tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15696514109286762722024-02-20T06:55:43.641-08:00MartinOfBrisbaneMartin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.comBlogger103125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-39199332868401041582017-01-27T05:26:00.000-08:002017-01-27T05:27:09.079-08:00Review of The Four Legendary Kingdoms by Matthew Reilly<div class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Legendary_Kingdoms" target="_blank">Matthew Reilly: The Four Legendary Kingdoms</a></div>
Summary (language alert) – Let's get straight to the point: It is shit.<br />
<br />
It is shit because Matthew Reilly's writing can be matched by any 15 year old with semi-competent sub-editors, and the world-view and 'true history' of the world in the book truly suck. It's Dan Brown's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Da_Vinci_Code" target="_blank">The Da Vinci Code</a> with an Australian accent and stick diagrams.<br />
<br />
Firstly, the writing. For a taste, see the quotes below. I know its the prerogative of a fiction-writer to write fiction. Fiction is not necessarily 'true', but good fiction is necessarily truthful. For example, a good thriller thrills because it carries a sense of real risk or uncertainty; in other words, it is truthful to the concepts of risk and uncertainty, without which its thrill is emasculated.<br />
<br />
The Four Legendary Kingdoms falls at this first hurdle. Its a thriller that bores (I read it over the course of three interminable evenings). The plot comprises the hero, Jack, undertaking a series of mortal-combat challenges. He prevails (of course) by doing the unexpected ('… Jack did something else that no-one would have expected' Page 339, in case you didn't get it), which is remarkable because these challenges had been meticulously planned by a supposedly intelligent cabal of privileged insiders in a secret, expertly furnished arena. I wish he'd done something truly unexpected by getting himself killed.<br />
<br />
As a literary work, the highlight for me was finding that the word 'tautology' had been used correctly. However, it could have been inserted by a sub-editor in his or her desperation to alleviate the tedium of having to fix up this drivel.<br />
<br />
Reilly's most annoying tick is his habit of explaining, rather then describing. His inability to furnish adequate text for his explanations is manifest in the number of stick-diagrams dispersed through the text. His feeble attempts to establish credibility rest on passing references to 'real' people (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Cosgrove" target="_blank">General Sir Peter Cosgrove</a>, for example), but they are nothing but sops to a click-bait generation of social-media trolls.<br />
<br />
Worse still, Reilly needs an interpreter to explain the whole thing, and so we get to meet Mae, Jack's mother and supposedly brilliant history teacher. Of course, she 'knows' everything, dogmatically and omnisciently. Her explanations are never allowed to be questioned or challenged, which seems to be to be about as remote from a real engagement with history as you can get. Surely, the veracity of one's opinion is strengthened if one allows for some self-doubt, but this kind of truthfulness never troubles the characters in the book.<br />
<br />
Which brings me to my second point; the history. For reasons that escape me entirely, there are people in the world who insist in believing Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, which Reilly ransacks in this book, and which was based on the equally risible <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Blood_and_the_Holy_Grail" target="_blank">The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail</a>, by Michael Baigent. There's nothing new here, but when you look at it historically, there's actually nothing at all.<br />
<br />
Allow me to illustrate by example, to give you an idea of the scale of the pretensions of Reilly, Brown, Baigent et al. Let us say, for example, that I knew the <i>real</i> reason for the construction of the <a href="http://www.thegabba.com.au/The-Venue.aspx" target="_blank">Gabba</a> cricket ground was to communicate with aliens in a remote universe. My reason – because it looks like a giant radio dish from the air (and <a href="http://colorlibrary.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/the-gabba-stadium-brisbane-photos.html" target="_blank">it does</a>). I am unshakeable in this belief, despite everything that the stadium builders and operators have said, despite the experiences of the thousands of people who have passed through the gates to watch cricket there, despite the cricketers who have actually performed on the pitch, despite all the marketing and messaging put forward on behalf of the venue through multiple media outlets. No. I believe what I believe because the Gabba stadium is symbolic of (looks like a) giant radio dish, and because that is true, everything else is a conspiracy.<br />
<br />
That's the problem with basing your knowledge on symbols, or rather your interpretation of them. You can make them say anything you like. Surely, a reasonable attitude would be to ask the owners of these symbols what they mean to them. If, for instance, you have the slightest interest in understanding the symbolism of the Catholic Church, you would do well to ask a knowledgeable Catholic what they mean. Reilly, Brown and Baigent simply don't bother with these inconveniences (see second quote below), and plough a trench through all considered research with their myopic dogmatism.<br />
<br />
This vacuous symbolism most obviously triumphs over all attempts at authenticity in its treatment of the historical Jesus Christ (see first quote below). In this religiously illiterate age, it might surprise many readers to find that there is reliable documented evidence of eye witness accounts of the life of Jesus. Surely, these should be the prime source of material for anyone wishing to understand what Jesus said about himself, even if he or she has no intention of agreeing with him. The New Testament (the last fifth of the modern Bible) was not written, as Dan Brown seems to think, after Leonardo Da Vinci's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Supper_(Leonardo_da_Vinci)" target="_blank">painting of the Last Supper</a> (1495-1489), but about 1400 years' earlier, a few decades after Jesus' death. Even so, Brown seems to think that the Christian Gospel was informed by the symbolism in the painting, not the other way around, which gives him, and Reilly like him, licence to do whatever they like with it.<br />
<br />
So, despite, the Gospel's insistence that the life of Jesus was an <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+1%3A14&version=KJV" target="_blank">unveiling of God to the world</a>, Reilly, Brown and Baigent insist that it was more about establishing a blood-line that would preserve a secret wisdom passed down from super-human patriarchs. In other words, Reilly, Brown and Baigent have re-badged paganism as Christianity, and Christianity as paganism.<br />
<br />
This might appear to be theological nit-picking, but I believe there is no such thing as an impractical theology. The pagan world-view profoundly informs the plot of The Four Legendary Kingdoms, and not just in the indiscriminate references to pagan myth. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis" target="_blank">C S Lewis</a>, author of the Narnia tales and devout Christian apologist, used pagan characters all the time, but he did so to illustrate Christian teaching. You could convincingly argue that he was following the example of much of the Old Testament. No, its not the characters and myths that bothers me. Its the morality of paganism that's shit.<br />
<br />
So, here's how the scenario in the Four Legendary Kingdoms plays out. We have fights to the death to prove the worthiness of the victor, and the killing of non-combatants as hostages. The whole thing is justified because planet earth is about to get swatted by a giant swastika of a galaxy, and a few token human sacrifices need to be made. The only people to know about this is a privileged uber-elite whose sole purpose in life is the preservation of its own privileges and uber-elite-ness. In winning his challenges (and killing a number of also-rans in the process), the hero, Jack, proves his worthiness, saves the world (again), and gets his friends out of jail (enough of them to set up another sequel in this dreary series). He also gets to kill a number of bad guys who are bad because, you know, they are bad. That obviously makes him a good guy, and justifies his violence. You could say Jack is an unwilling combatant, being forced to fight by the prospect of his friends and family being burned alive in a landslide of boiling mud. The fact that all the other combatants' friends and family suffer this fate as a consequence of his actions is entirely incidental. It is all the more remarkable because some of these idiots had actually volunteered to be there.<br />
<br />
Contrast this with the (documented) teaching of Christ. The one <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+18%3A12&version=KJV" target="_blank">who leaves the 99 sheep to rescue the one</a> and in so doing ensures that no-one is lost. The one who surrendered his privileges, and abandoned his legitimate claims to self preservation, to sacrifice Himself for the unworthy, and in so doing, set the prime example of how we should consider our fellow human beings. The (pre da Vinci Code) King James translation of, probably, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+2%3A5-11&version=KJV" target="_blank">the first recorded Christian text in history</a>, puts it poetically like this<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:<br />
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:<br />
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:<br />
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.<br />
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:<br />
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;<br />
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.</blockquote>
<br />
Despite the machinations of Reilly, Brown, Baigent, and a host of lazy, incompetent and belligerent supporters, Christianity and paganism remain poles apart in mutual opposition to each other. Readers would do well to understand why this is so, and how this is so, but The Four Legendary Kingdoms flatters to deceive.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, Matthew Reilly's The Four Legendary Kingdoms has its place in literature in the same way that pus has its place in a boil. If I may take the liberty of restating it; it is shit.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>A Secret History II – The True History of the World</b><br />
<b>Page 127 etc. </b><br />
<b>Capitals and italics per the original text</b><br />
<b>Conversation between three characters; Stretch and Pooh-Bear (nick-names for body guards) and Mae (supposedly, a sharp-minded historian and mother of the hero, Jack).</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'Who is God?' Stretch said doubtfully. 'Are you talking about the Muslim god, Allah? Egyptian gods? The Christian God who supposedly sent his only son to earth to be crucified and then rise from the dead? You do realise that Jack once found the tomb of Jesus Christ in a Roman salt mine <i>with the body still in it</i>.' </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Mae nodded. 'I'm talking about all of them. And, yes I am also aware that Jesus the Nazarene was very much a man even if a sizeable portion of mankind has made him into a god. Why do you think this has happened?' </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Stretch shrugged. 'He preached a popular philosophy. Peace, equality, be nice to others. He fed his followers with loaves and fishes. Healed the sick. And what we learned in 2008, he was also a member of a very ancient royal line ---' </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'That's right,' Mae said quickly. 'He healed the sick and he was a member of an ancient royal line. Imagine you're living in the Roman province of Judea and a guy comes out of nowhere with advanced medical knowledge and starts healing the sick? It'd cause a sensation. Christ's royal lineage made him an even greater sensation and his fame spread. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'It is my contention that a handful of royal lines have been privy to advanced <i>super</i>ancient learning handed down to them by a mysterious civilisation from the distant past. This wisdom has given them a knowledge-advantage over the general population and allowed them to appear, so to speak, god-like. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'Did you know that every single ancient civilisation mentions being visited by a white-skinned bearded man – it's always a man, he is always white and he always has a beard – who bestows on them advance wisdom and who often heals the sick? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'The Egyptians, the Maya, the Cambodians, all of them were visited by such an individual. The Egyptians called him Virata, The Mayans, called him Viracocha. The Cambodians, Vicaya. Soudn consistent?' </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'I mean, if you're a simple society and someone comes to you and shows you how to build giant pyramids, predict solar eclipses, plant sustainable agriculture, and miraculously heals your ill, you'd think he was a god, wouldn't you?' </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'Sure,' Pooh Bear said. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'My postulation,' Mae said, 'is that our gods of old – from Zeus to Poseidon, to Anubis and Isis – were all royal beneficiaries of the superancient civilisation that build the Machine. They were all members of a few high families who exist today as the four legendary kingdoms. The question of who or what God is inextricably linked to the four kingdoms that rule our world from the shadows.'</blockquote>
<br />
<b>Page 145</b><br />
<b>Exchange between Lily (Jack's step-daughter) and Cardinal Ricardo Mandoza (Catholic Cardinal)</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
'Young madam, it is an honour of honours to meet the Oracle of Siwa!' he exclaimed, taking Lily's hand and bowing low. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Of course he was honoured, Lily thought. She had known for some time that the Catholic Church was the modern incarnation of an ancient Egyptian sun-cult, the Cult of Ammon-Ra. From their priestly garments featuring blazing suns to the many obelisks decorating Rome and the Vatican, everything about the Church was devoted to the worship of the sun. For a Cardinal to meet someone directly descended from ancient Royalty would indeed be an honour.</blockquote>
Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-79152407171376068622017-01-07T20:10:00.002-08:002017-01-07T21:21:17.377-08:00A Toast to Evie on the Occasion of her 21st Birthday PartyJust over 21 years’ ago when Janna and I were choosing your name, we came up against the Teachers’ Curse. Every suitable name we could think of had already been assigned to a child. And not just any child, but the worst child in the worst class in the worst school in the entire universe. We couldn’t use any these names without the risk of bestowing some of that child’s qualities on to you.<br />
<br />
Our deliberations might have gone on interminably, had it not been for the approach of a rather pressing deadline. We decided on Evangeline Sophia; Evangeline, meaning bringer of good news, and Sophia meaning Holy Wisdom.<br />
<br />
Well, you can choose the name, but you can’t choose the child.<br />
<br />
Fortunately, it has been our joy to see you live up to your name. You have brought good news to us, and our whole family, and it has been a wonderful privilege to have you grow up with us.<br />
<br />
Shortly after you were born, we moved from the UK to Hong Kong. This is where I stalked you around the flat with a microphone as you learned to talk. All these years later, I used these recordings to assemble the EviePhon, and I invite you all to have a go. It’s not embarassing in the slightest, but you will get the full range of Evie.<br />
<br />
You have a strong sense of fair play. We saw this early on when you insisted that noboby, no matter how big they were, no matter if they came from Europe, China or the Planet Krypton, would jump the queue at the slide in the playground at Kowloon Park.<br />
<br />
We came to Australia and you went through Camp Hill State School, Somerville House and UQ. My fondest memories of those early days were of walking you to school. One morning, soon after we had watched the BBC documentary “The Legend of Big Al” (it was a reconstruction of the life of the titular Allosaurus) you asked me if Big Al went to heaven when he died. I didn’t know what to say then. I’m still thinking about it.<br />
<br />
Much later, when helping you with your homework, I found how perceptive you were. Your essay on how the romantic composers, Claude Debussey and Eric Satie helped define the French National Identity in the pre-war years was particularly fascinating – and you were only Grade 7 at the time. (Sorry, I might have my timelines a little confused there).<br />
<br />
With a few notable exceptions involving household chores, you have applied yourself to whatever has been given to you, whether it was study, music, drawing, or working in hospitalilty and retail.<br />
<br />
However, it is not just about what you have achieved, its who you are as a person. You have been consistently fair and good to the people around you, especially your friends and family, to which all the people gathered here this evening, testify. Janna and I just hope we have given you the best in ourselves, so it is definitely not your father’s skill in cooking, or your mother’s skill in spreadsheets. (Though, if you had the choice, I suggest you’d be better off with Janna’s spreadsheets than my cooking.)<br />
<br />
Now we get to the part where I’m supposed to dispense with some sage, fatherly advice. It’s a testament to your character that I’m quite lost for words. I don’t think I can tell you much that you don’t already know. If you can judge a person by the decisions he or she makes, then one of the highest compliments I can pay you is to say that you are good at making good decisions. Generally. You might still need some coaching in some areas, but you already know this.<br />
<br />
What I will say to you, though, is that God is closer to you than you know, and that’s a good thing. If you’re like me, it will take you a lifetime to work out what that means, but it is worth it.<br />
<br />
I don’t know, and nobody knows, what the next 21 years’ will bring you. They will probably bring you<br />
<br />
Agonising anxiety<br />
Bottomless boredom<br />
Curious coincidences<br />
Delightful diversions<br />
Ineffible elation<br />
Feindish frustrations<br />
Great gastronomies<br />
Heart-racing highs<br />
Insufficient income<br />
Jovial Jacobs’ jokes<br />
Knowledgeable knaves<br />
Luminous leitmotifs<br />
Many misadventures<br />
Nattering nannies<br />
Odious obligations and ostentatious orations<br />
Preposterous ponderings<br />
Querulous queues<br />
A rudimentary roof of your own<br />
Sublime stupidity<br />
Tepid tea<br />
Uxorious unions<br />
A very-expensive violin<br />
Whacky weather<br />
Xenophobic xylophones<br />
Yonder yearnings yelling each year from your yokel-made yoghurt ...<br />
<br />
... and finally, a zany zoo with zebra, zebu and zucchini at the zenith of your zone.<br />
<br />
Knowing the person you have grown up to become, I am confident that, whatever these years bring you, you will bring to these years your own good news and Holy Wisdom.<br />
<br />
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Evangeline Sophia. We love you very, very much. Happy Birthday!<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-37836022503389708122016-02-27T21:53:00.000-08:002016-02-27T21:53:15.918-08:00LentSome time ago, I heard the story of a man who checked into a religious retreat to recharge his soul. The brother monk showed him to his bare room and gave him the usual welcome with an unusual twist; “Here is your room. Toilets are down the corridor. If you find that you need anything, please let us know and we will teach you how to live without it.”<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Everybody knows that Lent is known as a time of learning to live without things. However, not everybody understands why. This year, I have joined the Lenten-observers by giving up something, in an attempt to understand why. The 'why' is more important than the 'what', and you may find it surprising.<br />
