spiritual lives, a living breathing religious life, except things that harm us. So take for example, your favourite thing to eat, or love, or thinking really carefully, or doing really well at sport – these things are all really spiritual, they are part of real worship, they are part of real religion, they are things God created, and he loves them, as long as we don’t make them more important than him, or harm anyone.

2. Film deals with big themes, issues, questions

The most entertaining, enjoyable films are more than clever combinations of CGI and stunts. They have great stories, characters and scripts, and perhaps a twist or two to keep you guessing. Films that develop characters, that allow you to get to know those characters, are the films that tend to stay with us.

Brian Godawa, screenwriter for the film To End All Wars, believes that the drawing power of a good film is its story. Although films often have very different stories Godawa explains that,

'[good stories] narrate the events surrounding characters who overcome obstacles to achieve some goal and who, in the process, are confronted with their personal need for change. In short, movie storytelling is about redemption - the recovery of something lost or the attainment of something needed… Movies may be about story, but these stories are finally, centrally, crucially, primarily, mostly about redemption.'

If Godawa is right, the movies that really connect with us are the ones which offer some form of redemption. The theme of redemption is undeniably a rich one in the Matrix films, and the search for redemption is inextricably intertwined with the course of love.

As well as looking at the redemptive journeys of various characters films also deal with big themes: Moral; Political; Sexual; Happiness; Freedom; Love; Spirituality; Truth; Belief; Human nature; Purpose; Identity; Loss and Suffering.

Films can often act like a mirror, as we watch, we can recognise what we are like, and what other people are like. This can make us uncomfortable, because we can sometimes see that human nature is quite messed up. But it can also make us happy, when we see something that we like.

3. You can't make a really good film, without getting religious

Big themes, and big questions are found in films and in the kind of religion that Jesus talks about. Jesus and films are interested in the big themes and ideas: Love; Identity; Happiness; Freedom; Truth etc.

Also, ponder this: the power with which we are drawn towards aesthetic beauty (say in a well crafted film) also needs an explanation. Does it fit in better with the explanation that our existence, and hunger for aesthetic beauty is an accidental miasma in a blind, unguided process driven simply by the reproduction of genetic material, or does this situation rest more snugly with the Christian belief that we were created to know and worship God who is the source of all beauty?

Some of our deepest, and most real enjoyment of film, comes because we are interested in big themes and big questions

This article is drawn from a lecture/talk that includes lots of film clips. If you'd like to use it, or would like to talk to me about presenting it, or just want to dig deeper into these big questions, then please get in touch via this link

How to Make Gravy

2010-01-14T08:00:00.006Z

It might seem like a slightly different direction to take, than what I usually blog about, but perhaps if all of life is spiritual, then why should good gravy be low down on our list of priorities? Or perhaps we could go with the gift of hospitality (def. giving your guest the ability to be free to exercise their will in your home), and doing the best you can for them. Excuses aside, it really is a subject that is important to me. I don't entirely know why, but it is. And you should never, ever, ever, ever settle for instant gravy. If you do, you must change your ways immediately. No more crimes against gravy. I love roasts, partly because I love roast potatoes covered in this lovely tasty gravy.

Instructions for making seriously good gravy (enough for about 5 people)

Plain flour

Beef/Chicken/Pork stock

Veg stock

Marmite

Sherry/port (white wine for chicken)

