Category Archives: Holy suffering

“The New New Atheism” my Foot!

Standard

Theo – the vacillating, ‘not quite sure whether I’m cut out to be a priest’ – Hobson wrote an article for The Spectator recently, entitled “Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new new atheists.” He begins by asseverating that

Richard Dawkins is now seen by many, even many non-believers, as a joke figure, shaking his fist at sky fairies. He’s the Mary Whitehouse of our day.

For those of you who were not around when Mary Whitehouse was a household name in practically the whole of the English-speaking world, Mary Whitehouse was a social activist prude, railing against what she saw as an increasingly permissive society. And of course it was an increasingly permissive society. The 1960s was undoubtedly a watershed decade in Western cultural history, when it seemed, especially to those who had been brought up in the 1950s, the world was being overthrown by sex, violence and rock and roll. She was, though, a stereotypical, comic figure, trying to command the tide of change, which washed over Western societies during the sixties, to cease, and people took considerable joy in poking fun at her. Search ‘Mary Whitehouse’ on YouTube, and you will find it hard to find anything besides parody.

It is simply ridiculous to suppose that Richard Dawkins is regarded in this way. What evidence does Theo Hobson provide for his opening claim that Richard Dawkins has turned into a parody of the Mary Whitehouse variety? None at all, really. He says, with considerable aplomb, about the new atheist “movement”:

So what was that about then?

– as though the new atheism were past and finished with, and we can now see it in historical perspective – when, of course, it is as lively as ever, and producing such phenomenal results as A.C. Grayling’s soundly philosophical The God Argument. Hobson wants us to think that the new atheism was just a flash in the pan, instead of a real shot, prompted mainly by the 9/11 attack on New York and the Pentagon, and the 7/7 attacks on London, which, now that we see them as fairly limited and not all that frightening, can be dismissed with a casual wave of the hand and a reference to vicarage tea parties, as though all religion were quite anodyne and harmless.

But, quite aside from the horrific impact of those religious atrocities on the Western consciousness, let’s not forget Christopher Hitchens’ classic remark:

Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse. [god is not Great, 67] 

Of course, he might have said:

But we have a right to remember how barbarically religions behave where they are strong and making an offer that people cannot refuse.

For there are, after all, many places in the world where people have no choice at all about religion. Muslims will still quote the Qur’an to the effect that there should be no compulsion in religion. But we have a right to remember where people are still imprisoned (and often murdered) for blasphemy and executed for apostasy, where any perceived insult to the “prophet” Muhammad touches off social paroxysms of frenzied crowds baying for blood. How blind, really, is Theo Hobson? Can he not see?

Continue reading →

About these ads

Are there any religious experts? “Religion experts” on euthansia

Standard

This post is now available in Polish translation over at Racjonalista. Thanks again go to Malgorzata.

…………………………………………..

The Ottawa Citizen has an advice column which puts questions to so-called “religion experts,” who give answers on crucial issues facing individuals and society. There is a big problem with this, because religion experts are, almost by definition, not religion experts at all. What is there to be expert about? They might be experts in their own religion, but there is no such thing as a religion expert who is qualified to give religion’s answer to any question. A recent column in the Citizen’s “Ask the Religion Experts” column, for 31 January 2012 — thanks to Veronica Abbass for the link – asks the two questions: “Is euthanasia right? Would God want us to suffer?” And then the religion experts weigh in on the side of their favourite god. The nonsense that this makes of the questions should be clear right from the outset. We ask the experts their opinion, and all they can do is refer to the “experts” of their religion. According to Z, this is the way it is; according to Y, the truth is such-and-such, and so on. And, around the edges, a little lie or two will take you over the hump when reason fails.