<br />
Firstly, and to answer the most obvious question, I have given up watching TV. You might say its not a great loss, and I would agree. <br />
<br />
When my father died last December, when I was grieving, I found myself resenting TV. It was so intrusive, I could not stay in the same room and had to physically had to walk out. I needed to think my own thoughts, and feel my own feelings without an unthinking, unfeeling, programmed machine in the corner telling me what to think or feel. I resented the blue box telling me what was important and what was not. My father was certainly not important to the TV, and neither was my grief, or the overwhelming currents of love that swept me along at that time. I needed to feel the grief and the love, and could share neither with the TV's relentless drivel.<br />
<br />
Since then, the TV and I have come to something of a cease-fire, though we may resume hostilities in future. Giving it up has not been a heroic burden of Herculean proportions to me. In fact, it's been quite a holiday.<br />
<br />
You might also say that a better Martin will emerge from this Lenten journey, and you could be right. That would be a consequence of my self-imposed exile from TV-land, but its not the primary reason.<br />
<br />
That reason is quite difficult to explain, especially in a world that revolves around the core value of self-satisfaction. Inspired by a Christianity Today <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/marchweb-only/34.0.html" target="_blank">article</a>, I deliberately set out on this journey with the express purpose of avoiding a self-satisfaction or self-improvement program. I decided to shun anything that had self as a primary motivator, even self-improvement.<br />
<br />
For example, I could have given up chocolate, or wine, with the aim of losing weight. These are good goals in themselves, and it that's your Lenten observance, I wish you all the best. But its not for me. I aim to get away from what Lent can do for me.<br />
<br />
If one word were to summarize my reason for doing Lent, it would be “available”. I hope to make myself <i>available</i>. Call it a mental desk-clearing, if you like, or a de-cluttering, or becoming more present in the moment, or not pursuing a thousand TV crusades against this or that urgent cause. I aim to make room, in my head and in my schedule, and in doing so, to make myself <i>available</i> to whatever wanders by. I don't aim to perfect the art of silence, and if I were to try, I would find myself doing what I aimed not to do. I'm curious to discover who, or what, turns up at my door.<br />
<br />
As this is a religious observance, my availability extends firstly in the God-direction. Will He wonder through my door, and sit down for a chat? Naturally, dispensing with the noise and distractions (and untruths) of the TV assists greatly in setting a congenial atmosphere, and I think its beginning to work. <br />
<br />
My availability also extends in the human direction. Remarkably, this posture of not-seeking-self-improvement has improved things wonderfully in this area. The first thing I left behind was any notion that my self-improvement-program makes me a better, more worthy person than my neighbours. This is where the Pharisees, that Jesus roundly condemned, tripped up. It occurs to me that, fundamentally, they were doing religion for their own self-interests. What made Jesus so unpopular with them is that He exposed their motivations. The problem was not that they were doing the wrong religion (actually, Jesus and His followers didn't have a problem with Pharisees, but you'd have to read more of the New Testament to understand the issue there); the problem was that they were doing it for the wrong reasons. They were self-centred. You could say they worshipped self, instead of God.<br />
<br />
In a more contemporary example, the announcement of my Lenten intentions was greeted by my family with a pressing practical concern. My wife immediately asked if my abstinence included the watching of films or movies. She had (very lovingly) planned a surprise indoor picnic for my birthday that would include a video. Had I been more concerned about sticking to the program for my own self-improvement, this would have presented the kind of dilemma I might have experienced if I had been offered a large, fatty sundae part way through a crash diet course. Because my Lent was not a religious excuse to get on an overdue diet, I easily accepted, and thoroughly enjoyed The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. <br />
<br />
Self-worship explains much of what we do, including our religious observances. For instance, it explains the suicide-bombers, who do what they do because they think they can get a better deal for themselves in the after-life. It also explains our non-religious, non-observances; we wonder what benefit we can get from religion, and are often persuaded that it is not worth the time and effort. I get that. We are finite; we only have so much time, energy and money, and we need to think carefully about how to spend them wisely. <br />
<br />
Wisdom, the thing that seems most elusive in our foolhardy world, tells us of the profound paradox; love. Love <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+13&version=NIV" target="_blank">is not self-centred</a>; it is not interested in a program of self-improvement. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As I am a very visual person, I need to see something to understand it. I can't grasp love as an abstract ideal, but I can visualise it in the life and person of Jesus. In my Lenten journey, I hope to join with Him on His. It leads to the cross, where all self-interests are brought to an end. At the cross, God gives Himself in the most irreversible, public, demonstrable, concrete, self-less way. He becomes <i>available</i>, at the ultimate cost of all He is and all He has. That's love in its purest, most original form. The end-point of God's Lenten journey at Easter, speaks to me of the start of mine. That's why I am doing it.</div>
Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-13109415784958648852015-12-17T08:41:00.000-08:002015-12-17T08:44:00.149-08:00Review of 'The Future of God' by Deepak ChopraI picked up <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Future-God-Practical-Spirituality/dp/0307884988" target="_blank">this book</a> from an airport bookstore in preparation for a long-haul flight. Had I thought I would write a review at the time, I would have been more careful in compiling my notes. But, I have lately come to the view that a review of, or response to the book is necessary, and so I have to do so in hindsight. My review therefore rests more on impression and leading arguments than carefully substantiated and balanced research. Notwithstanding my retrospective limitations, I trust the following is not inaccurate, and I hope it is of benefit to anyone who might read the book.<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
What I liked most about the book is Chopra’s fierce criticism of the New Atheists, led by Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion). Chopra rightly points out that Dawkins fails to subject his own beliefs to the same scrutiny that he applies to religion. Dawkins’ selectiveness with the data is neither scientific nor reasonable. In an epilogue, and typical to his style of writing, Chopra includes the following list, which I have reproduced below, with some comments of my own.</div>
<div>
</div>
<strong>Ten Flaws in the Dawkins Delusion</strong><br />
<ol>
<li>His atheism attacks a Sunday School version of God as if there were no other. It lumps any kind of belief in with the excesses of extreme fanatics.</li>
<li>His atheism rests on the belief that the universe has no intelligent source. Yet a random universe is the least likely explanation for how intelligent life came about.</li>
<li>His atheism equates reality with the material world, as perceived by the five senses. This fails to account for the quantum revolution, which opened up reality far beyond the physical world.</li>
<li>His atheism traces all events back to the inflexible laws of nature but cannot explain why the laws of nature exist, or where they come from.</li>
<li>His atheism uses evolution as an argument against an intelligent source for life, even though survival of the fittest cannot explain the creation of life . [Note: I think this is a weak argument that sinks to the level of pseudo-science that both Dawkins and Chopra despise]</li>
<li>His atheism positions itself as rational but cannot explain the source of rationality. How does random brain activity produce order and logic? [I would prefer to frame this in terms of probability – what is the probability that a random universe can produce one single brain, i.e. Dawkins’, that perceives reality as it truly is. Why would the cosmos reveal itself to Dawkins’ brain and not the religious brains he so hates?]</li>
<li>His atheism claims that biology is the basis of consciousness without offering a theory of how molecules learned to think. [Pseudo-science again?]</li>
<li>His atheism views the brain as rigid cause-and-effect. All thought and behaviour is deterministic. He gives no explanation for free will, creativity and insight. [If all thought and behaviour is deterministic, how can any thought or behaviour be considered evil? Yet, Dawkins uses the term for all thought and behaviour that is expressed in a religious context.]</li>
<li>His atheism denies the existence of the self, considering it an illusion created by the brain. Yet neuroscience has never found a location for “I” anywhere in the brain.</li>
<li>His atheism cannot explain how the illusory self arrives at self-knowledge. [Good point – if our ‘self’ is illusory, how can we have any confidence that our understanding of our selves is itself an illusion? If atheism is true, we are locked into the blackest void with no hope of redemption.]</li>
</ol>
What I like least about the book is Chopra’s mangling of Christianity to get it to comply with his own dogma. I would prefer a much more honest approach; Chopra is a Buddhist (or, perhaps a Gnostic) who struggles with Christianity, and I wish he would say so at the outset so that readers would not have to get to the final chapters, armed with a considerable knowledge of comparative religion, to figure it out. I don’t object to Buddhists, or anyone else forming their own view of Christianity, but it irks me when they misrepresent it and then present their misrepresentations as if they were the real thing. It is much better, in my view, to say “I agree with this”, or “I disagree with that”, because it alerts the audience to the existence of a conflict between the differing world views and, preferably, provides some reliable information that would enable it to make an informed choice, which is its prerogative. Chopra, instead, denies all conflict in his extended sermon on Bhuddistic, Gnostic syncretism. Chopra dislikes dogma, which is unfortunate because it leads him to the untenable position of having to deny his own. I will lead with this in my list: <br />
<br />
<strong>Ten Flaws in Chopra’s understanding of Christianity.</strong><br />
<ol>
<li>Chopra, like many people, misunderstand what is meant by dogma. Dogma, in my opinion, is something that is either true, or it isn’t. Most issues understood to be dogma, for instance the virgin birth of Jesus, actually lie downstream of true dogma, and flow out of it. In this case, the true dogma is whether there is a God who can work miracles (a subject Chopra explores in depth). If this is true, the virgin birth becomes possible; if it isn’t, it doesn’t. The observable fact (that the virgin birth actually happened, or it actually didn’t) is shaped by the dogma, not the other way around. This leads to another aspect of dogma, in that it is essentially untestable or unfalsifiable. Another example is whether life has meaning or purpose. If it does, we would experience life as it is but, what is equally valid is that the same would be true if it doesn’t. What is more, we could not change the dogma, even if we wanted to. I think it best, then, to identify your dogmas and own them as what they are – revelations, epiphanies, insights, hunches - because they inform your logic far more profoundly than you may realise. Chopra fails to recognise and describe his own dogmas. Finally, the Christian understanding of dogma is that it is “out there” – in God, or in the heavens if you like - and we need to adjust our thoughts and perceptions of the cosmos to align with it. (Incidentally, this very dogma underpins the whole scientific enterprise.) To the contrary, Chopra’s understanding of dogma is that it is “in here”, and the cosmos will align itself with our thoughts and perceptions. Dawkins would scoff.</li>
<li>Chopra cherry-picks Bible verses. The ones he doesn’t like are binned with all other “failed” scriptures. However, he likes Jesus’ assertion that “The Kingdom of God is within you” and uses it as a launching point for the inward journey to the Bhudda-nature within us all. He conveniently overlooks all the other verses that call us to look beyond ourselves, and to recognise that our inner selves are not the source of the light we seek. The curious thing about this kind of cherry-picking is that it comes with no explanation about why the cherry-picker prefers some passages and ignores others, especially when the cherry-picker is trying to make a point from the scriptures he has cherry-picked from.</li>
<li>Chopra titillates post-modern tendencies by claiming that the truth is found within us, as expressed in his exegesis of “the Kingdom of God is within you”. The Christian’s understanding of how the truth is not found within, but comes to us, is most vividly portrayed in the rite of the communion, or mass, or eucharist (a Greek word literally meaning “good gift”) in which the believer receives the bread and takes it into himself or herself. The fundamental direction is towards and into the believer, not from and out of the inner self, as Chopra claims.</li>
<li>Chopra refers to urban myth, rather than authoritative sources, particularly in dividing the Old Testament Jehovah, whose leading message is “smite” and the New Testament Jesus, whose leading message is “love”. Does Chopra not realise that the New Testament Jesus does, or promises to do, all the “smiting” of the Old Testament Jehovah? Or, that the Old Testament Jehovah does all the “loving” and sacrifice of the New Testament Jesus? There is a reason for that that Chopra’s dogma cannot embrace …</li>
<li>Chopra’s Christ is not God Incarnate in the exclusive sense that the New Testament describes. The reason Jesus does the smiting of Jehovah, and Jehovah does the loving of Jesus, is that the two are one and the same, according to the corpus of scriptures in the Bible. Further, because there is only One Jehovah (a.k.a . Elohim, God, Lord), there is only one Incarnation, which is Jesus Christ. Because Jesus is one person, and not another person or everything, God is one, and not everything, which Chopra’s dogma explicitly denies …</li>
<li>Chopra’s God is the universe. Technically, this is pantheism. Chopra’s dogma overlaps with Judaeo-Christian dogma in identifying God as the source of the universe, but it differs by claiming that God becomes the universe. The Judaeo-Christian tradition separates the Creator from His Creation. For instance, when the Bible talks about discarding the old (present) heaven and earth, what is God doing? If God becomes the universe, would He be amputating the limbs He grew. Thus, according to Chopra, God is the totality of everything, and Christian claims to the exclusivity of Jesus as the ultimate revelation of God are wrong and must be dismissed. Thus, according to Chopra, we can find God within ourselves, because we, too, are God. Thus, according to Chopra, we, being God, change reality around us through our Bhudda-consciousness.</li>
<li>Chopra gives no attention to the Trinity, which is the central core of Christian faith as described in the Christian scriptures. This is a pity, because in the Trinity, Chopra might find a Christian perspective that is not entirely hostile to his own, particularly in the little-understood realm of Theosis. This is a subject too big to explore here, but it is worth noting that in their meditations on the Trinity, several prominent Eastern Orthodox Church Fathers used the language of “becoming God” (the literal meaning of Theosis). A couple of points must be kept in view, though. The first is that the Orthodox Fathers viewed God as a noun and a verb, which overlaps with Chopra’s perspective, and it is right to do so, in my opinion. In this sense, “becoming God” can be understood as “doing God” and we “do” God whenever we “do” something good, like love. The second is that the Orthodox Fathers saw the Trinity as something that makes Theosis possible, not the other way round. I fear that a syncretistic approach would jump on the Trinity bandwagon as a means to justify its talk of becoming God. In other words, the Trinity could become the means to the end, rather than the dogma from which the outcome flows.</li>
<li>Chopra regards the resurrection of Christ as a mystical experience that is only of relevance to Christians after they have died. He fails to notice the physicality of the resurrected Christ who, on one notable occasion, cooked a meal of bread and fish (John 21). He also fails to acknowledge that the resurrection is not just a pointer to life after death; it is regarded by Christian Scripture as the ultimate vindication, verification and validation of God on the life of the man, Christ Jesus. The way to God’s vindication, verification and validation of our lives, therefore, is to follow Christ, and we had better do it while we are still alive.</li>
<li>Chopra makes rookie mistakes with the Christian scriptures. I have previously noted his skewed perspective on “the Kingdom of God is within you”, and his false division of Jehovah from Jesus. But, he makes other blunders that should not have got through the editing. For example, Chopra claims that the Gospel of John describes Jesus’ life without reference to miracles. I don’t know which version he has read (maybe Benjamin Franklin’s, after he cut out every reference to the miraculous with a pair of scissors?), because in my version I read about changing water into wine (Chapter 2), the healing of the man born blind (Chapter 9) the raising of Lazarus from the dead (Chapter 11), and many more, culminating in the resurrection of Christ Himself (Chapter 20).</li>
<li>Chopra would be better served by acknowledging the conflicts between his own dogmas and those of the Christianity he seeks to subsume. Rather than trying to claim that all is one and, in the process, damaging the dissenting world-views, an honest appraisal would leave them appreciably intact, which occurs to me to be the more respectful approach. Certainly, I would hope to use it if ever I were to critique or adopt aspects of a world-view that is different from my own.</li>
</ol>
<div>
</div>
<div>
There is more to consider in Chopra’s <em>The Future of God</em> than I have addressed here. Much of it is good, and Christians could learn from it. I hope, however, that they would not be misled into thinking that Chopra speaks for Christianity, because he doesn’t except where his dogma overlaps with Christian dogma. Chopra struggles with atheism, and for this I am grateful. He also struggles with Christianity, but makes the mistake of trying to absorb it into his own Bhuddism. He’s not the first to do so, and he will not be the last.</div>
Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-91059257571141328912015-12-10T22:26:00.000-08:002015-12-10T22:37:29.059-08:00Eulogy for my Dad - Geoffrey Frank Jacobs<i>Read at the Thanksgiving Service at Christchurch Priory on Wednesday, 9 December 2015.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
My name is Martin, and I was privileged to have Geoffrey as my father. Of course, I would like to claim some credit for that particular decision, but alas.<br />