Salt&Pepper

Tip the baking tray up and either use a spoon to skim off the fatty top layer, or use a Gravy and Fat Separator
Then pour all those lovely meat juices into a saucepan (if you don't have any juices, then just add roughly 100ml of meat stock made from cubes or liquid) on a low heat setting
Sprinkle 3-4 tablespoons of plain flour while stirring (don't worry if it gets lumpy - just strain it through a sieve before you serve it - no big deal) until the meat juices have all been absorbed into the flour
Next slowly add 200ml of meat stock, giving it a good stir
Increase heat to medium
Take the meat out of the baking tray, and leave it to rest, while you pour a generous dash of port or sherry (white wine if chicken) into the baking tin, and give it a good rub with a wooden spoon. The alcohol and heat will dissolve all those tasty meaty juices. N.B. you can even put the tray on the hob and do the rest in the tray if you like - in that case, sieve the flour straight into the tray, and follow from step 4. I like to separate the excess fat from the meat juices.
Next add 200 ml of hot vegetable stock (try to use water from the vegetables) to the meat roasting dish, and pour the glorious mixture into a saucepan.
Stir in a stingy teaspoon of Marmite/Vegemite
Taste
Salt and pepper (pinch of sugar?)
Taste
Add any remaining meat juices (removing fat as appropriate)
A dash of port/sherry
Taste and enjoy

Other twists include Heston Blumenthal's advice, "To make the best gravy, you may have to buy some chicken wings, but they're not that expensive. Put them in the pan with the roasting juices and some white wine. Cook that down, then add some water. Make sure you've got enough sweet veg, like carrots, and onions particularly."

And here is is Jamie Oliver's recipe

Loving Logical Faith

2010-01-11T21:11:00.008Z

Faith loves logic. And logic is in love with faith. They are not getting a divorce. They have not split up. Logic has not crashed the car. Faith still wants logic. They are deeply, intimately, passionately in love with each other.

Logic is not the enemy of faith. Logic is like air. We are using it now. The logical is not the unemotional. Logic is not the same as science. Science isn't the enemy of faith. Real faith loves logic.

Why does faith love logic?

Simply because real, authentic faith cares about real things like integrity, and honesty. And it would be pretty odd for a faith to extol these virtues, but require the opposite of them for its initial impulse or conception.

Most people think that faith like a room in the house where logic isn't allowed to come in and sit on the sofa. They don't ever realise that without logic, there is no room, there is no reality, there is no perception, there are no distinctions. Logic is like air. Unavoidable.

Have you ever heard a Christian telling you that faith doesn't make sense, and shouldn't make sense to us?

I have heard a lot of people saying this. In fact, I have heard so many Christians saying it, that I've begun to become concerned that someone is teaching it.

Is someone teaching that logic and faith are getting a divorce?

Yes. Some are. Shame on them. They couldn't be more wrong. But not only are some preachers, vicars and teachers teaching that faith isn't rationally accessible, but also because they don't engage with the mental machinery, in their communication with us, they are teaching it by example as well. It's a double whammy.

Go on preachers. Give something to the sceptics. Give something to the man who sits in the back row wondering, "Isn't this all just emotional make believe?" Give a little something up for the love. The love affair between logic and faith.

If this is the case then how can the truth about the love affair between logic and faith ever be known?

Dig deeper

Critical Thinking

What is faith?

Jesus the logician

Tom Waits Press Conference

2010-01-06T14:12:00.003Z

The Teens Speech

2009-12-30T17:30:00.001Z

Digging Up 'Bodies' with Robbie Williams

2009-12-18T07:34:00.000Z

Robbie Williams said that part of the inspiration for his song "bodies" was a free internet film called 'The God Who Wasn't There' (http://www.thegodmovie.com/)

Williams says, "It was a song written on a particular day where I’d spent too much time on the Internet watching free films, and I watched a film, The God Who Wasn’t There. And it gives a different slant to Christianity and religion in general...With just a little bit of research, it turns out that the template for Christianity has been used before Jesus was about. There’s always been this guy about, who was born to a virgin, that was crucified, died and then resurrected, did a bunch of miracles. And it perked my interest and it gave me a different slant on my own religious beliefs and my Catholic upbringing...The whole song in general is about me spending too much time looking and reading about conspiracies. Googling too much. The song’s a whole mismatch of Google wrongness...I love my conspiracies. I love news. I love anything that takes my mind off my mind. I’m very addictive ... and so it has been for the last five years. I’m a Net-head. I’m there all the time." (canoe)

Bodies lyrics

Although I think Robbie Williams admits that these theories are more conspiracy than history. It is worth isolating some of the arguments that are being used. Some of them are quite subtle.