The first one is perhaps the funniest. It’s by a Bahá’í scholar, Jack McLean. Seeing him described as a scholar reminds me of the day I took my M.Div. degree diploma and cut it to shreds. I no longer consider that to be a degree at all. It qualified me as an Anglican priest, but it no longer seems to me that there was anything to know, except, of course, historically, for the church does have a history (or perhaps I should say the churches have a history, for there is no point, during the whole history of Christianity, where there was an unquestioned unity within Christianity), but it is impossible to be a scholar of religion itself, for religion has no subject matter. The “theo” part of theology (the word ‘theology’ meaning, roughly, the logos of theos, or the reason, knowledge of god) is simply UA (on unauthorised absence), having departed his post, or, rather, never having been there in the first place, for all the confident pretence of religious believers, especially its officer class, to which, largely, the Ottawa Citizen has appealed for enlightenment upon a subject which has no object.

Continue reading →

Grinching It

Standard

GrinchThere is no doubt that yuletide festivities, which can be traced back far beyond the time when Christianity appropriated them for its own purposes to celebrate the birth of the one they call Saviour and Lord, are associated with the Winter Solstice, the time when, in the Northern Hemisphere, the sun is at its lowest point on the Southern horizon. The festivities themselves may have been prompted not only by the primitive fears that the sun might not return to warm the fertile land for the next planting and harvest, but also by what is now aptly called Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), ”a kind of depression that occurs at a certain time of the year, usually in the winter,” as PubMed puts it. Which is why, of course, that everyone goes around at this time of year with rather brittle joy, as though under an obligation to smile and celebrate and sing, something which, for those of us who are not so minded, becomes oppressive and, indeed, depressive. Despite the best efforts, then, of those who are sworn to these festivities, this time of year can be, and indeed, often is, a time of even greater sadness and melancholy.

Trying to convince us that they are not the Grinches who stole Christmas, atheists and other nontheists or antitheists or agnostics make a special effort at this time of the year to find an excuse to celebrate along with all the rest, even though it is hard to say what it is they are celebrating, although having fun and spreading joy around seems to be reason enough to do it. But there is also a reason, it seems to me, to set aside, at this time of very fragile joy and shallow festivity, time to dwell a bit more on the fact that life is sometimes not all that joyful, and that there are reasons to reflect a bit more on the more sobering aspects of life. This seems especially so for those who find there is little to celebrate. During the time when I functioned in the church as a priest, I seldom thought what it meant to those who were sorrowing to be faced with the obligatory cheer that Christmas foists upon them. I had never really thought much, myself, about grief, though I knew that grief could, in fact, predominate in people’s lives, often for years, and I tried, as a priest, to do my best to bring comfort to those in sorrow. But I had not really experienced any substantial grief over my lifetime, until, suddenly, I was pitched, not unexpectedly, but it seemed, precipitously, into grief myself. And then I knew what it was like to be faced with cheery faces and the insistent joyfulness that worked at such cross purposes with my own continuing and growing sense of loss. Trying to get in the “Christmas Spirit” in those years when Elizabeth was failing, and failing more and more, was a trial, not a comfort. Nor do I find it a comfort now, and I do not think this feeling will simply go away. I sublimate my grief by fighting for the right of those who are suffering to receive help in dying, and doing some philosophical duelling online, but it always lies somewhere in the background, and is brought out most intensely when people think that I should be joyful on demand.

Continue reading →

This, really, is all about Elizabeth II

Standard

Now that you know Elizabeth and me a little better (see “This, really, is all about Elizabeth I“), I can go on to speak about the things that now concern me. I would not be here at all, however, had it not been for Elizabeth, not only because I loved her and she died in extraordinary circumstances, but because she was herself so clear about her disbelief, because she was so determined to take her dying into her own hands, and because she wanted me to speak about our love and about the right to die. Religion simply was not a factor in this, and she was pleased when I told her that I was no longer able to believe, not even in the very attenuated way in which I had managed, up to that time, to speak of my state of mind as one of belief. Expressing my own non-belief meant that she no longer felt the need to have a religious service just to please me, so she set about designing her own service, so that people should know that she had not been a person of faith.

And she encouraged me, when I returned from Switzerland, to join in the campaign for the right to die. It is one way in which the love that we knew can continue in other ways, and perhaps influence other lives.