<br />
<div>
Dad’s life was not just an arrival at an end point. It was a long journey that intersected many lives. We remember the many meetings and intersections along the way, and we remember that they were good. <br />
<br />
In the last few days, I have started to clear out the garage. I’m starting at its current state, or end-point. It was Dad’s shed; his man-cave. There was an outer crust of ‘I’ll just put this down there for the time being’ and stuff that would be sorted later, after a cup of tea. <br />
<br />
Like an archaeological dig, the outer crust had to be removed in layers but, underneath, Dad’s workbench began to emerge. There were the screws and nails, sorted into boxes and jars, and used paint-brushes, standing in jars of turps, waiting for the next job. I found, to my dismay, that Dad had never assembled a piece of Ikea furniture, because, try as I might, I could find a hex key nowhere. Every piece of flat-pack furniture always comes with a hex key, and after a while of assembling these things you garner a small collection of hex keys, but Dad had none. <br />
<br />
Of all the rooms in the house, Dad’s garage seems to be the place to remember him best. That was where he made things, fixed things, painted things, took things apart, and reassembled them with various degrees of success. It was where he solved problems. <br />
<br />
Dad and I built a boat there. We or, rather, he started by laying out the plywood boards. Then we stitched them together with copper wire and sealed the joints with fibre-glass. Slowly, the thing took shape – the keel box, the buoyancy tanks, the rowlocks and rigging. We painted it a luminous fluro-yellow. Dad and I and assorted family and friends and enjoyed sailing it around Christchurch harbour. I remember, on one alarming occasion, looking down at the keel box and seeing the luminescent green sea through a hole, which then proceeded to fill the boat as water is wont to do. Time for some more of Dad’s repairs. <br />
<br />
Whilst clearing the garage, I found a relic of that old boat and wondered about whether to bring it here today because it is such a pug-ugly thing. Here it is; a rudder pin, with its striking yellow paint.<br />
<br />
I remember (or I think I remember) standing on Dad’s shoulders as a small boy. You can see the photo. He was big and strong, then. When he came home from the sea, we three boys would demand a romp and a wrestle with him on the sofa, and he would tie us up in giggling knots.<br />
<br />
In later life, we got to know Dad further by his quiet deeds. Janna and I are always grateful for the support Dad and Anne gave to us as we started to build a life of our own. Dad’s generosity was not limited to material help, either. Dad, and Mum, never tried to keep us at home like household pets. They wanted us to go wild, and we did; to out and make our own way in the world, and that takes a particular kind of generosity. On the other hand they never closed the door to us whenever we needed a bolt-hole or a stopover or a cup of tea. Dad had a large and generous heart.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+4%3A8&version=NIV" target="_blank">God is love</a>, so the Bible says, and I believe it, in no small part because of Dad’s example. </div>
<div>
<br />
It’s a curious thing to say because love is a noun and a verb; something you have, and something you do. Is God a noun and a verb? Possibly. But trying to separate the noun from the verb is like trying to separate the journey from the thousand small steps, and each small step makes the whole journey. <br />
<br />
I mention this because the small steps are important. Dad’s small steps of generosity, tolerance (which Dad valued highly), integrity, forgiveness, forbearance, giving others the benefit of the doubt, making space for others in your world; in a word, love. These small steps are important and there are too many to count, or remember here, but they are known to God. <br />
<br />
Of course, a large number of these small steps are beyond my memories of Dad. For instance, I knew him as Dad, but his ship-mates would have known him as Captain, and you don’t get to Captain without mastering the sea and those that sail on it. I would have liked to have known more about Geoffrey as Boss, but I am content to believe he was a good one.</div>
<div>
<br />
You have your own stories of Dad, your own memories. To conclude, I feel it is right to thank you, on Dad’s behalf, for loving him. Thank you, Dad, for loving us. <br />
<br /></div>
<div>
God is love, and love endures when all else has passed away.</div>
Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-66167283052336395612015-08-17T05:12:00.000-07:002015-08-21T16:04:27.844-07:00Equality<br />
When they swung the wrecking-ball through the cathedral,<br />
the banner-wavers cheered and piped their congratulations. <br />
Their rainbow chants flowed through the dull thuds <br />
of rough weathered greystone landing on the very flagstones that I had trod, <br />
my feet following ten thousand more, smoothing the way<br />
until the memory of a dearly beloved wife or husband<br />
had all but been worn from their faces.<br />
The stone dust, once allowed to hover serenely in an undisturbed interior, <br />
was now agitated by the invading raw elements into a choking smog.<br />
The ancient masons' hands, now dust themselves, <br />
brushed their art as ghosts, and kissed their hurried good-byes.<br />
Oyster-shells, the remains of the builders' lunches, <br />
and put to production as work-a-do shims, <br />
were exposed once more to air as the arches' joints split and fell, <br />
the same breath allowing the centuries-old lime mortar to finally set. <br />
The books had long been been cleared out and pawned, <br />
chains no longer needed to keep them at their desks. <br />
But when the stained windows, <br />
long hidden behind security mesh, <br />
spilled onto the floor like broken bottle-glass, <br />
the moment was posted onto Facebook<br />
through a self-illuminated touch-screen phone<br />
<br />
<div>
And I, fearful and mute, shrank into the shadows.</div>
Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-56655273748546759572015-02-27T04:15:00.000-08:002015-02-27T04:15:42.944-08:00Death<br />“The reality”, said my Doctor today in a matter-of-fact voice, “is that men’s health drops off after the age of 80 and the best option is to pass away in your sleep between 80 and 85.”<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I’m grateful for my Doctor’s blunt assessment because it brought to mind something we all know and mostly avoid thinking about – death. Up to now, I had managed to push it away from me into the distant future, but today it appeared as a tangible blip on the horizon.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
How do you plan your life with the realisation that the best outcome from here on in is to pass away in your sleep between 80 and 85? That’s only 30 years away for me, about the same time since I left university. That blip on the horizon will never go away. In fact it will get bigger and bigger until it and I collide at some definite point in the foreseeable future.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This isn’t someone else’s death either. It’s mine. What do I do? How should I live?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As I think about this, I find that I’m less concerned with self-preservation than I was as a young man. No doubt the survival instinct is still there, but it now sits at the back patiently rather than thrusting forward at every opportunity like it once did. Even it won’t be able to steer a course around that blip on the horizon, though it might delay the inevitable.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course, we’ve had deaths in the family before. The occasion for my conversation with my doctor was the first of a measured program of check-ups and screenings initiated by the arrival of my fiftieth birthday, and we were discussing the health of my father, who is now frail and in what must be terminal decline. When loved ones had died previously, I was struck with the ephemerality of life, the importance of relationships and the fact that opportunities inexorably close. I kick myself for not fully appreciating how blessed I am by such a wonderful and wide circle of family and friends. Despite our wrangling and disagreements, we still consider each other to be valuable and worthwhile. That is, so valuable that it, and the individuals who make it up, is worth “wasting” my time with. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
“Waste” is such an inappropriate word here, especially when you take your bearings against that blip on the horizon. Who does the final assessment on what is "wasteful" and what is not?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Should I worry about the opportunities I have missed, the mistakes I have made? Yes, and no. Yes, because I could have done something good, but didn’t. To gloss over them would be dishonest and would not do justice to the good I failed to do. No, because there is a greater power at work, and it will prevail even though I failed.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It’s impossible to address this last question without getting theological. Early in my life, I came to terms with the concept that God sees everything about me. I could not, and still cannot, hide anything from Him, not the stuff I manage to hide from my closest and dearest, not even the stuff I hide from myself, nor the stuff that disappeared into the memory hole decades ago. My response to my past, therefore, can only be one of absolute open-ness, fully acknowledging my failures as well as my modest triumphs. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
How does God look at me, knowing absolutely everything about me? The question is not <i>what</i> He sees, but <i>how</i> He sees it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Fortunately, I don’t need to die before I find out, because I can see the answer expressed in everyday life by my loved ones. I also see the ultimate example of this in the life of a remarkably ordinary human being, Jesus of Nazareth. Having gleaned some faint clue about how God looks at me from these observations, I now have the pattern of how I should look at others, and this shines a light on how I should live out my remaining, limited years. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It’s a mystery. It's not survival of self at all costs, but a life lived outside and beyond my self for the good of others. At the risk of getting mystical and mysterious, I resolve to be taken up into that river that has been pouring itself out long before I came onto the scene and will continue to do so long after I have left. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
How do I describe this divine mystery? In a word, love.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.</blockquote>
<br /><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+cor+13%3A11-13&version=NIV" target="_blank">1 Corinthians 13:11-13</a></div>
Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-65078765983452232902015-02-03T02:56:00.002-08:002015-02-03T02:58:20.677-08:00If Stephen Fry's atheism is true, God cannot be evil<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Stephen
Fry's response to the question about what he would say if he came
face to face with God has caused quite a stir. I suspect it's not
just the content of Fry's response, but the visceral hatred it
conveys; shocking to many because of Fry's better-known on-screen
persona as a knowledgeable, congenial host of a myriad of highly
watchable TV shows.<br />
<br />
It's not the first time Fry has vented his
feelings on the subject. Look up his reaction to Ann Widdecome's
questions on the Ten Commandments. (PS I wonder if Fry's YouTube
speech demolishing the Catholic Church in 8 minutes 53 seconds was
recorded the same evening.) Less obvious are his persistent barbs
towards anything God-like in the quiz series QI. (To be fair, many
are justified, but the emerging picture is a one-way
street.)<br />
<br />
Unfortunately for Fry, and many atheists like him,
his argument does not stack up. It rests more on emotive appeal, made
the more forceful by Fry's undeniable wit, charm, intelligence and
popularity, than on reason. I can't help but notice the irony, because
it is the exact reflection of the criticisms levelled at Christianity
by atheists only a few decades ago.<br />
<br />
Allow me to explain, but
to do so, I'm going to invoke Anselm, who was the Archbishop of
Canterbury at the time of the Norman invasion of England in 1066. One of my reasons for raising Anselm's ghost is to demonstrate that these arguments are
nothing new, but we quickly forget.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Anselm
devised what he thought was an unbeatable argument for the existence
of God. In a nutshell, he argued that God was the greatest conceivable being. That's a cursory summary that does the argument no justice, but most,
if not all, philosophers have acknowledged the strength of Anselm's
argument. Even so, we don't need to fully resolve it here. All we need, for the time-being, is the notion that God
is the greatest conceivable being.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This
is where Stephen Fry's objection shoots itself in the foot, and so do the same objections of most popular atheists, including Richard Dawkins, Sam
Harris, Professor Lawrence Krauss and the late Richard Hitchins. They cannot believe in God, they say, because He has
acted immorally.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
What these atheists have done is to judge God according to a particular moral standard and found Him wanting. It is incidental that their particular moral standard encompasses the Gay Rights agenda, and it might as well be some other issue that has gained popular currency. Whatever the higher moral standard that is applied, the God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition is subjected to it. </div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
According to Anselm, the higher
moral standard is greater than God. It follows, then, that God is not
“God”; the higher moral standard is “God”. In other words,
the higher moral standard is a God-pseudonym, and the “God” of
the Judaeo-Christian tradition is demoted down the ranks. It's not an
argument for a God-less cosmos, as atheism proper claims; it is
actually an argument for a “God”. It's just not the “God” of the
Judaeo-Christian tradition.<br />
<br />
If we are to follow atheism proper, and jettison all beliefs in a purpose or direction for the universe, then we have no warrant to say that one thing is better than another. Even our sense of moral outrage is meaningless, because there are no morals that we could appeal to. In such a universe, we can justifiably say that we <i>like</i> this or that,
or that some <i>thing</i> (God or religion) stops us getting what we want. But, we cannot
justifiably say that that <i>thing</i> is “good” or “evil”, “right”
or “wrong”. Even the argument against human suffering fails
because there is nothing in the universe to say that human suffering
is actually wrong; it's just inconvenient. <br />
<br />
If there is no “evil”, then it is
impossible to say that religion and/or God is “evil”. In other
words, if atheism is true, God cannot be evil, even if He is
fictional. By the same measure, atheism and the Gay Rights agenda
cannot be good. It might be useful, it might even make the world a
better place for people like Stephen Fry to live in. It is his prerogative to make the case, but that's not
the same as claiming that it is “good” or “right”. <br />
<br />
In an
atheistic cosmos, then, Stephen Fry's outburst really does boil down to
getting what he wants. There is nothing more to it than that. How can there be? Fry's appeals to morality only have substance in a theistic cosmos but,
then, he would have to relinquish his avowed atheism. God gives us the warrant to make the kind of moral judgements that Fry has made. Without God, there is no morality to appeal to. Stephen Fry, and we,
cannot have it both ways.</div>
Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-18860287283402318252015-01-02T04:07:00.000-08:002015-01-02T04:07:08.964-08:00ScavengingUnable to think,<br />out of habit,<br />I pick through the refuse of second-hand thoughts on social media.<br />Memes and expressions of outrage,<br />rag and bone,<br />tee shirt slogans<br />that beg to be picked up and waved<br />like tattered flags<br />rallying.<br /><br />The week has left me tired.<br />Too much driving,<br />dodging the idiots<br />who think the safe gap between me and the car in front<br />is a vacuum they need to fill.<br /><br />I groped my way home today.<br />The evening's conversation has safety gaps.Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-4582801920104975152014-12-15T02:41:00.000-08:002014-12-15T02:41:04.367-08:00IncomingYou wonder why I don't react<br />
When you point out the idiots who are<br />
My brothers.<br /><br />"Look at your brothers", you say<br />
"Look at my brothers", my heart says.<br />
"They are idiots", you say.<br />
"They are idiots", my heart says.<br /><br />I stand with them, ashamed.<br />
They are my humanity.Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-41733132394538028992014-11-23T14:20:00.000-08:002014-11-23T16:08:34.181-08:00The beanpole conundrumEarlier today, I got pinged about what I referred to as the “abyss of popular atheism”. Here's a written response that, I hope, is better articulated than the verbal response that I fumbled through earlier. <br />
<br />
Short version: Arguing for popular moralistic atheism is like arguing that your beanpole is more upright than my beanpole in a context where gravity does not exist. Where there is no gravity, there is no “up”, hence the abyss.<br />
<br />
Much longer version: I can accept that some beanpoles are more upright than others. I can even accept that my beanpole might be heavily skewed and needs righting. However, I cannot accept your objection to the uprightness or otherwise of my beanpole in a context where gravity does not exist or is absent. If there is no gravity, the whole concept of uprightness is meaningless, and so the proposition that your beanpole is more upright than mine meaningless. In such a context, no beanpole can be more upright than any other beanpole, because there is no “up”.<br />
<br />
It's a metaphor, of course, about what we choose to train our lives (bean-plants) on. What I'm trying to say is that the issue of the uprightness, or goodness of one beanpole or another (be it theism, atheism or whatever) only makes sense where gravity exists and is present. By gravity, I am referring to God, or at least a God-pseudonym. By God-pseudonym, I mean something along the lines of the ultimate truth or reality that sustains the cosmos in which we live, or perhaps the purpose and direction of life, the universe and everything.<br />
<br />
My problem with popular atheism is that it often holds itself up as more upright than theism. You don't need to go far beyond the book titles from Richard Dawkins, Richard Hitchens, or the juvenile rants of I Love F******g Atheism to get that. This, to me, is utterly inconsistent with the intellectual constraints of atheism proper, but very few atheists seem to have thought it through to its logical conclusions. Or, if they have, they don't see a need to correct their colleagues. <br />
<br />
These are not just my opinions. They are expressed by professors of philosophy who are far better informed than I, including Friedrich Nietsche on one side (if I understand him rightly) and the likes of William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga on the other. These guys are not intellectual lightweights, and it is irresponsible for popular atheism to gloss over them as if they had nothing relevant to say.<br />
<br />
I'm not saying this because I dislike atheists. I genuinely cannot find a warrant for the moral superiority of anything in an atheistic cosmos. It's the problem of the uprightness of beanpoles where there is no gravity to point us “up”-ward.<br />
<br />
Allow me to expand.<br />
<br />