I spotted the following just in the trailer

1. Religious believers are fanatical/dangerous/killers.
2. Historical scrutiny of the first couple of decades (30-50 A.D.) don't support the New Testament portrait of Jesus.
3. Mark's gospel is not an accurate picture of the historical Jesus.
4. Mark didn't intend his gospel to be more than a symbolic story
5. A gospel is a symbolic story
6. The stories in the New Testament are legends
7. The key concepts in Christian belief are borrowed and are therefore not original, or inspired
8. Christian's (Christianity) ignores these sorts of historical challenges

Do Christians believe in freedom of artistic expression?

2009-12-17T23:08:00.005Z

"A risque church billboard showing the Virgin Mary and Joseph in bed apparently after having disappointing sex has caused outrage among Christians in New Zealand." Full story

What is your response to this?

Would you deface it if you saw it on a church billboard?

Where do you draw the line in terms of freedom of artistic expression?

Undisclosed Desires (Muse)

2009-12-16T20:17:00.003Z

I know you suffered

But I don't want you to hide

It's cold and loveless

I won't let you be denied

Soothe me

I'll make you feel pure

Trust me

You can be sure

I want to reconcile the violence in your heart

I want to recognize your beauty is not just a mask

I want to exorcise the demons from your past

I want to satisfy the undisclosed desires in your heart

You take your lovers that you're wicked and divine

You may be a sinner

But your innocence is mine

Please me

Show me how it's done

Tease me

You are the one

I want to reconcile the violence in your heart

I want to recognize your beauty is not just a mask

I want to exorcise the demons from your past

I want to satisfy the undisclosed desires in your heart

Please me

Show me how it's done

Trust me

You are the one

I want to reconcile the violence in your heart

I want to recognize your beauty is not just a mask

I want to exorcise the demons from your past

I want to satisfy the undisclosed desires in your heart

My questions

Do you like this song?

What is real here?

What do you think it is about?

Have A Stimulating Christmas

2009-12-15T14:54:00.013Z

Work-a-holics look away now - you just need to unplug. Actually, you probably should just go shopping, unless your better half has already done it all for you. Christmas is a time to reflect, to kick back and perhaps listen to something amazing on you ipod/phone. So, plug the device in now and refresh it with something new. Burn a new cd for the car. Listen to it at the computer.

Reason and Imagination (Andrew Fellows)
Andrew Fellows is, for my money, someone worth listening to and learning from. In this talk he discusses the often separated worlds of thinking and feeling, or reason and imagination.

Can We Know Anything Accurately About Jesus (Craig Blomberg)
Dr. Blomberg completed his Ph.D in New Testament, specializing in the parables and the writings of Luke-Acts, at Aberdeen University in Scotland.

The Cross and Discipleship (Dallas Willard)
A set of three different sessions with Dallas Willard

A Thinkers Guide to an Intelligent Faith (Os Guiness)
Dr. Guinness's (Oxford D. Phil) claim-to-fame is that he is part of the Guinness beer-making family, but he'd rather be known for his work as a Christian writer, lecturer, and social scientist.

Is The Bible Intolerant? (Amy Orr-Ewing)
Amy Orr-Ewing is Training Director of RZIM Zacharias Trust. She gained a first class degree in Theology at Christ Church, Oxford University, before receiving a Masters degree in Theology at King's College, London. Also she is my boss.

BoJo on Suffering

2009-11-23T20:11:00.005Z

Whether you think he is smart or not? You have to give it to the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, that his lament in The Telegraph on the reality, and confusion of suffering is well observed, and considerably more sensible than the reply of those who claim to have 'progressed' beyond those troublesome projections of morality.

