We are living in interesting times. David Cameron has decided he does ‘do’ God and has opened up a whole can of worms. This is my response posted on Christian Today – I believe that the militant secularists are losing the intellectual (and social) war….there are two links in this article which you must read – not least the Spectator Article which explains why the new atheism is failing. Let me know what you think..
How are they losing any war?
I have not seen any proof of God, and there has never been any shown, at least not a personal God.
You provide the answer to your question by your second sentence!
David
Having read your latest Wee Flea article and expossed what was previously an unsaid situation it is good to know that this situation is now out in the world. Christianity is, in my opinion, the answer to many of our present evils and can be spread through making a relationship with those that we meet and introducing or re-introducing Christ to them.
That is where the battle will take place and whilst I agree with your comments about David Cameron I admire that he hjas at least brought the subject to the fore and maybe we can once again turn the tables.
Oh – and by the way – I really like your book Magnificent Obsession
Shalom
Michael Archibald
Reader – Methven & Almondbank Church of Scotland Chairman – Perth Street Pastors Chiarman – Perth & Kinross Foodbank
Intrigued to note Prof Dawkins absence from the 55 ‘hitlist’. Am I alone in suspecting he declined to add his worthy name, being quite open as we all know well in his appreciation of the finer points of the KJV (albeit not yet sharing our faith) and appalled at students’ growing ignorance of the Bible and our ‘British Christian traditions’. An unlikely bedfellow, perhaps, but could Professor Dawkins be singing from the evangelical hymnsheet on this one? Speak, Richard, speak!
What is it that makes a secularist ‘militant’?
Could be that they have had a bad religious experience, that they just don’t like religious people, or they don’t like anyone who disagrees with their point of view. I have no idea about peoples motivation!
So how do you decide who is aggressive? You’ve previously said that Im not an aggressive secularist. So what makes some secularists aggressive and some not?
What makes some Christians aggressive and some not? Aggressive is aggressive. Intolerance is intolerance. Anger is anger. If you want plenty examples of aggressive ‘secularism’ then I suggest a few minutes reading the secular Scotland fb page will enlighten you!
Perhaps I can share my experience Gary and leave you to decide whether this is aggressive/intolerant or not? Perhaps you could share if this has been a similar experience for you David?
The group I mentioned previously on my posting here was the Scottish Secular Society. I assume that’s the group you are talking about with “secular scotland” David?
Privately, one of the leaders there had said that they had been a “silent supporter” of me, another at a meeting with them had said I was “powerful” and could be useful for the group and the promotion of secularism, in the sense of inclusivity and equality of belief and non-belief and freedom of faith and freedom from faith. All sounds inviting, welcoming and reasonable, with common aims – right?
That was until there was a talk of a “welcome” of the removal of all religious components to RO in schools and a desire to “aboloish” denominational schools by one of the leaders in the group.
When I pointed out that his did not match what I had been led to believe about the inclusive and equal nature of secularism an asserted equality and inclusivity, I was regarded as “confused” and “petulant” by a couple of leaders and another leader said yes and don’t get that “fanny” David (meaning David here) to support what I was saying or words to that effect.
Comments then followed “never trust a Christian”. It was implied that I was a troll, “don’t feed the trolls”, I was called a “fool” and an “anomaly”. So I had my say and left. I cannot now gain access to the fb page, which I assume means that I have been banned.
All for standing for equality and freedom. As mentioned, one leader of the group did speak with me privately ans mention the concern expressed within the leadership of the perceived anti-faith stance. Also someone I know who is an aitheist mentioned that the thought there were too many “anti-religious postings” on the site. I think this leader was right to be concerned that SSS may be “alienated as a fringe atheist movement”. There was mention of some steps being taken to address this, but going by what David is saying, it doesn’t seem to have changed things much. Obviously I can’t tell as I cant get access to the site.
There are one or two folks who have requested me as a friend on fb fomr the group who I am still in touch with however.
I hope that answers your question Gary.
Kind Regards
The Spectator article comments “too many atheists simply assume the truth of secular humanism, that it is the axiomatic ideology”.