What I mean by meaning or morality is something fundamentally different to what I find significant or what I like. I accept that what I like is an expression of my genetic and sociological heritage. However, something that is good or right might well be something that I don't like – it doesn't necessarily map to the boundaries of my preferences and prejudices. So, my preferences and prejudices may need to be aligned to what is good and right, and you can name all manner of issues or scenarios in which this is true. I should align my beanpole to the true "up", not just whatever arbitrary direction your beanpole is pointing in.<br />
<br />
Where it gets problematic is in what differentiates good from bad, up from down.<br />
<br />
If atheism proper were true, then when we do good, we are only expressing our genetic and social heritage. The “only” part is important, because we cannot invoke a moral plane without crossing over into some kind of spirituality or theism, and that would annoy the hell out of Dawkins, Hitchens and I Love F******g Atheism.<br />
<br />
However, it would also mean that when we do bad, we are only expressing our genetic and social heritage. <br />
<br />
In other words, there is no difference, other than the differences that we perceive or project onto it.<br />
<br />
But that doesn't solve it, because our perceptions are also only the expression of our genetic and social heritage. I like what I like because my genetic and social heritage tells me what I like, even if I get some degree of freedom in the matter (which is not as self-evident as you might suppose). The same goes for our our presuppositions, our prejudices and so on. <br />
<br />
If this were the case, and atheism proper gives us no viable alternative, then there is nothing to commend one person's likes or dislikes over another's. We cannot say “you are wrong” because, in actuality, we just don't like what you are doing. Neither can we say “you are wrong” because what you're doing interferes with what we want or like. And, what we like broadens to encompass our self-survival which extends to the survival of our offspring. There's nothing to say that the survival of ourselves, or our offspring, is more morally justified than the survival of someone else and their offspring. In fact, we could even question the assumption that surviving and procreating is an inherently good thing. What I'm trying to say is that there is a very real problem in finding some kind of bedrock or warrant, apart from God, on which to build our moral edifices.<br />
<br />
Its a confronting challenge, but who said that the ultimate reality of the situation would conform to our likes and preferences?<br />
<br />
If we disabuse ourselves of sentimentality, we find with Nietsche that all objective morality collapses into the void, and we are left with nothing but the will to power. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that just as the moral universe collapses into the void, so the whole universe follows and we are left with nothing. We even find that our existence in the here and now is untenable.<br />
<br />
You may counter by saying that that is not our experience. We know we are here. I could respond by saying that our experiences are nothing more than the delusions thrust upon us by our evolutionary heritage, and we actually know nothing at all, not even our own existence. That's what I mean by the abyss of atheism. <br />
<br />
Or, I could respond by saying that as we are made in the image of our Creator, we have the capacity to perceive and reflect the ultimate reality that brought the cosmos into being. The difference between the two world-views is as profound as the difference between light and darkness.<br />
<br />
Post-script: I sensed some resentment in the query I got earlier. If popular moralistic atheism makes someone happy, why not just leave them be? Why take such offence to it? Why not let sleeping dogs lie? <br />
<br />
I think it's ironic that the shonky defences we theists used to put up against the challenges of atheism are now being put up against us.Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-10109086520726787022014-11-23T14:14:00.000-08:002014-11-23T14:14:09.341-08:00Bad Sunday, good SundayRecently I was in a bad way emotionally. I've had a belly-full of being unemployed, suffering the humiliation of one job rejection after another, being unable to fulfil my hard-wired instincts to be a provider, and fighting off the thought that nobody wants what I have to offer. I was grumpy and depressed.<br /><br />That same evening, my head had turned 180 degrees. None of my problems had gone away, and I knew I had to face them again the following morning. But, I had a different perspective and the feeling of hope. I actually enjoyed life. Morning-me was a crappy husband and father. Evening-me was a big improvement (still a long way to go, though). All this in the space of 12 hours.<br /><br />So, what happened?<br /><br />First, I got myself along to a <a href="http://www.sailsatbayside.com.au/default.aspx" target="_blank">Sails At Bayside</a> event as a volunteer. It's a charity run under the auspices of the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane, and it provides sailing and life-skills experience to disadvantaged people and other groups. That Sunday morning, we were doing some kayaking with a church Sunday school group. When I turned up, I was just expecting to be another pair of hands to shift kayaks and stuff. However, we got to the point where everyone had got onto the water except for a mum with two young boys. She could take one, but needed someone else to take the other, who must have been about five years old. As I was available, I volunteered, so I sat him in the front and paddled from behind. He was terrified to start with, so we took it really slowly and easily. Slowly, he grew in confidence and started to enjoy it, especially as we paddled into the mangroves and talked about the trees that grew under the sea (it was high tide). We even paddled over the top of some of them, and dodged under the branches of others.<br /><br />We then took a break, and I got talking to Helen, one of the older volunteers. She is a retired Maths Teacher- an intellectual and a Christian. She talked about recent studies that highlighted the damage our culture was doing to people - we tend to evaluate people by their extrinsic value (the value they have because of what they can give us) and, compared to more spiritually aware cultures, we are losing the ability to recognise intrinsic value (the value they have because of who they are). Call it the Consumer-Culture if you like, but it rules, and we let it. Yesterday, I had spent some time on a picnic with some blind people - some of whom also had learning difficulties - whom I knew from Church. These are people with little or no extrinsic value, yet they are of infinite worth because they have an indelible intrinsic value, and it's something we all share. It's something they need to hear, and I need to hear - we have value because we are made in the image of God (see <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A27&version=NIV" target="_blank">Genesis 1:27</a>) - all of us, including the people I don't necessarily like or admire or find useful. That's where we get our intrinsic value from - every one of us. If, as the secular forces in our culture would have us believe, we reduce ourselves to mere function (what we can offer), we lose the plot. Helen quoted Rene Descartes, who, when asked why as an intellectual, he still believed in God, replied that with God, there is hope, but without him, there is no hope. It's true. It's not a hope that things will miraculously turn out good by the wave of a magic wand, but that our lives have meaning and substance, even when things turn to crap. It's not saying that evil is good, but rather that our suffering, our ephemerality, our mortality has meaning, and it doesn't go unnoticed by a pitilessly indifferent cosmos (see what <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/22201-the-total-amount-of-suffering-per-year-in-the-natural" target="_blank">Richard Dawkins has to say on this</a> - needless to say, I disagree).<br /><br />After the break, my doughty five-year old came up to me and asked if we could go out on the kayak again. This is the same guy who was almost crying with fear when we first set out. How could I refuse! We had so much fun on the water together.<br /><br />So, I have to thank the guys at Sails for their ministry (which is just a religious-sounding word for "service"). My five-year old kayaker got a boost, but I think I got the lion's share.<br /><br />Then, I went church in the evening to play guitar with the music group. Again, we had fun, which even some of my badly misplaced chords could not stop.<br /><br />Josh Dinale, our Rector, spoke about what it means to put down roots, based on the reflections of <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+1&version=NIV" target="_blank">Psalm 1</a> - especially putting down roots into God. You could think of this as a loss of freedom because it means getting fixed in one place, and allowing yourself to become limited. However, it also means that you can grow, become established. It means you can become mature enough not just to withstand life's storms, but to be strong enough and big enough to offer shelter for others, should they want it. It means you can live a life of meaning and weight - true prosperity. Again, this is not meaning and weight that we have because of our extrinsic value (what we have to offer), but because of our intrinsic value - what we have because we bear the image of God (what we are). If you can sort out what you are, you can sort out what you can do.<br /><br />Then, after the service, I got talking to a couple of people about the ministry and service they are offering to refugees - some of this is just being a friendly neighbour, or helping them understand English, or a rudimentary introduction to the practicalities of living in an unfamiliar country. Some of this is rock-climbing, or doing stuff that creates fun and friendships.<br /><br />Now, I'm thinking I'd like to get my blind friends and refugees onto the kayaks and catamarans. I've got outside myself, and I prefer it outside. Yes, I'll get a buzz from it but, more importantly, they are worth it.<br /><br />If you've read this far, thank you for following me as I unload.<br /><br />That Sunday morning, I felt unwanted by the world. I realise that's harsh on the people who love me, and I apologise to them. However, there are far more people in this world who don't.<br /><br />We live in a world that thinks God is either irrelevant, or that he is an evil imp that hides around corners ready to trip us up, or that he is an excuse to do bad stuff. That's not the God I believe in, and it hurts me when I get told by self-righteous atheist propaganda that it is. It's not the God my friends believe in. This isn't about God v Evolution (I'm OK with evolutionary processes, incidentally). Or, about feeling OK about the shit-ness of life because everybody's life is shit and they feel OK about it, too (an idiot's philosophy, undergirded by dogma, presumption and acquired tradition, but believed by millions). It's about whether life - my life, your life, the lives of those blind guys, the refugees, a scared 5 year old boy, an intellectual woman, the guys who can sing in church and the guys who can't - whether all these lives have value and meaning.<br /><br />Yes they do.<br /><br />Let's go exploring and find out what it is.Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-65808723414984025032014-10-25T22:27:00.001-07:002014-10-25T22:27:21.234-07:00Confounded by God and the Trinity? Let the Song of Songs lead the wayI have read plenty of explanations and descriptions of God and the Trinity. It seems to me that many of them are unhelpful because they fail to address either the interactions between us, the world and God, or the different-ness of the Father from the Son from the Holy Spirit. It also seems to me that if we want to understand the meaning of the mystery of life, we need to bring all those concerns to the same place. I have a rudimentary instinct that the answer to all these concerns can be found in a Trinitarian perspective of God, but how do we even begin to understand it?<br /><br />My suggestion, in this post, is to approach it from a new angle; this time through one of the most enigmatic books of the Bible – the <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song%20of%20Solomon%201%20&version=NASB" target="_blank">Song of Songs</a> (or Song of Solomon). This is not about presenting a commentary or an explanation of the book, but about using it to open up these confounding mysteries.<br /><br />Firstly, what I suggest you do, if you're not already familiar with it, is to read through the<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song+of+Solomon+1&version=NASB" target="_blank"> Song of Songs</a> in it's entirety. It's only eight chapters, and it won't take long. When you read it, keep in mind that it describes <i>both</i> an earthly scenario (the urgent, sexual tension between the two lovers, witnessed by their friends) <i>and</i> the heavenly reality that this scenario signifies.<br /><br />Secondly, when you have read the Song of Songs, consider the following<br /><ul>
<li>Do we see God in the origin, sustenance and validation of the scenario that the two lovers find themselves in? Yes, and in this we see something of God the Father</li>
<li>Do we see God in the beloved prince; the one that the lover can tangibly and physically embrace and apprehend? Yes, and in this we see something of God the Son.</li>
<li>Do we see God in the urgent, vibrant love that drips from the lovers' hands like myrrh, and fills their every breath with perfume? Yes, and in this we see something of God the Holy Spirit. </li>
</ul>
In considering these questions, we might begin to understand the different-ness of God the Father from God the Son from God the Holy Spirit. The illustration does not allow us to think of them as three different “people”, because it is difficult to describe this kind of “Father” and this kind of “Holy Spirit” in the same way that we could describe the “Son”. Further, we would struggle to understand the three as different “faces” or “modes” of the same person. They are different, and an acknowledgement of their different-ness is fundamental to a basic understanding the Trinity.<br /><br />Nor it is appropriate to think of them in terms of hierarchy. Which one of these three “persons” is in charge? Does the Son direct the Holy Spirit, or is he born along in it? (Incidentally, I generally dislike referring to the Holy Spirit as an “it”, but it's appropriate in this case.) The best we can say is that there is a reciprocation between the Son and the Holy Spirit. But, such a reciprocation can only occur if the Son is not the same “person” as the Holy Spirit. And yet, there are not three “gods”, but One (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy+6%3A4&version=NASB" target="_blank">Deuteronomy 6:4</a> etc).<br /><br />These meditations might seem somewhat theoretical and other-worldy, but I think they also open up the mystery of the relationships between us, the world and God. Thus, they become highly relevant and this-worldly.<br /><br />It seems to me that the most popular understanding of God is that he is some kind of singular entity, closed in on himself, who occasionally invades and interferes with our existence (often to our detriment). Technically and historically, this is the Pythagorean view of God as a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(philosophy)" target="_blank">monad</a>. By considering God as Trinity, we are presented, instead, with an open, reciprocal union that we are invited to join. The Trinity also provides us with the means to move from the negative descriptions of God to the positive; from descriptions like “closed”, “static”, “detached”, “uncreative”, to “open”, “dynamic”, “engaged”, “creative”. <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Most of all, as the Song of Songs describes, we see love, something that is only possible if the beloved is <i>not</i> the lover. In the Trinity, then, we find the fulfilment of our humanity and the essence of the God whose image we reflect (God is love, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John+4:8&version=NASB" target="_blank">1 John 4:8</a>). That should be no surprise because, if <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A27&version=NASB" target="_blank">Genesis 1:27</a> is right in saying that we are made in the image of God, it follows that we are made in the image of the Trinity.<br /><br /><h2>
Acknowledgement</h2>
<br />I ought to acknowledge the inspiration for this blog, which came from my recent reading of the Song of Songs, and Boris Bobrinskoy's weighty theological tome <a href="http://www.easternchristiansupply.biz/-#books/c88517/42242" target="_blank">The Mystery of the Trinity: Trinitarian Experience and Vision in the Biblical and Patristic Tradition</a>. The following extract is Bobrinskoy's reflection on the Song of Songs;<br /><br />… The Jews view the Song of Songs as the high point of Scripture. In the Introduction to his French Translation of the Song, André Chouraqui emphasises that, for the spiritual masters of Israel, it forms the crown of the Bible, its most necessary book. He quotes Rabbi Akiba as saying, “The world had neither value or meaning before the Song was given to Israel.” Likewise, the Zohar states<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
(In the song) is to be found that summary of the whole Torah, of the whole work of Creation, of the mystery of the Patriarchs, of the story of the Egyptian exile, and the Exodus therefrom, and of the Song of the Sea. It is the quintessence of the Decalogue, of the Sinaitic covenant, of the significance of Israel's wandering through the desert, until their arrival in the Promised Land and the building of the Temple. It contains the crowning of the Holy Name with love and joy, the prophecy of Israel's exile among the nations, of their redemption, of the resurrection of the dead and of all else until that Day which is 'Sabbath of the Lord.' All that was, and is, and shall be, is contained in it; and, indeed even that which will take place on the 'Seventh Day,' which will be the 'Lord's Sabbath,' is indicated in this song</blockquote>
<br />Tradition tells us that when someone recites a verse from the Song as a profane verse, the Torah complains about it before the Holy One, as of a defilement. For the Kabbalists the Song is a synthesis of the mystery of oneness. It encompasses, at once, a cosmogony and and apocalypse.<br /><br />The destiny of this theme from the Song, first in the Psalms and the prophets, and then in the New Testament is well known (see Eph 5).<br /><br />Here, we should specify that the anthropological themes are not used to explain God according to psychological modes proper to us. They are not secondary, archaic, outdated metaphors. On the contrary, by donning works and feelings, God validates them, reveals their true ontology, manifests their infinite source and finality, describes man in his total natural reality, and attracts him to Himself through the alliance and the love in which God and man share the same feelings. The sentiment that best expresses the relation of God and man is that of sharing. In the Hellenistic vocabulary, faith (<i>pistis</i>) means only the faith man has in God. From a Semitic point of view, faith is reciprocal; God loves man first, and believes in him; and man finds the stability of his own faith in a reciprocal faithfulness. The same could be said of the benediction: God blesses, and we return His blessing to Him. It is always a matter of reciprocal knowledge, of a love that is shared.<br /><br />This endeavour of sharing is, at the same time, unilateral, progressive and reciprocal. Unilateral, because God is first sovereign grace, <i>hesed</i> (mercy), creative paternal love, forgiveness. God has saved us, we who were in sin, and under His anger. These words are to be understood in the strong sense. God has loved us in our sin, like the adulterous wife whom the divine Bridegroom leads out into the desert to meet her once more. Unilateral, the grace of God comes like a refreshing dew, and appeasing breeze, a warming fire, a holiness that sanctifies, a glory that glorifies, a purity that purifies, a justice that justifies, a life that vivifies, a paternity that adopts, a maternity that gives birth and matures – and all this freely, without remuneration, just as a father behaves.<br /><br />It is a progressive endeavour, because this grace is not poured into inert vessels; it transforms them gradually into itself, into light, fire, breath, it restores human progress.<br /><br />Finally, it is a reciprocal endeavour, because this transformation of man into the divine life, this establishment of an ontological relation of man to God makes the fulfilment of the human being possible in a free, infinite reciprocity. Man – through the transformation, and not the abolishing of his humanity – becomes spirit, a breath of eternity. Here, the image of love is expressed in the multiple terms of a reciprocity of which the Song of Songs represents the culmination.</div>
Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-2458803198232345552014-10-20T16:52:00.000-07:002014-10-21T00:41:58.703-07:00Arguing FolkIn defending theism, many theists have said some stupid things. I know. I've done it. I'll probably do it again, despite my best efforts.<br />
<br />
Theism's noisiest opponents (Dawkins, Krauss, et al) frequently use this to attack any form of belief in God, or to defend their own belief in no God. It's what I call the Folk Argument. Does it work? My response is a qualified “no”.<br />
<br />
Let me illustrate with an example. It seems to me that most people don't understand evolution, particularly when they say things like “I'm evolving into a better person”. <br />
<br />
It's a hideous thing to say. If I were a proper atheist, I might even say it's blasphemous. Evolution does not make you (<i>individual</i> you, that is) into <i>anything</i>. What it does do is that if your <i>children</i> are better suited to the environment in which they find themselves, they are more likely to survive and produce more children with their genes. By the time any significant change has happened in the gene pool, you will be long dead.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Then, there's the whole problem of “better”. What is "better"? Better suited to the environment? But that might mean a radical departure from the values that we hold dear. For instance, it might mean the removal of all inhibitions in killing your neighbour's children. That's a very unpleasant possibility that won't suit our current environment (for which I am very thankful). But, how do we know what possible future environments we might find ourselves in, and what makes these environments better or worse than ours? Why assume that what is “good” today will be “good” tomorrow? Are these future environments "better" because they suit us better? What an ironic inversion of evolutionary theory! </div>
<div>
<br />
I digress. My point is that though evolution is not making me (or anyone else) into a better person, many people believe it. It's a <i>folk argument</i>, but does it make evolution untrue? Of course, no.<br />
<br />
(Incidentally, the only way you can argue that evolution or circumstance is making you into a better person is by believing that there is a purpose or meaning that has given rise to these processes and circumstances, and as soon as you do that, you assume that there is a God, or at least a God-pseudonym.)<br />
<br />
Now, if we shouldn't use the folk-argument against evolution, we also shouldn't use it against theism. It's not an excuse to stop enquiry, but it does clear away much of the clutter. It's also wide-ranging in it's scope. It means that you cannot argue that belief in God is ridiculous because Mrs Smith believes that God always gives her a car-parking space whenever she goes to the shopping mall, and that's a ridiculous thing to believe. You also can't argue the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the junk-yard of gods (where all the gods go after their respective religions have died out).<br />
<br />
In fact, the next time an angry atheist holds forth on the folk-argument, I will be strongly tempted to respond with a folk-argument of my own – that most atheists believe that their criticism of religion serves some sort of meaningful purpose. It doesn't – if proper atheism (as distinct from folk atheism) were true, nothing would have meaning or purpose, including the atheists' dislike of religion. Our perceptions of meaning and purpose would be mere delusions that have been thrust on us randomly by a pitiless and indifferent universe that, frankly, could not care less about what you think, believe or do. The reason I might hold back with this strategy is that I <i>know</i> it is a folk argument.<br />
<br />
So, the folk-argument does not settle the issue. It's good rhetoric, but poor logic.<br />
<br />
But it does present a dilemma, hence the qualification to my initial “no”. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The dilemma is this – it's easy to dismiss Mrs Smith's God-of-the-car-park as wishful thinking, or affirmation-bias, pattern-reinforcement or whatever you'd like to call it. But Mrs Smith is not qualitatively different from anyone else in her perceptions, including the finest Oxbridge dons. If Mrs Smith cannot perceive reality, can anyone? I'd like to think that we (that means all of us, including the Mrs Smiths and the finest Oxbridge dons of the world) have the capacity to perceive the reality, even though that capacity is often flawed and is necessarily limited. If we didn't, <i>all</i> our enquiries and <i>all</i> our science are <i>necessarily</i> doomed from the start. We would not be able to perceive <i>anything</i> because our perceptions are irredeemably lost and broken.</div>
<div>
<br />
To me, this means two things; one is that we can, and should continue to search, and the other is that the ultimate goal of that search is God. Heaven help us find Him.</div>
Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-19874803436053326002014-05-24T23:49:00.000-07:002014-05-24T23:49:15.130-07:00Start with whyMost people, it seems, approach questions of religion and Christianity from the starting point of their experiences of Church and Christians. It's no surprise, then, that their evaluations vary; some hate it, some love it, and many are somewhere in between, often moving from one position to another. Much depends on how their relationship develops with the people in the Church and its leadership, and their experiences are a common theme in their varied stories of conversion and deconversion.<br /><br />Personal experience, however important, is not the whole story. Not according to the Judaeo-Christian world-view. There is a reason for everything – a “why” to our experiences, Church, religion and indeed life, death, the universe and everything. Why are these things here, and what possible purpose do they serve? In approaching our questions, we too should start with “why”.<br /><br />It's a question atheism tries strenuously to avoid for a very simple and profound reason. If there is a fundamental “why”, or a reason for everything then, fundamentally, there must a God or, at the very least, a God-pseudonym. That God may be different than the God of someone else's religion, but that God is still there, and atheism (literally meaning “no-God”) is defeated. The only proper recourse available to the atheist, then, is to say that there is no “why” and everything is meaningless (including the <a href="http://martinofbrisbane.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/atheism-denies-reasonable-basis-for.html" target="_blank">atheist's own outrage at religion</a>, ironically). <br /><br />Cynics avoid the “why” question because they have failed to find a satisfactory answer. They are right, but only in part. I don't believe that any of us can fully comprehend the answer, which means that we will never be fully satisfied, but this says more about the limits of our comprehension than the “why” that we attempt to comprehend.<br /><br />Much popular religion answers the “why” with generic response about making us into better people. This, I think, is lazy and narcissistic. It doesn't tell us why being a better person is a good thing (beyond the expedience of avoiding conflict), nor what a “better” person looks like, and it fails to inform you that being a better person only works up to the day when you get Alzheimer's. Indeed, it substitutes the “why” with a “how” or “what”. It also focuses your attention on yourself, as if the only person who needs to be satisfied with the outcomes is you. It tells us nothing about the value of people who are not “better” - the handicapped, the incapable, the failed people in life, the sinners. Furthermore, it assumes that if we are true to ourselves (2), then we would be intrinsically good, but there wasn't a tyrant in history who wasn't true to himself.<br /><br />I find it tremendously significant that the Bible doesn't start with our experience, and it doesn't even start with the Church. In fact, it starts with “why”. <br /><br />The opening verse of the first book, Genesis, starts with the reason for the creation of the entire cosmos<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A1&version=NASB" target="_blank">Genesis 1:1, NASB</a>). </blockquote>
<div>
<div>
The reason that there is a Cosmos is God (3). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And here we are; by whatever process that got us here. We are here, ultimately, because of God. The rest of the Bible flows from this singular starting point, such that all history, experience, religion, politics, life and death is an outworking of this “why”. Of all God's good creatures, we humans are uniquely made in His image, which is why we search for the “why”. <br /><br />In opening his Gospel, John echoes the words of Genesis, and expands them using the language of reason. Writing in Greek, he uses the word “logos” for the fundamental reason for everything, which we translate as “Word”. It's not an entirely accurate translation, because we think of words on a page, but John was thinking of the reason, or wisdom that brings these words into being (4). In the same way, the “logos” brings the Cosmos into being, and everything in it, including our experiences, Church, religion etc etc. John puts it like this <br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A1-4&version=NASB" target="_blank">John 1:1-4, NASB</a>).</blockquote>
What does this "logos"/“why” look like? Is it something we can comprehend? Do we even have the faculties to comprehend it, or will it always be beyond our reach? Can we see God? John writes that although many tried, none fully succeeded (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A18&version=NASB" target="_blank">John 1:18, NASB</a>), despite all the rites, experiences and revelations of the Old Testament, which goes all the way back to the beginning.<br /><br />John's Gospel provides a revolutionary response to the question that nobody, in my opinion, has bettered. He starts with the abstract question “why” and brings it down to earth, where we can touch it, feel it, hear it, smell it, see it. <br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A14&version=NASB" target="_blank">John 1:14 NASB</a>).</blockquote>
We might not comprehend all of the “why”, but now we know what it looks like. It is not a set of abstract laws or precepts, nor a system of belief, though it embodies law and belief. It intersects our experiences, but it also stands outside them as an independent entity. It is one thing, but not everything, though it lies beneath, behind and over every thing. It is not a culture, or religion, or a political system, a pattern of rites and rituals, though none of these things have meaning apart from it. It is the person of Jesus Christ, wholly human and, uniquely, wholly God. John tells us that we can see God, and we have seen God, because we have seen Jesus. The author of Hebrews says the same thing (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+1%3A1-2&version=NASB" target="_blank">Hebrews 1:1-2</a>), and so does the remainder of the New Testament.<br /><br />From this starting point, we can begin to answer the “what”. What are our experiences, if they are not our witness of God? What is Church, if it is not the human people who are gathered around the human person of Christ? What is religion, if it is not the marks we make on our lives to signify their meaning? What is politics, if it is not our attempt to create a better environment for our fellow humans, made in His image? What are our lives, if we are not the sons and daughters of God?<br /><br />We can even begin to move on to the “how”. Critics of Christianity often point to disagreements between Christians, which, shamefully enough, have often triggered violent unrest (the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion" target="_blank">Reformation Wars</a>, for instance). The irony is that Christians and critics alike go to war on things that they believe best answers the “why”; it's just that they have arrived at opposing positions. In these conflicts, one side, or both, may be wrong, but the “why” remains.<br /><br />We live in a time that strenuously attempts to minimise or avoid the “why”. Our media, for instance, never wants us to venture too near the question – it wants us to remain dumb and compliant to it's insistence that we buy a new car, or a different brand of pizza. Thinking New Atheists tell us it is the wrong question to ask (why?). Critics of Christianity and the Church want us to focus on the disparate outcomes, and give up asking. Popular religion tells us it already has the answer. <br /><br />John's Gospel tells us that where any of these don't frame the question and the answer to “why” in the human person of Jesus Christ, they miss the mark. <br /><br />The next time you think about religion, or about any of life's important questions, start with “why”.<br /><br />*********************************************************************************<br />Footnotes<br /><br />1: I borrowed the title from Simon Sinek, his <a href="http://www.booktopia.com.au/search.ep?title=Start+With+Why&author=Simon+Sinek">book of the same title</a> and <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action">on-line talk</a>. He talks about business leadership, but it's a great question in all contexts, especially in religion.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2: The quote “<i>to thine own self be true</i>”, is not from the Bible (as some assume), but it comes from Shakespeare's Hamlet, as Polonius farewells his son Laertes prior to an intelligence-gathering mission. </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Neither a borrower nor a lender be,<br />For loan oft loses both itself and friend,<br />And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.<br />This above all: <b>to thine own self be true</b>,<br />And it must follow, as the night the day,<br />Thou canst not then be false to any man.<br />Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!<br />(Hamlet Act 1, scene 3, <a href="http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/neither-borrower-nor-lender">75</a>–<a href="http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/thine-own-self-true">82</a>)</blockquote>
In context, then, Polonius is not talking about using one's internal conscience as a yard-stick to measure the truth of something, which is how we commonly understand it. He is actually advising Laertes to rely on his own material resources and not to get entangled in the business and politics of those on whom he is to observe, evaluate and report back on.<br /><br />3: Not a semantic trick – God is the reason for Creation, and God gives the reason for the Creation.<br /><br />4: Demonstrated in Genesis 1 in which God's creative acts are brought about by “... and God said ...” <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A3&version=NASB">Genesis 1:3</a> etc.</div>
</div>
Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-47995546054076140432014-04-20T00:45:00.001-07:002014-04-20T00:45:21.239-07:00Between night and dayAfter yesterday's dark post, I wondered if there could be an Easter Morning response. I thought it might come to me at our Easter service, and it did.<br />
<br />
It's the difference between night and day, like nothing has changed but everything has changed. It's the same world and the same me living in it, but now there is the kind of light that no one, not even death, can put out.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Christ is risen.<br />God raised Him.<br />There is nothing we can do.</blockquote>
Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-14704691204526976002014-04-18T22:55:00.000-07:002014-04-18T22:55:22.260-07:00What if Easter Sunday never comes?Most of the messages I've heard from Christian leaders this Easter relate to the hope that Easter brings. That's OK for them, but for some reason it's not resonating with me this Easter. It feels like they are skipping from A to C without going through B.<br />
<br />
Spoilers.<br />
<br />
How can you appreciate the glory of C without the desolation of B?<br /><br />As far as the unfolding story of Holy Week goes, we're currently at B, the day between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. I wonder how they felt on that first Easter Saturday? They'd just seen their Messiah crucified. What next? They didn't know what tomorrow would bring. Just like us.<br /><br />It was a Sabbath, a day of rest and worship, yet it must have felt strangely empty and void without the presence of Jesus, in whom they had placed their faith.<br />
<br />
If God was going to do something, why the wait? As <a href="http://martinofbrisbane.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/between-good-friday-and-easter-sunday.html" target="_blank">I mused yesterday</a>, perhaps it was to allow us to come to terms with the consequences of our actions. And they were<i> our</i> actions - it wasn't Judas who killed Jesus, or the Jews, or the Romans, or the disciples. All of them failed in some way, but they personified our failures - they were our representatives. If we had been there, would things have happened differently? I think not. We would have found ourselves somewhere in the narrative accusing, betraying, abusing, running away or ignoring what was going on.<br />
<br />
So, in the spirit of the day after Good Friday and not knowing what Sunday would bring, let me offer the following reflection as a kind of in-the-moment alternative to the affirmative messages of hope you might otherwise hear.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
God is dead.<br />We murdered Him.<br />There is nothing we can do.</blockquote>
Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-88587661650407783482014-04-18T01:30:00.001-07:002014-04-18T02:09:31.486-07:00Between Good Friday and Easter SundayAt our Good Friday morning service, I found myself thinking through the narrative. Can we put out the Light of God? Evidently, yes. What happens when we do? In a word, darkness. Also chaos and death, thuggery and betrayal, undone-ness and lost-ness. In another word, Hell. Will God allow it to remain that way? Sunday hasn't come yet. Time to reflect on the gravity of our murder of God.Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-33060874517708413542014-03-25T07:15:00.002-07:002014-03-25T07:15:59.933-07:00Why TV makes it so difficult to believeDon’t grab your tinfoil hat quite yet. This isn’t a conspiracy theory. <br /><br />However, it does deserve some thought as to why we have turned, in the space of a couple of hundred years, from finding it impossible to not believe to finding it possible to not believe to finding it impossible to believe in God. I blame it on TV.<br /><br />Of course I would. It’s an easy target. What interests me is not how it does it, but why. Why the hostility toward God? Why does TV routinely trash belief in general, and Christianity in particular? <br /><br />(I’m not going to presume to answer for other religions, but I’m sure they share much of this experience.)<br /><br />If you say “so what?” let me ask you to be a little observant this Easter about who gets to say what, and how long they are given to say it. For instance, where I live, we’ve just had the trailers for a mini series of documentaries on the Secret Life of Breasts. I’m sure there’s plenty of good science in there, and most of the population will have their curiosity piqued either by having an interest in owning a pair or by having the chance to look at some. <br /><br />I might have missed it, but I see nothing in the schedule about the meaning of Easter. Call me a pessimist, but the most I am looking forward to is a grudging acknowledgement that some people think Easter might be important (balanced with some views on why it isn’t) followed by a sound bite talking head with a dog collar. Don’t misunderstand me; I believe the talking head with a dog collar will do a good job with the sound bite that he (or she) has been given, but why limit it to a sound bite? It’s embarrassing. It’s like trying to compress the entire content of John’s Gospel into a Twitter.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