So, then, to business. I do not purport to understand fully why it is that Christianity has made assisted dying and abortion the points at which it is determined to make its final stand, but I think it has to do with the dynamics of religious belief and its need for control over social order. I also think that if we defeat it in this, it will have much less power and influence than it has now.

Religion’s determination to hold onto the entrances and exits of life has to do, I believe, with something absolutely central to religious belief, which is also the source of the idea of the sanctity of human life. As I have experienced it, religion is deeply concerned with notions of order: cosmic order, social order, and the order and integration of the individual life in relation to others, and especially, as religions teach, in relation to God, the ordering principle – as it is supposed – of the universe.

[An aside: "Theologists" (as she is often titled) like Karen Armstrong tell us that religion is not about belief, but about practice, and she even pretends that the etymology of the Latin word 'credo' (I believe) is relevant to its English equivalent. 'Credo' in Latin is related to the words 'cor' (or heart) and 'donum' (to give as a gift), so that 'credo' would mean to give one's heart to God, to enter into a relationship with God, and so on, as though, when it is used in the Nicene Creed, for example, it does not come with any cognitive strings attached. This is pure subterfuge. No one should think that there is no relational-emotional component in an act of faith, but to suggest that there is no intellectual content is simply false. When the gospel Jesus asks: "Who do men say that I am?" and "Who do you say that I am?", he is clearly inviting a confession of faith in terms of an explicit belief about his relationship to God.]

Returning to the question of levels of order: cosmic order, social order, and the order of the individual in relation to others, the cosmos, and especially in relation to God, the ordering principle of the cosmos. At each of these levels religions like to impress upon believers that the ordering principle that runs through all things is the power to which religion pays its dues in worship and obedience. In some simpler religions this aspect of religious belief and practice is more obvious and more dramatic – as when sacrifices are made to the ruler of the universe in order to guarantee the preservation of that order in the regularity of the seasons and the orderly procession of the sun across the sky. In such religions the raison d’être of these ceremonies was brutally clear, as in the Aztec offering of still beating human hearts to the sun with the apparent purpose of preserving the sun in its wonted diurnal course above a fruitful earth.

Continue reading →

Required Reading

Standard

Update, 16:37, Atlantic Daylight Time, Monday, 20th August 2012: “Required Reading” is now available in Polish translation at Racjonalista. Thanks again to Malgorzata for taking an interest in my occasional thoughts.

Update, 10:40 Atlantic Daylight Time, Friday, 17th August 2012: The Tony Nicklinson judgement is now in, and is downloadable as a pdf file here. I have not read it yet, but the judgement does not rule in his favour. According to the Telegraph:

Tony Nicklinson, the “locked-in syndrome” sufferer, broke down in tears on live television as it was confirmed that he had lost his legal battle to be allowed to die.

The judgement says that it is not up to the courts to decide the issue, but is a matter for Parliament to decide. However, it is clear that, in cases where Parliament fails to act to uphold people’s rights, the courts should make it clear that Parliamentary failure will not be upheld by the courts. While it is true that a judgement in favour of Tony Nicklinson might have had implications far beyond his case, the judgement could have made those implications conditional only upon Parliament’s failure to act. There is not a necessary or logical connexion between a favourable judgement in the Nicklinson case, and an immediate extension of that judgement to other similar cases. The cruelty of the judgement is the direct outcome of years of campaigning by religious entities which will continue to oppose assistance in dying no matter what the outcome. This case however shows how wrong Tallis is in the article linked below, to confine assisted dying to the terminally ill alone. Being trapped in your body, as Nicklinson is, and may be for many years, provides a lack of quality of life which may, in individual cases, be seen to be a great harm.

——————————————————

The following two articles are, for those who are concerned about assisted dying, required reading. The first is an article, published in the British Medical Journal, of the misery in dying of Ann McPherson, founder of Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying. Tess McPherson, Ann’s daughter, is also a physician, a specialist in dermatology, practicing in Oxford, and she writes a hair-raising account of her mother’s death which should put an end to the absurd spectacle of palliative care physicians like José Pereira claiming that palliative medicine can control all the pain, distress and indignity of dying. You can access Tess McPherson’s account as a pdf here.