And heres the rub – the assumptions made by secular humanism. Going only by my experiences with secularists the approach has been of being for equality of belief and non-belief and freedom of faith and from faith. Sounds perfectly reasonable doesn’t it?
That is until one leader of this particular group talked of welcoming removal of all religious components in a particular environment and claimed that bringing Jesus into the conversation was offensive to those who are not Christians, and blasphemous to other faiths. Whilst another leader of the same group privately expressed their concern two me about two members of different positions with regard to faith having left the group over its “perceived anti-faith stance” and not wanting the group to risk alienating itself as a “fringe atheist movement”.
So, perhaps not so reasonable after all.
On the other hand, sometimes the church and Christians (I include myself in this) don’t always represent Christ, the perfect love and life in its fullest for everyone well. A quote I often make is from Richard Tiplady, principle of the evangelical International Christian College who talks of Christian worship and community being unattractive and even repulsive to outsiders.
So where does that leave us? All I can say is I love to have these kind of conversations where there is a mutual respect. Where whatever background and views we have, we come with the endeavour to do what is good for all. When this happens, it is beautiful and fulfilling. Some like myself would put that down to the centrality of Christ, love, joy, peace, power, all working for good. Others may have a different view for example a Bhuddist friend of mine puts things down to “presence” when that happens and has enjoyed coming to church. Perhaps she will invite me to a Bhuddist meeting sometime – I ‘d like to go!
Sadly, thought it is often the loudest voices that carry most sway, and often these voices are motivated by selfish and political gain on all sides. Only when/where these influences are diminished shall/do we see what is happening benefiting all.
David
The Bible appears to support the claim that morality is a set of evolved human customs and conventions. The Bronze Age savagery of the Old Testament being replaced by the compassionate, philosophically influenced Pauline morality of the New Testament.
Or put simply; would Jesus have instructed Saul to carry out the Amalekite genocide?
I’m afraid that is a somewhat limited and simplistic view. Jesus after all (and Paul) taught about hell. I’m curious as to how you can determine whether something is savagery and wrong. If after all morality is just a human construct, then you have no basis to make any kind of moral judgement.
I think you are quite wrong on that. It is very possible.
Morality 1: Good without gods:
SOmewhat ironic that like your atheist morality, your video does not exist!
“SOmewhat ironic that like your atheist morality, your video does not exist!”
Would you class this as an aggressive statement?
Firstly, there is no such thing as “atheist morality” in the same sense that there is no moral worldview that is derived solely from a belief that “entity X probably doesn’t exist”.
There is most certainly a morality which can be derived without the reference to a mythical being.
Assuming you hold to the position that morality is actually derived from scripture, are you for or against the stoning of adulterers?
If it was never moral, why did God inspire it’s inclusion in a moral code.
If it is still moral, would you consider practicing it today.
If it was once moral, but is no longer, can we conclude that either God’s morality changes over time or God occasionally recommends morality he knows to be wrong?
Christians today ignore vast portions of the bible, the often barbarous lack of morality on show in it doesn’t sit too well with modern moral values. Like atheists, Christians bring their previously existing morality with them when they cherry the bible for the bits they agree with. Culture in general, not religion is what determines morality. Religion can play a part in shaping culture just as any other cultural artefact can.
You didn’t actually answer the question you were asked.
“would Jesus have instructed Saul to carry out the Amalekite genocide?”
Are you prepared to say that Genocide is not always wrong?
Thanks and Regards.
Then you make one; would Jesus have said “put to death men and women, children and infants”?
He said worse. He taught about Hell.
But Hell is reserved for those who are unrepentant sinners. Would Jesus condemn children there because of their parents’ sin. We didn’t do that to Heydrich’s children, how could an omnibenevolent God fail to do likewise?
Atheists have a morality which is (like it or not) derived from the same source as Christianity. We love because God first loved us. Love (in all it’s forms) seems to be the one thing which is not explicable. There have been attempts to do so in terms of social reciprocation, but none of this really adds up. Love seems to be the first cause. It’s how we respond to that that is the issue. Samuel Crossman said:
My song is love unknown,
My Saviour’s love to me;
Love to the loveless shown,
That they might lovely be.