"Feverishly I riffled to the front, to the page marked "Medical Summary", and the words leapt out at my boggling eyes. "You have chronic lymphocytic leukaemia," said the summary. Leukaemia, I thought, and my mind spooled as fast as it has ever done. Right, I thought. Leukaemia. How bad is that these days? And then my eyes skittered on in despair, about various drugs I was taking, and the opinions of distinguished consultants – and in that instant the penny dropped, and I was as certain as certain could be that these results could not possibly be mine. "Are you sure?" said Ann. "Yes, I am sure," I said, slightly testily. "I don't have leukaemia."

Within a few hours we had solved the mystery, and my real results were couriered round. Someone had blundered, and I hope to goodness that no one is punished for a simple mix-up. After all, I had lost nothing. The results confirmed my rude good health, with colossal lung capacity and less chance of contracting coronary heart disease, apparently, than someone half my age.

In fact, I had gained something. Though I have no idea who the other patient is, I have gained an insight into what it must be like to be that person, and to receive some bad news from the doctors. It made me think how random and pitiless the universe is.

I was talking to a child about God and the problem of pain, and why so many good and wonderful people have awful physical afflictions, when so many bad people have none. The best answer I could come up with was that pain is essential in the world, because without pain there would be no pleasure, without bad things no good things, without dark no light and so on. But how these things are distributed is a mystery. Why does the angel of death fly over some houses but not others? There is no rhyme or reason. There is no system of just deserts. It is all as inexplicable as a piece of mail intended for someone else."

Thanks Bojo. That was actually, well, quite real. It's been said before that a reasonable belief system, should track reality. In other words if your theory doesn't match the way that the world is, then you should question your theory until you are absolutely sure.

So ....what would you say to the child who asked Boris the question?

Want to Dig Deeper
Michael Ramsden's article on Suffering
bethinking.org on Suffering (40 resources)

Why You Need to Be More Intolerant

2009-11-11T12:24:00.003Z

We need more intolerance. This is the opposite of what we are usually told, but think about it for a moment: being tolerant about everything might not be such a good maxim after all. In fact it might be dangerous and immoral not to be intolerant sometimes. Perhaps what matters, is what you are being intolerant about, and the character, or manner of the way that you communicate?

After all...

Mother Teresa was intolerant of poverty.

Nelson Mandela was intolerant of apartheid.

Martin Luther King was intolerant of racism.

Jesus was intolerant of bigotry.

(from Josh McDowell email)

What should you be more intolerant of?

Rethinking Capitalism

2009-10-28T10:45:00.005Z

Update: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/capitalism.needs.to.rediscover.its.moral.spirit.says.alpha.chairman/24540.htm

Capital

Definition: the total amount of money or wealth possessed by a person or business, etc, especially when used to produce more wealth.

ETYMOLOGY: 13c meaning 'relating to the head': French, from Latin capitalis, from caput head.

Capitalism

Definition: an economic system based on private, rather than state, ownership of businesses, factories, transport services, etc, with free competition and profit-making.

"...Capitalism sits on the idea of trade. Two traders must agree to trade and cannot be coerced. This assention leads to more trade and feedback leads to accurate pricing. Government policies sit on the ideas of coercion and control. This usually constrains trade and fixes prices to the detriment of both demand and supply. A free market society will always fix it’s own problems. Government interference into the market, even with the noblest of intentions, will always make us worse off in the long-run." Politecon

"If Corporate Capitalism is contributing significantly to the moral bankruptcy of Western societies, can Christians nevertheless accept it as part of their cultural context and concentrate just on personal evangelism and meeting individual need? The prophets thought it was necessary for God’s people to tackle the causes, not just the symptoms, of social breakdown and injustice.[40] So did Jesus himself.[41] How, then, can Christians avoid the urgent call to reform Capitalism radically? How can we start the reform process, and what might an alternative system look like?"Is capitalism morally bankrupt? by Dr Michael Schluter

Nick Pollard (Damaris) aims to work with a different view of capital

financial - will it generate financial revenue which will enable it to continue and to grow?
human - will it build-up people in every way - through the appropriate use of their gifts and talents?
environmental - will it enable us to act as good stewards of all of the world's resources?
manufactured - does it value and build upon the results of existing creative activity?