Continue reading →

The Crucifix, Christian jingoism, and the brittle joy of Easter

Standard

The Scottish Cardinal, Keith O’Brien, has been making a lot of Christian supremacist noise lately, not only about the nature of marriage, but about the wearing of crosses as a kind of badge of allegiance to Christ. In response, Giles Fraser has taken this thoughtless Christian posturing to task by pointing out that the cross is a symbol of torture and a figure of horror, not a party badge.

In his Easter sermon, Fraser says,

… the Roman Catholic Cardinal, Keith O’Brien, has called on Christians to wear the cross as a piece of jewellery and as a mark of their faith. This comes in response to recent high-profile court cases involving the public display of religious jewellery that have led some religious leaders to insist that faith is being marginalised in public life.

Fraser says he does not object to the wearing of the cross as a piece of jewellery, and does not feel that it should be banned; his concern, rather, is that people should want to wear, as jewellery, the representation of a means of torture. A better symbol, he suggests, would be the empty tomb.

It is not the murder of Jesus that makes Christianity distinctive, but His rising from the dead, through which God demonstrates the limited power of Roman execution.

The only problem, of course, with this, is that, while we can be reasonably sure that, if Jesus was crucified, he died, there is no compelling evidence that he did rise from the dead, which is still as improbable as ever. Christians can express as much certainty as they like about this on Easter morning, but that conviction, no matter how ardently held, cannot make the dead rise in fact, though gods and lords many have risen in story. Supposing that he lived, Jesus’ suffering is much more certain than his resurrection.

Continue reading →

Sociopathology and the prohibition of Assisted Dying

Standard

Yesterday I read out, for my daughter and her partner, the paragraph from Allison Pearson’s oped in the Telegraph on Tony Nicklinson’s right to die, where she expresses the opinion that, since his life is too horrible to live, he shouldn’t mind dying horribly in order to escape such a fate. The first comment I got was, “She’s a sociopath.” And so she is, or near enough that it makes very little difference. Here is the paragraph in question:

None of us would want to be shut up in the prison of ourselves with only a blinking eyelid to communicate with the world. Even so, I’m afraid I think that Tony Nicklinson’s desire to change the law of the land so he can be killed in the comfort of his home is wrong. Others suffer as he does – Professor Stephen Hawking comes to mind – but they make the best of the   dreadful hand that fate has dealt them. Tony Nicklinson could refuse food, but his wife objects that starvation is a horrible way to die. Yet isn’t Tony Nicklinson’s argument that his life is too horrible to live?

It really doesn’t get much more unfeeling than this.  As someone has pointed out, Stephen Hawking is a special case. First, he has a very unusual form of ALS. Most of them die fairly quickly in a few years. Some of them die as miserably as Diane Pretty (and see here as well) feared she would. But then Diane Pretty, like Tony Nicklinson, fought for her rights in court, and the legal ground has shifted considerably since Diane took her case to the High Court in Britain, and then to the European Court of Human Rights. Both of them turned her down, and she died as she feared she might. But, hey, what difference does that make? After all, her life was a misery. That’s why she wanted to die. So, why not go out miserably too? That’s the logic of the sociopathic journalist Allison Pearson.

Allison Pearson: A Smiling Face, a Sociopathic Journalist?