For God so loved the world that He gave His only son that … Oh crap, we’ve run out of characters. Moving on to the football …</blockquote>
<br />The answer to why TV and Christianity don’t mix very well might simply be that they are bitter rivals.<br /><br />Back in the day before media, the Church was the media. If you wanted to know anything about the world, you went to Church to hear about it. If you were educated enough, you read the repository of writings kept in the Churches. Then came Gutenburg and his repeatable press, so that you didn’t have to go to Church to read the writings, but it still helped because there were Church people on hand to interpret the information. The Church knew this, and trained its people in the interpretation of the information. The good interpreters pointed their flocks down the good paths, and there was a sense that some paths were worth going down, even though they were not the easy paths. The Church was the repository of knowledge, and it interpreted that knowledge for their flocks so that their flocks knew how to live their lives for the better.<br /><br />TV has moved into that role. TV is now the repository of knowledge and it interprets that knowledge for its consumers so that its consumers consume its products. When it points people down paths, it doesn’t care if they are good or bad paths, as long as they keep buying pizza.<br /><br />The key thing here is that for TV to assume that role, it had to push aside the Church. Not all of this is good news. Allow me to expand a few thoughts;<br /><br /><ol>
<li>TV trades on outrage. Nothing is as effective at getting you back to watch the fight. Pick a side, it doesn’t matter which one, as long as you stay long enough to hear the sponsor’s message. In short, TV is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colosseum" target="_blank">Coliseum</a> 2.0.</li>
<li>TV hates tolerance. See 1. Opposing views are only worth expressing if they generate some camera-friendly conflict in a controlled studio environment.</li>
<li>TV is not answerable to you. You can turn it off, but you’ll have to pay tribute before it will listen to you. Anyway, TV is not interested if you or it is right after the event - why reflect on the past when the ratings have already been compiled? (I have some limited experience <a href="http://martinofbrisbane.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/bible-bashing-on-hungry-beast.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li>
<li>TV is your peer group, family and friend. In the light of 3, the relationship can only be described as exploitative. There’s no interaction or negotiation here. </li>
<li>TV is the repository of all knowledge. Except that it isn’t. The key criterion for broadcast is not the quality of the content, but the presentation. It is worth noting that the leading philosophers on TV are, actually, the comedians. </li>
<li>TV personalities are carefully groomed. Understandably, they want to be liked. Understandably, this will get them to subjugate absolutely everything to the need to be liked by the widest possible audience. Virtue is nowhere near as important as image.</li>
<li>TV’s personality cult blocks out the ordinary, little people. If, like me, you are ordinary and little, you’re only chance to get on TV is to be a freak. Ordinary religious people can be freaks, but they are only worth filming when they are being freaks, not ordinary. Ergo, religious people are freaks. Don't become one.</li>
<li>TV doesn’t care how you live your life. Do what you want, as long as you buy pizza. By the way, TV knows that you’ll keep on grazing and browsing as long as it keeps flattering you with the soothing message that you’re doing the right thing. This might seem a contradiction until you realize that by “right” TV means whatever it takes to keep you buying pizza. Morality is banished like the friz under that must-have hair-straightener (postage extra).</li>
<li>TV is obsessed with keeping you. Heaven forbid that it should lose you to a rival, or that you disengage. To this end, TV is full of helpful hints and emotive images to keep you safely in its embrace. </li>
</ol>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
That last point doesn’t just block out potentially competing messages, it denies the very possibility that there might even be competing messages out there. You see, if you knew that there were competing messages out there, you might go to a competing media outlet to find them, and so you would be lost. As the Church is a competing media outlet, this is the greatest sin in the whole of TV-land. It is better to deny the possibility of the competitor, but if that competitor cannot be denied, then it must be belittled, minimized and ignored at all costs. Who told you that that was what the Church did?<br /><br />And so we come to the impossible-to-believe situation that we find ourselves in. How can we believe in God, when TV assumes a posture of utter indifference to belief in anything but itself?Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-41763350872968863822014-02-19T03:32:00.000-08:002014-02-19T03:32:14.731-08:00How to tell if you’re being a trollThough we’d be embarrassed to admit it, most of us who have a history of posting stuff on forums, blogs and social media have probably engaged in troll-like behaviour to some degree. Admittedly, we may have expressed our inner troll unwittingly, but a troll is a troll, and there’s one in all of us. What’s more, we will never kill it, not in this world at least. However, we might be able to starve it. So, with this in mind, I thought I might offer some diagnostics and remedies about how to deal with your inner troll.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Diagnostic</h2>
<i>The troll does not consider himself to be a troll.</i><br /><br />I say “he” because most the trolls I have encountered are male. Of course, trolls would become extinct without the female of the species, but the females are more likely to be the imagined recipients of the males’ posturings than the ones putting on the display.<br /><h4>
Feed the troll</h4>
Ignore the possibility that you’re being a troll<br /><h4>
Starve the troll</h4>
Grow a soul. Reflect on blogs like this. Heck, the fact you’re here at all is a good start.<br /><br /><h2>
Diagnostic</h2>
<i>Trolls treat the truth like an offensive weapon; the more offensive the better.</i><br /><br />Trolls are incapable of nuance, and that’s what we need to employ here. The required nuance in this instance is that it’s OK to passionately believe stuff. This also means that it’s OK to passionately reject other stuff. The irony, I think, is that most people don’t see themselves as passionate believers/disbelievers, but that’s because they’ve never been confronted with the stuff that is adamantly opposed to what they believe (until they get on the internet).<br />
<br />This makes us human, but it doesn’t necessarily make us into trolls. What makes us into trolls is the use of truth to cause as much damage to the victim as possible. In other words, the over-arching objective is to prove the troll Right (with a capital "R"). The troll has a pathological disregard for the well-being of his victim and would much rather see him die than repent – in fact, the more prolonged, excruciating and public the victim’s execution, the better.<br />
<h4>
Feed the troll</h4>
Use a frenzied, flailing technique with the sword of truth. When you land a blow on your opponent’s exposed flesh, keep stabbing.<br /><h4>
Starve the troll</h4>
Use your blade like a surgeon’s knife. Keep the incision small, make sure it’s applied to exactly the right place and allow your patient time to heal.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Diagnostic</h2>
<i>Trolls brag about their conquests.</i><br /><br />
We all like to think we have something to say, and when we’ve said something good, we hope people will notice. The road to troll-dom starts with the insistence that people listen to what we say. So, the troll will harangue his victim for an answer and more; he will brag about how good his assessment was to his victim, and to his fellow-trolls, especially if his victim is disinclined to respond in kind. Too often have I read phrases like “they can’t stand the truth” in a context that could only serve to bolster the poster’s feelings of moral superiority. Though it’s true that people avoid shame like the plague, trolls feast on it. Or, rather, trolls feast on the shame they can generate in other people because they have none themselves. <br />
<br />Let me suggest a new word – a “<i>trollbelch</i>”, meaning the kind of sated utterance that follows a well-cooked stew of someone else’s shame, characterized by a self-congratulating assessment on the quality of the meal.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Feed the troll</h4>
Seek attention. Insist on getting a response. Tell others about how good you were and how bad your victims were.<br />
<h3>
Starve the troll</h3>
If you get ignored, get over it. Acknowledge the limits of your effectiveness in changing the other person’s posture. Be humble, even to idiots.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2>
Diagnostic</h2>
<i>Trolls never ask. They are not interested in interaction. They have nothing to learn from this particular situation.</i><br /><br />
It’s OK to express an opinion, and you may find yourself in the unpopular minority. But it’s wise to try to understand why the other person thinks the way they do and the only way to do that is to ask. Too many times I have seen people tell other people what they are, or what they believe without even the faintest attempt to understand why. Now, the other person may be misguided and mistaken, but they should at least be given the opportunity to tell it in their own words. Trolls put words in their victims’ mouths and would prefer to sustain gross misrepresentations of their victims than attempt to glean anything of value in what they are, do or say. Trolls have expunged themselves of all empathy.<br />
<br />
What is more, nothing rouses the troll’s appetite more than the slightest whiff of internal conflict. Trolls expect everyone to comply with an inhuman standard of consistency. All mortals experience internal conflict over something or other. Usually, it’s the conflict between what should be (in principle) and what is (in praxis) and probably the only people who experience complete freedom from it are eminently prequalified for a career in psychotic hermitry.<br />
<h4>
Feed the troll</h4>
Shun all attempts at meaningful exchanges with your victims. Shut your victim out of the discussion at every opportunity. Preempt engagement with belittlement.<br />
<h4>
Starve the troll</h4>
Allow the other person to explain it in the way that he or she sees it. Allow the other person to be conflicted, if that is what they feel on a particular issue. Even though you might be convinced that it's true, don't stoop to calling them stupid. Don't use synonyms for "stupid", either.<br /><br />
<h2>
Conclusion</h2>
This isn't an exhaustive guide to troll-spotting. If you have any sightings you'd like to share, please drop me a line.<br /><br />Trolls are bullies. I don't like bullies. I hope and pray that I don't act like one.Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-22847328318308096282014-01-14T10:25:00.001-08:002014-01-14T10:25:35.985-08:00Bible stuff – correct and inspired interpretations and translationsI like clever. I like to think of myself as a clever person.<br />
<br />
Maybe one day I’ll wake up and realize I have been completely stupid. (I’m regularly reminded that I have been partially stupid many times, but being completely stupid all the time would be a revelation.)<br />
<br />
Anyhow, part of my being a clever-liking person is my interest in getting a better understanding of the Bible, which means getting to grips with interpretations and translations; in other words, words.<br />
<br />
It should be no surprise that I enjoy word games such as Scrabble and Crossword puzzles. The Bible is made up of words, and my clever-liking self enjoys approaching it as if it were the word game to beat all word games. That's not an entirely stupid occupation, because people have said some stupid things in the name of the Bible, usually by saying it says something that is the opposite of what it actually says. So, we need the ammunition to shoot down such stupidities and we get it from wrestling with the many word-puzzles that it confronts us with.<br />
<br />
Then, I get reminded that it’s not simply some word game of the sort that you use to while away those idle hours on a long-haul flight. Proper interpretation and translation is not about solving a word-puzzle, but about entering into the story by faith, and living it as a reality.<br />
<br />
Today, I was reminded of that by an anonymous correspondent who, when pondering the difficult decision to stay in Egypt where life is becoming increasingly dangerous for Christians, or to immigrate to another safer country, thought of the story of Jesus walking on the water (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+14%3A22-32&version=NASB" target="_blank">Matthew 14:22-32</a> , <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+6%3A45-52&version=NASB" target="_blank">Mark 6:45-52</a> , <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+6%3A15-21&version=NASB" target="_blank">John 6:15-21</a>) and wrote this …<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We live in Egypt today with hearts full of peace and joy, realizing that even as we are on that boat, in the middle of the dark night in the middle of the high waves, Jesus will … show up walking on the waves.</blockquote>
<br />
(Reported at the end of the article <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/december/help-persecuted-stay-or-help-them-move.html?start=1" target="_blank">Help the persecuted stay? Or help them move?</a>)<br />
<br />
That’s what I call a proper, inspired interpretation of scripture.Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-5963616865890532212013-10-25T22:49:00.001-07:002013-10-25T22:49:08.242-07:00On Heaven's WallsThe Bricklayer<br />scored his brow.<br />Despite his straining art<br />he now<br />had not one course<br />to plumb.<br />The sweeping arches in his mind<br />would not form,<br />for each brick placed<br />would fall<br />into the endless depths<br />that swallowed all.<br /><br />His many bricks<br />and keening skill<br />could not bridge<br />gravity’s will.<br />No strata <br />could be found<br />from which to spring.<br />No ground<br />on which to lay.<br />No mix<br />of cement and stone<br />would fix.<br /><br />Despairing, he watched<br />the downward arc<br />of his industry.<br />Each creative spark<br />illuminating nothing<br />as it passed<br />through eons of empty night<br />and at last,<br />shunned by the indifferent void<br />it died,<br />crushed in a weightless world<br />by weightless pride.<br /><br />Your back, bowing <br />beneath the weight<br />of knowing<br />would but elate<br />if your feet would yield.<br />Yet you see what falls<br />because you stand<br />on heaven’s walls.<br />Consider, <br />as you mete the edge,<br />the Architect of<br />your teetering ledge.<br /> <br />
<br />
<h2>
An Explanation</h2>
What I have tried to describe here is one of life's great paradoxes - the paradox of knowing. Of all the creatures in the universe we are (as far as we currently know) the only ones that can survey their own finitude. We have knowledge of what we are, but that knowledge tells us that we are almost nothing. <br /><br />The gravity metaphor explores this. If we were in free-fall, we would perceive a weightless world and all our efforts to build would simply disintegrate as it fell around us. Yet we perceive the pressure of weight, like the action and reaction of a weight above our heads and our feet on solid ground. Could we feel this pressure because we live in a peculiar juncture between time and eternity? The picture I have attempted to invoke is of someone peering over the edge, into the void below - his perspective possible not because he is falling, but because he is standing. Is it because his vantage point is from the walls of heaven? And, what would he see if looked up and around?Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-63409844811130452202013-10-20T04:52:00.000-07:002013-10-20T04:52:32.030-07:00The Mormon Doctrine of Eternal Progression<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<h2>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Preamble</span></h2>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I first wrote this piece in 2006 and got it posted on a couple of websites, including <a href="http://www.tektonics.org/af/etpro.htm" target="_blank">Tekton</a>. I have reposted it here to reinvigorate it with a couple of very minor edits. Some of the links have changed, and I have done my best to update them.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The purpose of this post is to quote primary authorities within Mormonism, so that the reader can see what was actually written rather than getting it second-hand, and to challenge the claim that it is supported by the Bible.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Mormon sources </span></h2>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<h2>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></h2>
First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves, that is the great secret. . . . I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. . . God himself; the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, . . . You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, ...<br /><br /><i>Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, pp. 613-614</i><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Mormonism claims that all nature, both on earth and in heaven, operates on a plan of advancement; that the very Eternal Father is a progressive being; that his perfection, while so complete as to be incomprehensible by man, possesses this essential quality of true perfection – the capacity of eternal increase. That therefore, in the far future, beyond the horizon of eternities perchance, man may attain the status of a God. Yet this does not mean that he shall be the equal of the Deity we worship, nor shall he ever overtake those intelligences that are already beyond him in advancement; for to assert such would be to argue that there is no progression beyond a certain stage of attainment, and that advancement is characteristic of low organization and inferior purpose alone. We believe that there is more than the sounding of brass or the tinkling of wordy cymbals in the fervent admonition of Christ to his followers – ‘Be ye perfect even as your heavenly Father which is in Heaven is perfect’ </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">James Talmadge, Articles of Faith</span></i><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The principle of eternal progression cannot be precisely defined or comprehended, yet it is fundamental to the LDS worldview.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/afterlife/progression_eom.htm" target="_blank"><i>Lisa Ramsey Adams and Elder Bruce R McConkie</i></a><br /><br /> <br />This gradually unfolding course of advancement and experience -- a course that began in a past eternity and will continue in ages future -- is frequently referred to as a course of eternal progression. <br /><br /><i>Elder Bruce R. McConkie.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />
Lorenzo Snow, who was President of the Mormon Church from 1898 to 1901, wrote the following in a poem entitled "Man's Destiny":<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Still, tis no phantom that we trace<br />Man's ultimatum in life's race;<br />This royal path has long been trod<br />By righteous men, each now a God:<br /><br />As Abra'm Isaac, Jacob, too,<br />First babes, then men--to gods they grew.<br />As man now is, our God once was;<br />As now God is, so man may be, --<br />Which doth unfold Man's destiny. . . ." </blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>The Gospel Through The Ages, by Milton R. Hunter, 1958, p. 113</i></blockquote>
<br />
<h2>
Where Does This Doctrine Come From?</h2>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The logic pursued by the Mormons I have spoken to seems to be based on the idea that change and progression are natural principles, therefore they apply to God as they do to the rest of creation. The idea that God’s invisible qualities are visible in creation is supported in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:20&version=AKJV" target="_blank">Romans 1:20</a> and Mormons interpret the father-son relationship between the Heavenly Father and Jesus as pointing to other father-son relationships before and after this world. Mormonism asserts that because we are the children of God, it is our destiny to progress in this life and the next in order to attain the perfection that God himself presently enjoys.<br /><br />As regards the progress of the Saints and their attaining perfection, there are two main NT references;<br /></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">1. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:48&version=AKJV" target="_blank">Matthew 5:48</a> (as quoted by Talmadge) Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. In context, it is clear that Jesus is delivering a damning criticism of the Pharisees because they conveniently limited God’s directive; the Pharisees were teaching “love your neighbour but hate your enemy”. The original command in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2019:18&version=AKJV" target="_blank">Leviticus 19:18</a> does not make this distinction; “You shall love your fellow man as yourself. I am the LORD” (from Prof Robert Alter’s Translation of the Five Books of Moses). Jesus is not preaching ontological perfection (as Talmadge asserts), but that our love should be as perfect as God’s, which extends even to his enemies. </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">2. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:14&version=AKJV" target="_blank">Hebrews 10:14</a> states that the one sacrifice of Christ has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. In context, the writer is contrasting the old system, which can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship (see <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:1&version=AKJV" target="_blank">Hebrews 10:1</a>). The use of the past tense is crucial in this verse. It says the saints have been already made perfect, but nowhere in the NT do we find sinless saints, not even Saint <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy+1:15&version=AKJV" target="_blank">Paul</a> and Saint <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%201:8&version=AKJV" target="_blank">John</a> (by their own confession). The perfection mentioned in Hebrews, therefore, cannot be an ontological perfection. The verse, however, makes sense when we understand it to mean being made perfectly acceptable to God, or being made ‘whole’ in our union with Christ. The saints are perfectly acceptable to God not by their own merit, but by the merits of Christ in whom they enter the Holy of Holies. The perfection of the saints is in the past tense because it was achieved in the past, at the cross of Christ. </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />There is no support in the Canonical Bible for the notion that human beings can become, in their very nature, as God is now. <br /><br /></span><br />
<h2>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Theological Implications – the Orthodox View</span></h2>
The orthodox view is that God created the cosmos, and it exists within him. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:3&version=AKJV">John 1:3</a>.<br />
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:16&version=AKJV">Colossians 1:16</a></blockquote>
This is ex nihilo creation, which Mormonism explicitly rejects. <br /><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The orthodox view states that there can only be one God, because there can only be one ultimate origin of everything. God is the unchanging datum, from whom a changing universe is created. He is answerable to no-one, and owes his being to no-one. Only such a God could say, as Jehovah said to Moses, I will be what I will be (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203:14&version=AKJV" target="_blank">Exodus 3:14</a>). Only such a God could claim to be the alpha and omega (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201:8&version=AKJV" target="_blank">Revelation 1:8</a> and <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2022:13&version=AKJV" target="_blank">22:13</a>) within which all time and space is bracketed. Being subject to no higher authority, God is truly a law unto himself, but he will not act in a way that denies his own nature.<br /><br /></span><br />
<h2>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Theological Implications – the Mormon View</span></h2>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In polar contrast, the Mormon view is that God emerged from the cosmos, and lives as an inhabitant of it, subject to principles and laws that were not of his own making. Further, there is not one God, but an infinite number, all of whom are progressing in experience, knowledge and intelligence, though we need only concern ourselves with the God who rules the universe that we inhabit (which is <a href="http://martinofbrisbane.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/dear-sirs-please-save-me-from-current.html" target="_blank">henotheism</a>). <br /></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">We accept the fact that God is the Supreme Intelligent Being in the universe. He has the greatest knowledge, the most perfect will, and the most infinite power of any person within the realm of our understanding. . . . Yet, if we accept the great law of eternal progression, we must accept the fact that there was a time when Deity was much less powerful than He is today. Then how did He become glorified and exalted and attain His present status of Godhood? In the first place, aeons ago, God undoubtedly took advantage of every opportunity to learn the laws of truth and as He became acquainted with each new verity He righteously obeyed it. From day to day He exerted His will vigorously, and as a result became thoroughly acquainted with the forces lying about Him. As he gained more knowledge through persistent effort and continuous industry, as well as through absolute obedience, His understanding of the universal laws continued to become more complete. Thus He grew in experience and continued to grow until He attained the status of Godhood. In other words, He became God by absolute obedience to all the eternal laws of the Gospel--by conforming His actions to all truth, and thereby became the author of eternal truth. Therefore, the road that the Eternal Father followed to Godhood was one of living at all times a dynamic, industrious, and completely righteous life. There is no other way to exaltation. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Milton R Hunter</i>.</span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />God earned the right to become a god by his own self-effort. The path to exaltation is a path of learning, experience, effort and industry (compare Gnosticism, for example). Mormon teaching differs widely on the role of the cross of the Saviour in this journey of the saints, and it is noticeably absent from Hunter’s description of the path to exaltation. <br /><br />If God (and Jesus) was a man like us, then did he/ they have need of a saviour? I canvassed my Mormon friends with this question, and the answers I got were;<br /></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">1. There has been no revelation from [the] prophets on any specifics relating to these matters (from a Mormon Bishop)</span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">2. Short answer, Yes , as far as I follow it, they [sic] would have had a saviour (from an active member of a Mormon church).</span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">3. Our Heavenly Father was born and did live in mortality on another earth. Did He have need of a Saviour? I don't know the answer to that question. I do know that He is my God, and that He knows and understands me. He has reached perfection and desires the same for His children (from a Mormon Bishop).</span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />The full version of answer 3 differentiates between God the Father, who was born on an earth, and Jesus, who was born in a spirit realm before coming to this earth.<br /><br /></span><br />
<h2>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">What Does It Mean To Us?</span></h2>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Ralph Bowles (former Rector of St Stephen’s, Brisbane) once told me that the Trinity is the Gospel. I think there is much merit in this view and it aligns closely with the view of the Apostle John, in particular. John opens his Gospel with the audacious claim that the creator of the cosmos <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14&version=AKJV" target="_blank">became flesh</a>. We can follow John’s train of thought in his Gospels, Letters and Revelation, through Jesus’ submission to death on a cross, to the resurrection, the present age of the Church and the Final Judgement. I think that paramount in John’s mind was the question of why the omnipotent God, who wraps up skies and silences heaven, should purposefully set things up so that he, himself, would have to die on the cross. The conclusion John reaches, is that God is love. It is such a perfect love that it would have to give of itself to the point where there was nothing more to give. If God had sent his 2IC, his lieutenant, or even a close relative, he would not be expressing this love, he would be simply getting his credit card out; and that does not mean much to a God who could create a thousand ‘sons’ in an instant (“What? Jesus is dead! Never mind, I’ll just make another one”).<br /><br />The doctrine of eternal progression places God within the constraints of an impersonal universe, such that he is not free to submit exclusively to his own love for us, nor to his own justice (“I’d like to help, but my hands are tied”). It also flatters with the promise of divinity through a process of experience and knowledge (compare the <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%203:1-5&version=AKJV" target="_blank">serpent’s appeal to Eve</a> in Genesis 3:1-5). The emphasis on earning our exaltation relegates the cross to a moral example; we salute the crucified Christ as we pass, and we are grateful to leave our sins there, but the road ahead is one of advancement by a process of obeying the law. Finally, God is not God and eternity is not eternity.<br /><br /></span><br />
<h2>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Post Script: Ex Nihilo and Genesis 1:1</span></h2>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">There is just enough play in the Hebrew of <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%201:1&version=AKJV" target="_blank">Genesis 1:1</a> to raise some interesting possibilities. Prof. Robert Alter translates it as <i>When God began to create the heavens and the earth</i>… Also, the name used for God, Elohim, has a plural form and it is properly used to describe ‘gods’ in some places in the Pentateuch as well as a singular ‘God’ in others. <br /><br />Was God up to something before the creation? The Bible does not tell us explicitly, so any answer must be speculative. If we understand the creation of the cosmos to include the creation of time itself, then the question of what happened before the beginning of time becomes meaningless.<br /><br />Does the plural name of God suggest a Council of gods? Some Mormon apologists argue that the idea of such a council is consistent with the ancient religion of Egypt (it is certainly true of Babylonian religion – see the Flood account in the Gilgamesh Epic), and it is reflected in some ancient Jewish teachings. These apologists may be right, but we must question whom it is that we seek guidance from. Are we to take instruction from some ancient pagan religions (even the paganism practised in ancient Israel) in preference over the Bible?<br /><br />It must also be noted that there is not one sane translation that mentions more than one God in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%201:1&version=AKJV" target="_blank">Genesis 1:1</a>. The justification for these ‘one God’ translations is not found solely in this one verse, but in context with the remaining corpus of the canonical Bible, which is polemically monotheistic. In other words, if you want to believe that more than one god was involved in the creation, you could stretch the opening words of Genesis just far enough to fit your theory, but you would have to ignore everything that follows it in the Canonical Bible. <br /></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I am he: before me there was no God formed neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2043:10-11&version=AKJV" target="_blank">Isaiah 43:10-11</a></span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God…Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2044:6-8&version=AKJV" target="_blank">Isaiah 44:6 & 8</a></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />Useful Links<br /><br /><a href="http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/afterlife/progression_eom.htm" target="_blank">This one</a> was written by senior Mormons; and <a href="http://jesuspeopleinfo.org/articles/html/eternalprog.htm" target="_blank">this one</a> was written by Sandra Tanner, one of the most prominent anti-Mormon apologists. Both sources are quoted above.<br /><br />Martin Jacobs 2006<br /><br /></span>Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-75353986443099268022013-08-24T04:43:00.000-07:002013-08-24T04:43:48.440-07:00When Atheists and Skeptics are Right Not being an atheist or skeptic I’m often disheartened by critical messaging on social media and TV. Sometimes it is intentionally confrontational, sometimes it’s nothing more than a light-hearted poke, and often it is simply crass or just wrong. Sometimes it is articulated well, sometimes it is puerile and, usually, it is nothing more than just a tee shirt slogan. Always, I feel it. Perhaps I should just grow a thicker skin.<br />
<br />
However ugly the full-grown expression might be, it often grows from a seed of truth. This post is all about one of those seeds. I want to say to you skeptics and atheists that, on this issue at least, you are right.<br />
<br />
The criticism or ridicule that I have in mind may be broadly categorized as a reaction against the kinds of claims made by believers that they are somehow special, or better, or more privileged than the “others”. A previous generation might have used the phrase “holier than thou”. At its heart, it’s a visceral reaction against what I call Religious Exceptionalism.<br />
<br />
Put simply, Religious Exceptionalism states that <i>because</i> I subscribe to such-and-such a religion, or go to so-and-so church/temple/mosque/synagogue, I am entitled to all manner of privileges in this world and the next. The key term here is “because”. It’s using God to escape the bell-curve of probability; to elevate myself above my neighbors; to consider myself separate from them. <br />
<br />
These privileges might be identified within a religious belief, but they can also be identified in a secular sphere. They can range from special knowledge or revelations, to the right to occupy land or to persecute other people-groups. Like skin colour, or sexuality, they are a self-serving set of criteria that I can use to consider myself better than, or more deserving than. They make me one of the good guys, and because of that, the universe owes me special consideration. They make me the exception.<br />
<br />
Leading popular critics, such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Lawrence Kraus, have capitalized on this criticism. In the recent debate that I attended, the repugnance exuded by Kraus and his supporters against Religious Exceptionalism was almost palpable, even if he didn’t express it in those terms. What drove him was the sense that we believers considered ourselves better than him and his science because of our beliefs. (Incidentally, I think his repugnance is only partially justified, and a balanced reflection indicates that he and his colleagues are supplanting one kind of Religious Exceptionalism with another – a form of anti-Religious Exceptionalism if you like – even though he aspires to anti-Religious anti-Exceptionalism.)<br />
<br />
One cartoon by Alan Krumin showed a Rabbi, an Imam and a Bishop approaching the Pearly Gates guarded by Thor, the Viking god. The caption was something like “What happens when you support the wrong team.” In the face of this, it would be hopeless for me to try to explain the differences between Judaism, Islam and Christianity, and why I am one and not another, and perhaps that’s the cartoonist’s point. But I also see a sense of repugnancy at the perceived exclusion of the “other” religions from heaven. Am I entitled to enter those Pearly Gates and, if I am, what makes me so? What gives me the warrant to believe that I am the exception?<br />
<br />
In my reading of the Bible, I see both bad news and good news for Religious Exceptionalism. <br />
<br />
The bad news is that there is nothing in myself that makes me qualify for heaven or, indeed any other worldly or other-worldly privilege. I am not the exception, not even if I go to the “right” church and say and do the right things. For instance, when God directs Israel to occupy the land, he says<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land … for you are a stiff-necked people <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%209:5&version=NIV" target="_blank">Deuteronomy 9:5-7</a></blockquote>
<div>
In other words, Israel could not justify its privilege on the basis of its own rightness or religious preferences.<br />
<br />
This scenario, in my reading of it, sets the pattern for all privilege and exceptionalism. Indeed it forms the bedrock of New Testament theology. Paul frames it in terms of faith and works<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%202:8-10&version=NIV" target="_blank"> Ephesians 2:8-10</a> </blockquote>
The Reformers distilled it further to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide">Sola Fide</a>– Justification by faith alone, as opposed to justification by works.<br />
<br />
The point of Paul and the Reformers is that our claims to privilege are not based on “works”. I understand the term to mean both the things we do and the things done to us, particularly as they relate to religious observation.<br />
<br />
The seminal NT example of a religious “work” that is done to you and by you (if you are a Jewish man) is circumcision. How many times does the NT reinforce the message that we cannot justify our privileges by being circumcised or by circumcising our sons, or even by the state of being circumcised? Paul puts it bluntly in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207:19&version=NIV" target="_blank">1 Corinthians 7:19</a> “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing”. We cannot use it to justify our claim to privilege.<br />
<br />
Likewise, Christian theology kicks against all kinds of Religious Exceptionalism. We Christians are good at forgetting this. Though we aver from Exceptionalism by circumcision, we often allow it to creep back in, in different clothes.<br />
<br />
I was recently criticized for saying a prayer in church in which I described us as “dumb” in the context of God’s peerless wisdom. Do we think that we are entitled to being smart because we go to church? Would it be wrong to characterize our church as being full of idiots, of which I am the lead idiot? Where is the spirit that says that God often glorifies Himself through the foolish things of this world? Do we not realize that we, ourselves, could actually be those foolish things? Have we resorted to justifying ourselves based on our intellects and education? We need a new generation of Reformers to remind us that we are <i>not</i> the exceptions.<br />