The New Economics Foundation say that, "nef is attempting to put a value on what different types of employment are ‘worth’ to us as a society. This will be measured not just in purely economic terms through contribution to productivity but by quantifying the social and environmental value that these roles produce, or destroy."

Karl Marx pushed things in another direction in his discussions of capitalism, saying, "Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society." Das Kapital

What is your model of capital? Do you think that 'new wealth' can be created, or is it merely distributed from elsewhere?

Paul Weller sings about God

2009-08-31T22:13:00.005Z

Paul Weller's song "God" (2008) is worth a second glance. While musically, I don't think that the latest album '22' (2008/V2&Island) is the best music Weller has produced (I prefer the early solo material like Sunflower, Country, Foot of the Mountain, You Do Something to Me, Heavy Soul: Spotify playlist here). This a good example of an artist using music to discuss, provoke or question the world that they see around them. Looking into lyrics of songs like this is also a good way to take some kind of cultural pulse, finding out what the artists in a society are trying to say, or communicate.

song on Spotify

"And I looked up and I spoke to God and God said look at you don't look at me. You only call on me when you need me and when you don't you hardly think of me at all. I don't enter your head for weeks at a time and the times I do are in your despair that you created and not I and still you look up at me in such pleading terms that's how I know you.

Don't look at me look at you

And every night I pray to God please save the lives of those I love and take me instead if you really need someone to keep you company on that golden chair in the glare. Bring your guns to the table and recite your prayer. Loose all your hatred if you are to pray in there. The temple you're seeking is in front of your nose. Because the message you're giving is "do nothing for those".

Seek and you shall find

The oldest is the youngest

The young is the old"

Over to you...

What is your interpretation of Weller's track God?

What do you start to hear at 1:37?

What is he concerned about in the world?

How might Christian belief have influenced Weller?

What questions does this song leave you with?

Attitudes to creation/evolution in the UK

2009-08-27T13:32:00.001Z

Attitudes to creation/evolution in the UK

The findings of the biggest research project ever carried out into UK public opinion on evolution and the origins ofliving things was published back in March by the religious think tank Theos. The full findings of the research, conducted by polling company ComRes, are published in report entitled Faith and Darwin. There are some interesting results:

Just 37% of respondents agree that Darwinian evolution is a theory so well established it is beyond reasonable doubt

19%) believe it has little or no supporting evidence

36% state that the theory is still waiting to be proved or disproved

People were asked to choose between four possible positions: Young Earth Creationism (YEC), Intelligent Design (ID), Theistic Evolution (TE) and Atheistic Evolution (AE). When asked which position they considered most likely, 17% chose the YEC position,11% chose ID, 28% chose TE and 37% chose AE.

14% of people think that human beings are just another species of animal and have no unique value or significance.

43% believe that human beings are like other animals but are particularly complex and this complexity gives humans value and significance.

40% believe that human beings are uniquely different from other living things and so have a unique values and significance.

An overwhelming majority of people (75%) believe that science can explain many things, but not everything.

Only 10% consider science and religious belief to be completely incompatible.

Are the Origins of the Anti-Slavery Movement to be found in The Old Testament 3,000 years ago

2009-08-11T11:13:00.009Z

3,000 years ago slavery wasn't really seen as wrong, but part of life. The motive for slavery was always economic. Having people work for you for nothing is good way to reduce your expenditure, and maximise your profit. Things haven't changed much. More recently when tens of millions of slaves were taken from the African continent to work in the cotton and sugar plantations (in the southern states of the United States, throughout the Caribbean, the Americas and in European-occupied areas of Africa) the motive was economic. Karl Marx said that Western capitalism owed much of its success to slavery - he might have been right. (I have also been wondering: where did all the slaves that went into the Arab world through Zanzibar end up?).