Continue reading →

Neither the singer nor the song

Standard

In his “progress of heathenism” series over at the Guardian Julian Baggini has gone from pillar to post and back again without once acknowledging that he’s got the whole thing wrong from the beginning. He just has to be right. The new atheists are a bunch of football hooligans, and by the Lord Harry, he’s going to persevere with this view no matter what the truth is. A few weeks ago he had all but acknowledged that religion really is about belief, and that those beliefs really had no foundation in reality. But now he’s claiming that, regardless of their contentlessness, like some song lyrics, it’s really the music (the tone) that matters, not the words at all. So, when the archbishop of Canterbury says — as he apparently did last night in his debate at the Sheldonian with Richard Dawkins (as the Independent reports) – that while he accepts the findings of science, he reserves the right to consult the Bible over other matters having to do with human meaning and purpose, he was talking about content, not tone. As the archbishop said:

“The writers of the Bible, inspired as I believe they were, were not inspired to do 21st-century physics; they were inspired to pass on to their readers what God wanted them to know,” Williams argued. “In the first book of the Bible is the basic information – the universe depends on God, humanity has a very distinctive role in that universe, and humanity has made rather a mess of it.”

Speaking about tone in this context, I’m afraid, just won’t do. The inspired writers, we are to suppose, passed “on to their readers what God wanted them to know.” The problem here, as the problem always is when it comes to religious belief, is that others choose other books that are held to contain the revelation of what God wanted people to know, and, to use the expression from the Passion narratives, “their testimony did not agree.” The basis for claiming a revelation of what God wants us to know simply doesn’t work, and it really doesn’t matter what tone of voice you say it in. The pretence that speaking about tone at this point will make some kind of substantial difference is just a way of avoiding the issue, not of responding to questions that must be asked. The Bible is not a song lyric, where, in fact, let it be acknowledged, the tone may make all the difference. The Bible is a work which purportedly contains the revelation of a god, and this makes all the difference, we are supposed to think, with how we are required to live our lives.

Continue reading →

There was no First Adam, and Jesus Christ is the Second

Standard

Denis Alexander, of the Faraday Institute, the Templeton funded “interdisciplinary research enterprise based at St Edmund’s College, Cambridge,” whose purpose is to show that Christianity and science are compatible, has a piece in the Guardian this morning (24th December), just in time for Father Christmas, entitled “Evolution, Christmas and the Atonement.” Of course, the problem that he is addressing is a real one, to solve which Alexander is prepared to throw Augustine to the ravening wolves of unbelief.

The problem, to put it simply, is this. The birth of Jesus, which Christians in the West celebrate on 25th December, and Christians in the East (even if they live in the West) celebrate on 6th of January (when Christians in the West celebrate the Epiphany) — it all gets easier after this — is thought to serve a purpose for the whole of humankind. According to the story, we are — all of us — so sunk in evil and sin that only something like the sacrifice of a god can save us. This is outlined in the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament, long thought to have been written by St. Paul, but now known to have been written by Anonymous. According to Hebrews, Jesus’ sacrifice, unlike the sacrifices of the Jews, is alone sufficient to atone for the sin and evil in which humankind is so deeply sunk. Jesus entered into the holy place (viz., before the throne of God) with his own blood (Hebrews 9.12), and thereby saved those who believe.

St. Paul put it quite simply in the 15th chapter of his first letter to the Christians at Corinth, where he sums up the faith that he had received. First, the heart of that  faith:

15:1 Now I declare to you, brothers, the Good News which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand, 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold firmly the word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures …

And then its relationship to the history of humankind:

15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead. He became the first fruits of those who are asleep. 15:21 For since death came by man, the resurrection of the dead also came by man. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

The whole passage, incidentally, is prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer (1549) to be read at funerals, and you can see why.

Continue reading →

Saying Farewell to God

Standard

Since I have found that I have a way of distilling (or “capturing” as the software says) episodes from videos on disk, I have decided to put up the moment when, at the memorial service for my beloved Elizabeth, I said farewell to God in public. She would have been forty-three this year, and we would have celebrated our 22nd. anniversary this month – but that was not to be. However, what I said at the memorial might be of interest to some of you, so I put it up here. The whole talk was over 40 minutes long, I am afraid, and this is only a small part of it. I put up the conclusion some time ago. So, without further comment from me, here is my farewell to God. (The new WordPress uploader is not as convenient as the old one, so I have had to divide it into smaller segments.)

Error
This video doesn’t exist

Continue reading →