It is an uncomfortable truth that slavery is still with us. And it has been distressing to read that 500,000 women each year are being tricked then used as sex slaves in European cities. It is to our shame, that we are not doing more to change the situation. What can we actually do? What can we do when so many of our companies and factories "employ" workers in Bangladesh or China to work long shifts for a pittance, so that we can buy jeans for £3 or have a top for £5? The motive is still economic isn't it? And so, sadly is our pathetic reasoning for providing these companies with a market. Yet, there is a partnership that has always stood against slavery. Someone has been quietly remembering those who have been involved. And his memory is not subject to decay or error.

Back in ~1,300 BC (about the time of the Israelite Exodus from Egyptian slavery) most Near Eastern countries had extradition treaties and administered severe punishment to runaway slaves, to their families, and to those who aided their escape. In contrast Deuteronomy instructs Israel to provide safety and refuge to slaves fleeing harsh treatment from a foreign country (Deut 23:15-16). A fleeing slave, crossing Israel's borders would be given shelter and permitted to live in any of Israel's cities, and was not to be handed over to his/her master. This sparkles brightly when compared to the surrounding nations.

This all seems very clear cut. But there is a problem: when you read other biblical texts on slavery an overwhelming impression emerges. A less than ultimate ethic in the treatment of slaves is also a part of our bibles. There seems to be a problem with the treatment of slaves in the bible. Here are 5 examples.

Human beings are considered to be property (Exod. 12:44; 21:20-21, 32; Lev. 22:11)
Foreign slaves in Israel did not experience the seventh year of release (Lev. 25: 39-46)
Slaves within Israel were used to produce offspring for their infertile owners (Gen. 16:1-4; 30:3-4; 9-10; 35:22)
Sexual violation of a betrothed slave woman led not to death, as in the case of a free man, but to a mere payment/offering for damages (Lev. 19:20-22)
Slave owners were permitted to beat their slaves without any penalty provided the slave survived by a couple of days (Exod. 21:20-21)
Biblical legislation contains inequality in the value placed on a slaves life compared to a free person's life (Exod. 21:28-32)

The first thing to be said is that relative to the culture and situation, much of this was still redemptive, but it still needs to be acknowledged that these texts are problematic, and the principles need to be moved towards an ultimate ethic. God accomodates himself to meeting people and society where they are in their existing social ethic, and from there he gently moves them in small steps towards something better. Moving large, complicated and embedded social structures and norms along an ethical continuum is not a simple matter. Incremental movement within scripture reveals a God who is willing to live with the tension between an absolute ethic in their and the reality of guiding real people in practice towards such a goal.

What more can be said here? Do you think that this makes it hard to believe that the scripture is God's word?

Regina Spektor on Religion, Family, Fame and "Far"

2009-08-10T16:43:00.002Z

Gordon Brown, "We are not a secular state. We don't even have a separation between church and state""

2009-08-10T11:47:00.005Z

Gordon Brown speaks to Premier Christian Radio about the role and value of religion in society. His motivation for politics is comes in part from listening to missionaries.

Tony Blair [via Campbell], "We don't do God."
Brown, "I am happy to talk about the values I believe in."

Brown, "The role of religion and faith in the public sqaure is incredibly important"

Interviewer: "Should Christianity be privatised, so that people go about their work, but detach their faith?"
Brown, "I think its impossible...I don't accept this idea of privatisation....it would be wrong.'

"Our communities will be strengthened by the action of people of faith in them."

Christianity Explored

2009-08-05T17:39:00.001Z

Bear Grylls - I did Alpha

2009-08-05T17:34:00.001Z

Fads and Crazes

2009-08-04T07:51:00.006Z

A craze or fad is a fashion or phenomenon that becomes popular for a short time. In my school we had our share of these fads or crazes: Garbage Pail Kids, Yo-Yos, Rubix Magic, Rubix Clock, Hackey Sacks, Micro Machines, Skateboards, In-Line Skates, BMXs. We didn't take it too seriously, but even so, our collections of disgusting characters on little trading cards continued to swell. I remember having hundreds of them.

Don't we still do this sometimes?
"You have to read this book, it will change your life"
"You have to do this course, it's incredible"
"You have to get one of these"

The funny thing about crazes, was that they are always followed by another. It's as if there is a deep insatiable hunger in us for the next thing, for a new solution, or perhaps a new answer. But perhaps this is the wrong path to take? Perhaps what we were looking for was there under our noses all the time?

"I am perfectly certain that all our world will end in despair, unless there is some way of making the mind itself, the ordinary thought we have at ordinary times, more healthy and more happy than they seem to be just now, to judge by most modern novels and poems. You have to be happy in those quiet moments when you remember that you are alive; not in those noisy moments when you forget. Unless we can learn again to enjoy life, we shall not long enjoy the spices of life." G.K. Chesterton

"And of course, whatever is next must be a great deal better still... The past is beside the point, outdated, reactionary, and stagnant. In a word that is today's supreme term of dismissal, the past is irrelevant, Everything Christian from worship to evangelism must be fresh, new, up-to-date, attuned, appealing, seeker- sensitive, audience-friendly, and relentlessly relevant... ."All new," "must-read; "the sequel that is more than equal” - the mentality is rampant and the effect is corrosive" Os Guiness

Think about the .....

2009-07-17T12:10:00.003Z

If You Want To Live Then Your Technique Must Die

2009-07-16T13:41:00.000Z

Making simple what appears complicated is one of the marks of a great teacher. Such a teacher was Jesus. When asked what an individual's duty was in relation to the law of the Old Testament, he summarized a vast amount of material accurately and simply:

Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:37-40)

Such simplicity does not necessarily involve distortion either. Descriptions need not include every detail to be true. In fact, absolutely comprehensive descriptions which omit no detail are impossible. Yet truth can be known nevertheless: someone did this and not that, was here and not there, was rich and not poor, or whatever.

God's truth makes simple the great range of things which constitute life, thus enabling us to understand what this diversity of experiences is all about. That truth is to be found in God's Word, the bible.

The bible itself is not one book, however, but many books; it covers not one generation, but many. Nevertheless, without denying the wide range of the material, we can say emphatically that its basic teaching is simple. And therefore the simple can read it and "have more understanding than all [their] teachers" (Psalm 119:99). The fundamentals of the biblical worldview are quite straightforward.

Our discussion concerns just one detail within the teaching of the whole bible, namely, the nature of spiritual experience. What does the bible teach about a Christian's experience? Again, because there is so much material about this one subject, we might ask, "Can anything simple be said about it?"

Unhappily, when listening to the various voices in the church today, one is tempted to conclude no. As in a marketplace on market day, individual teachers and groups are hawking their own special emphases on the Christian life - more evangelism, more house churches, more repentance, more supernatural gifts and so on. This is not simplicity.

This dependence on technique is due in part to our culture's expectation that technology will provide solutions whenever there are problems. Even the Christian community reflects this mentality: there must be some technique which will give the desired solution, fruit, experience, growth or whatever.

But there is another reason for this confusion. Sometimes what the bible says about the Christian life does seem difficult to understand. For example, Jesus says that we cannot be his disciples unless we loose our lives (Mk 8:34-35). Paul says that we have died with Christ and have been raised with him and that therefore we should "seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God." (Col 3:1). What do such expressions as "losing one's life" and "dying with Christ" mean? Must I have a negative attitude toward life? Does setting my mind on things above mean that I should be unconcerned about present realities?

These passages, when seen in their proper contexts, are not as difficult to understand as they may seem to be initially. Nevertheless, at different times in the history of the church individual statements like these have been picked out of the bible and misapplied. Very distorted views of the Christian life have resulted.

Is it possible, then, to summarise the teaching in the bible about spiritual experience? Can it be stated quite simply as Jesus did the law of the Old Testament?

[from Barrs and Macauley, Being Human (IVP:1978) p. 11-13]

No One Laughs at God....

2009-07-12T22:30:00.002Z

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one’s laughing at God
When they’re starving or freezing or so very poor

No one laughs at God
When the doctor calls after some routine tests
No one’s laughing at God
When it’s gotten real late
And their kid’s not back from the party yet

No one laughs at God
When their airplane start to uncontrollably shake
No one’s laughing at God
When they see the one they love, hand in hand with someone else
And they hope that they’re mistaken

No one laughs at God
When the cops knock on their door
And they say we got some bad news, sir
No one’s laughing at God
When there’s a famine or fire or flood

But God can be funny
At a cocktail party when listening to a good God-themed joke, or
Or when the crazies say He hates us
And they get so red in the head you think they’re ‘bout to choke
God can be funny,
When told he’ll give you money if you just pray the right way
And when presented like a genie who does magic like Houdini
Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus
God can be so hilarious
Ha ha
Ha ha

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one’s laughing at God
When they’ve lost all they’ve got
And they don’t know what for

No one laughs at God on the day they realize
That the last sight they’ll ever see is a pair of hateful eyes
No one’s laughing at God when they’re saying their goodbyes
But God can be funny
At a cocktail party when listening to a good God-themed joke, or
Or when the crazies say He hates us
And they get so red in the head you think they’re ‘bout to choke
God can be funny,
When told he’ll give you money if you just pray the right way
And when presented like a genie who does magic like Houdini
Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus
God can be so hilarious

Richard Dawkins TV launches Baloney Detection Kit

2009-07-04T16:46:00.002Z

Please let me into Camp Dawkins

2009-06-28T22:01:00.007Z

Big Chief Richard will throw open the flaps (nets?) of Camp Dawkins this summer so that children can enthuse about the bearded ape's most ardent fanboy, as they learn all about evolution and science. Of course, they will also be encouraged to question any beliefs that might stand in the way of scientific progress. But I wonder how they will manage to identify and differentiate between how to think and what to think? Camp Quest doesn't want to indoctrinate anyone, after all. Does it?

Well, the answer is that children will have to think their way through various challenges, like "Which planet did "spoon man" Uri Geller come from?" and "Do unicorns really exist?". Those old favourite group games like "Pin the tail on the theistic evolutionist" or "Find the Christian weirdo and put them on TV" are unlikely to feature, simply because Big Chief Richard doesn't like to be shown up by children, who could do both better than him.

So, if what we should think (=atheism) is dressed up as how we should think (or critical thinking skills) doesn't do the trick, then there is a cunning backup plan. Hard cash. The children may be paid to sing along with Big Chief Richards' song. I'm not kidding. After they have completed one particular challenge hunting imaginary animals they are rewarded with the prize of a £10 note signed by Big Chief Richard. PowWow! But better check the Currency and Banknotes Act (1928) before you advertise that. Dawkins' "shyness" is always an interesting disclosure isn't it? And the connection between what to think and how to think is especially clear when you consider that it is a picture of the bearded ape himself on the £10 note.

While some Christians are concerned by Camp Dawkins, I am not. For one thing, freedom works in two directions. Christians would hit the roof if they were told that they couldn't have Church holiday club this year because someone who didn't know them had decided that it was indoctrination. If that is what Christians' enjoy, then those same freedoms should be extended to others (within reasonable limits). Dawkins really isn't a threat. Camp Quest just sounds tediously boring, as opposed to threatening. And don't let it escape your attention that the buisness model is pretty flawed too. In fact Dawkins is propping it up by parting with more than a ten pound note to make this happen. Roughly £225 per child (x25) in fact (adventure centre cost = £500, Camp Quest cost = £275), without even mentioning air fares of American volunteers. So it may not be sustainable, even if it is possible to persuade your local atheist "brights"/volunteers enough to take time off work year upon year to extol the virtues (they are not ontologically grounded) of naturalistic materialism gather around the camp fire to sing Imagine by John Lennon.

I enjoyed George Pitcher's comment on the story here