<br />
The good news is that God has made all the privileges of Christ available to us, through faith (for example, see <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%201;3&version=NIV" target="_blank">Ephesians 1:3</a>). There is access to heaven in this life and the next. However, these are not privileges that I am entitled to – I have no right to them. It is precisely because they are a gift that I can claim no exclusiveness to them – I do not own the franchise; not even partially. <br />
<br />
In this context, I rightly see myself as the everyman that I am. I have privileges, but I am not entitled to them. I do not possess them by right. When God wishes to take them from me – the privilege of being alive, for instance – I have no reason to complain. There’s nothing in me that makes me the exception, and what privileges I have, I have by the grace of God. Surely that’s good news for us all because my neighbors, who are equally as unqualified as I, live under His grace too.<br />
<br />
I feel sure that God wants me to enjoy and exploit whatever privileges he extends to me, including my life, my intellect and my education. By following in kind, He wants me to desire the “others” to enjoy and exploit their privileges too. In this economy of freely giving and receiving – the economy of Grace - there is no place for Religious Exceptionalism. In this respect, the atheists and skeptics are right, even if they are right for all the wrong reasons.</div>
Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1569651410928676272.post-21616581604152374052013-08-10T08:09:00.001-07:002014-03-28T00:09:29.465-07:00Atheism denies a reasonable basis for moralityThe killing of Canaanite children, commanded by God in such passages as <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2020:10-18&version=NIV" target="_blank">Deuteronomy 20:10-18</a>, and other such acts, invokes moral outrage among atheists. My response is that Atheism denies a reasonable basis, or warrant, for morality; therefore, there is no reason to believe the atheists’ outrage. The moral outrage expressed by atheists as a recruiting drum for Atheism is one of the great propaganda triumphs of our time.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Prelude </h2>
<br />
Last Wednesday, I attended the debate between <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss" target="_blank">Lawrence Krauss</a> and <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig" target="_blank">William Lane Craig</a>. Although the subject was “Has Science Buried God?”, Krauss spent much of his time preaching the moral superiority of his position because, he believed, the killing of Canaanite children was a moral evil. It followed, then, that the Judaeo-Christian God was morally evil and ought to be killed and buried. Coincidentally, I had had a very similar conversation on-line the week previously with a couple of atheists. <br />
<br />
My argument is that Atheism denies a reasonable basis, or warrant, for morality. Before we get to what the argument does say, we’ll have to deal with what it does <i>not</i> say.<br />
<br />
<h2>
What the argument does <i>not</i> say – 1 Atheists are immoral </h2>
<br />
The first misunderstanding to get past is that atheists are immoral. It may be because that is how most people on both sides hear the argument, but it’s wrong. <br />
<br />
This is not about whether atheists have the right moral equipment, a “moral compass” if you like, nor if they are any better or worse at using it. In reality, atheists often make good moral decisions, but it is irrelevant to the argument. Even if it were true that every Theist consistently made better moral decisions than every Atheist, it would still be irrelevant. What the argument looks for is a <i>reasonable warrant</i> for these moral decisions.<br />
<br />
<h2>
What the argument does <i>not</i> say – 2 Atheism has no warrant for morality </h2>
<br />
The next misunderstanding is that atheism has no warrant for morality. In fact, it does, but it’s instinctive or acquired, and it still lacks a reasonable warrant. <br />
<br />
The key word here is “reasonable”, meaning something that has a reason for its existence and something that can be used to reason with another person. It’s no surprise that Atheists use the killing of Canaanite children as an emotive argument that appeals to how we feel about it, rather than using it as a rational argument based on reason. <br />
<br />
<h2>
What the argument does <i>not</i> say – 3 Instinctive or acquired morality is bad </h2>
<br />
The next misunderstanding is that instinct or acquired knowledge provides no warrant for morality. It’s not what the argument proposes. It’s wrong because our instincts and acquired knowledge can, actually, provide a very good warrant for our moral decisions. To argue that they cannot will be to argue that none of our senses can convey to us a representation of the reality that we live in. Furthermore, it does not matter where our acquired knowledge comes from. What matters is that we have a perception of morality. Like all our senses, that perception is necessarily limited and often flawed, but it is there nonetheless. Further, we know we can be deceived by our instincts or acquired knowledge, and we look to reason to balance and correct us. In other words, instinctive or acquired knowledge can guide us to the moral good, but we still need to apply reason to them to prevent them from misdirecting us. <br />
<br />
<h2>
What the argument does <i>not</i> say – 4 Christianity is Superior to Atheism </h2>
<br />
William Lane Craig did it, and I did it in my exchanges on-line, but it is not necessary to the argument. We both got sidetracked into arguing the case that Christianity is superior to Atheism. It’s the natural response to someone’s enquiry into what else there might be, but my argument does not rest or fall on the truth of Christianity. <br />
<br />
Technically, this is the fallacy of alternatives, which says that A cannot be true because an alternative, B, is true, or that A is true because B is untrue. My argument does not need an alternative as it stands or falls on its own truthfulness. <br />
<br />
On this basis, my argument is not an argument <i>for</i> Christianity. It is actually no more than an argument <i>against</i> the kind of moral outrage expressed by atheists against God. <br />
<br />
<h2>
What the argument does <i>not</i> say – 5 Proof of God </h2>
<br />
In his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1433501155" target="_blank">Reasonable Faith</a>, William Lane Craig admits that the Moral Argument for God is a weak argument. In fact, all you need to do to get rid of God is to get rid of morality, and this is where many thinking atheists knowingly go, and where many unthinking atheists unknowingly go. <br />
<br />
Possibly, this is the source of the myth that atheists are immoral. However, it is probably more accurate to say that they are <i>a</i>moral. Immoral suggest something that is <i>against</i> morality, whereas amoral suggests something that is <i>without</i> morality. When a shark bites a diver in half, it is acting amorally, but if one diver were to do the same to another (say, with an underwater chainsaw) he or she might well be acting immorally. <br />
<br />
<h2>
Immoral and amoral </h2>
<br />
The difference between immoral and amoral is one way to properly approach the argument. <br />
<br />
In the example above, the shark is acting amorally because it is simply doing what it is programmed to do by its evolutionary inheritance. Most people believe that human beings are different; hence the equivalent act by a human being is qualitatively different. The difference is understood as morality, and so the human diver equivalent of a shark biting a man in half is immoral, or morally evil. <br />
<br />
However, according to Atheism, there is no qualitative difference between the human diver and the shark. Human beings and sharks are both products of the same undirected evolutionary processes that we learn about at school and on all the nature channels on TV. <br />
<br />
We might think we are morally superior because we have better brains, and hence can think or model the outcomes of our actions (more on this later) – what we understand to be intelligence. We can also make decisions – what we understand to be free-will or agency (more on this later, too). Whereas I can confidently say that I would prefer to have a higher functioning brain than not, there is no empirical, unfalsifiable, experimental evidence to say that having a brain is morally better than the alternative. More to the point, in the Atheistic cosmos, the purposes that serve me and my brain are not intrinsically more moral than the purposes that serve a creature without a similarly developed brain, like a shark or an HIV virus. We just think we are cool because we have one, and the shark or virus doesn’t. <br />
<br />
<h2>
Reasonable and Unreasonable </h2>
<br />
Unfortunately, the immoral/amoral differentiation does not translate well to reason. When we say that someone is <i>un</i>reasonable, we say that he or she acts against, or opposed to, reason. We don’t have a good equivalent to say that he or she acts without reason – a kind of <i>a</i>reasonableness, if you like. <br />
<br />
(An older generation would have equated with “without” reason to “against” reason because of the common belief that everything had a reason or a purpose and thus unreasonableness was a denial of the reason for things and hence objectionable – a belief that is now not as widespread as it once was.) <br />
<br />
<h2>
The death of reasonable morality </h2>
<br />
Faced with the impending death of reasonable morality, the Atheist attempts to put it on life-support by appealing to those valued human characteristics of intelligence and agency. I find the various drips applied to be inadequate, as follows.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Drip 1 – Atheistic Philosophy </h3>
<br />
From a philosophical point of view, the only avenues open to the atheist are Utilitarianism or Consequentialism, both of which are hotly debated by philosophers of all stripes. <br />
<br />
Utilitarianism justifies its actions by doing the greatest good to the greatest number of people. Whereas I agree with the outcome, I find the warrant areasonable because it is founded on the assertion that doing good to people is a moral good. For instance, we could take the view that we have multiplied well beyond the point at which our planet can sustain us. So, from a certain planetary conservationist point of view, the moral good could actually be the extermination of as many people as possible. <br />
<br />
Consequentialism justifies its actions by the predicted consequences. Krauss touched on this on Wednesday night, saying that we make decisions based on our understanding of where they will take us, and that the best decisions are the result of rational thought. Yet again, I agree with the outcome, but the warrant is areasonable. It presumes that there is a “there” to go to, but if Atheism were true, and the cosmos is actually an undirected, random phenomenum, then there is no “there”. The best that we can hope for is that we make whatever decision we make in order to get us what we want. The singular flaw here is that this is not morality – it is simply our strategising to get the best outcomes for ourselves. <br />
<br />
<h3>
Drip 2 – Evolutionary Inheritance </h3>
<br />
From an evolutionary biological point of view, those supposed values of intelligence and agency are far less certain than we thought about a century ago. We know that other animals display a remarkable degree of intelligence – the capacity to model the future and hence make decisions based on a range of potential outcomes. In the Southern US, dolphins team together to drive fish onto the muddy banks of the rivers, where they snap them up. Their intelligence may be quantitavely less than ours, but it is not qualitatively different. Importantly, like them, our intelligence serves us in getting us the best possible outcomes, but there is no scientific means to tell us whether these outcomes are morally better or worse than the team of dolphins snapping up fish on a river bank. If the fish had a point of view, they would definitely challenge the dolphins' actions, regardless of the intelligence and mutual teamwork the dolphins display in carrying them out.<br />
<br />
Even agency now appears less certain than it ever did. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner" target="_blank">B F Skinner</a>, his pigeons and his science of radical behaviouralism set out to scientifically dispell the myth of agency. I’ll defer the assessment of how successful he was to those more qualified than I, but at its heart is the notion that our sense of agency is a delusion; we are controlled by our environment far more than we like to admit. This is no ethereal proposition – the entire advertising industry is founded on it. On the morality of human freedom, Skinner said, "It is a mistake to suppose that the whole issue is how to free man. The issue is to improve the way in which he is controlled". <br />
<br />
Further, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Miller" target="_blank">Sir Doctor Jonathan Miller</a>, an Atheist, described human consciousness as an oil slick on the ocean of the subconscious. If the ocean moves the oil slick, what moves the ocean if not our environment? I don't object to this analysis, but what it says is that we, including the atheists, are far more sensitive to the cues around us than we thought.<br />
<br />
Contrary to Skinner and Miller, I believe we have the capacity for agency despite the influence of our environments and the instability of our subconsious minds. My reasons are entirely experiential – to borrow from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes" target="_blank">Rene Descartes</a>, I decide, therefore I am. Those decisions might be less independent than I thought, but I don't think I am entirely captive to my environment. <br />
<br />
My point here is that the foundation of instinctive or received morality is crumbling. How can we even know the moral good, when our thoughts and feelings are shaped so profoundly by our environments and our instinctive subconscious is so unstable? It seems untenable to believe that rational thought will unfailingly guide us to the moral good. Indeed the very notion of rational thought could be no more than myth and delusion. <br />
<br />
<h3>
Drip 3 – Animalistic Morality </h3>
<br />
Krauss tried his hand at naturalistic morality, and failed dismally. He said that homosexuality was normal because it is found all throughout the mamallian kingdom. I have no wish to comment on the morality of homosexuality here, nor even its prevalance in species other than humans, but the underlying premise of Krauss’ argument was plainly silly – it was areasonable. <br />
<br />
For example, infanticide is prevalent throughout the mamallian kingdom. When a male lion takes over a pride of females, he kills all the cubs he can find. This serves the utility function of ensuring that his DNA, and not a rival’s, is propagated. According to Krauss’ argument, then, we can justify the killing of step-children by their step-fathers. Of course, we recoil from such a possibility because we consider ourselves to be somewhat above the animals. But, if we rise above the animals in infanticide, how can we then descend to them in our sexuality? <br />
<br />
<h2>
The gods of atheism </h2>
<br />
<br />
The Atheist’s position is thus exposed. His sense of moral outrage is nothing more than his evolutionary heritage generating within him the kind of fight or flight response needed to protect his selfish genes. That this genetic protectionism is projected onto a group such as the Canaanites is purely coincidental. The choice of which side to support is wholly arbitrary – if his genetic coding predispositioned him toward the invading Israelites, he would be cheering. <br />
<br />
However, that is not good enough for the likes of Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris. They have judged the God of Deuteronomy and found him wanting. I believe that the basis for this judgement cannot be reason, because that is impossible in an Atheistic cosmos, despite the application of various kinds of life support that I described above. What they really mean to say is that they don’t like this God. Maybe it’s because their evolutionary heritage does not allow them to. Their problem is that such a statement lacks the same kind of rhetorical punch, it sells less books and there is nothing in it to compel people to Atheism. <br />
<br />
If they like something, and I don’t, who is to say that they or I are morally superior? Effectively, then, they destroy morality, and with it the foundation on which they base their criticism of Christianity. <br />
<br />
At least <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche" target="_blank">Friedrich Nietzsche</a> knew the consequences of declaring that God is dead. With the death of God comes the death of reasonable morality.<br />
<br />
<h2>
</h2>
<h2>
A tip of the hat to Anselm </h2>
<br />
In my exchanges with atheists on line, I tried to convey to them the idea of what God is by using Anselm’s Ontological Argument. <br />
<br />
Simply stated, Anselm says that God is the greatest conceivable being. And, as what is in reality is always greater than what can be conceived, God exists. <br />
<br />
As a proof of God, Philosophers, such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga" target="_blank">Alvin Plantinga</a> and William Lane Craig agree that Anselm is undefeatable. Critics say that it is a semantic trap. Again, I’ll leave the assessment to those more qualified than I, but I like the trajectory of Anselm in bringing us to an understanding of what God is. I think Anselm is particularly useful in dispelling ideas of God that have him sitting on a remote cloud in a bathrobe and long beard, or that he lurks around corners and meddles with our affairs according to his own caprice. <br />
<br />
In my discussion on morality, I suggested to my Atheist antagonists that they had conceived of a greater being than God. This greater being was no less than the Higher Moral Standard to which they imagined that God was answerable to. According to Anselm, then, if the Higher Moral Standard was greater than the Yahweh of Deuteronomy, then Yahweh was not God, the Higher Moral Standard was. In other words, there was still a God; it just was not Yahweh. <br />
<br />
The response of one of the atheists was quite remarkable. To his great credit, he understood the trajectory of Anselm, but his Atheism pulled him back. He concluded that he had found a greater being than God, and that being was himself. I responded that I would hesitate to offer him worship, and he quipped that he would be satisfied with cash donations. We concluded the conversation there, on what I hoped was a cordial note. <br />
<br />
I cannot go the same way as my atheist interlocutor. It would be deluded of me to think that I am that Higher Morality, not least because I presume to know better than my neighbour, and his neighbour and so on. <br />
<br />
On Wednesday, Krauss ridiculed believers in saying that there had been about a thousand “gods” in history, so we are probably deluded in believing that ours is the “right” one. If he had followed Anselm, he would have realized that instead of the thousand or so “gods” proposed by the various Theisms, Atheism presents us with several billion – the entire human population of the cosmos, to be precise, multiplied by the number of times we change our minds from day to day. <br />
<br />
The argument that Yahweh performed a moral evil in Deuteronomy is therefore an argument for, not against, God. If true, the damage it does to the Judeao Christian religion is that it demotes Yahweh down the order, but it does so by proposing a greater being than Yahweh and hence relocates God on a level higher than Yahweh. It’s a shuffling of the pack, but it’s not a denial that the pack exists, or even that Yahweh is present as a player in the pack. <br />
<br />
Of course, Christians recoil from the notion that Yahweh could perform a moral evil, and so they turn their attention to whether the killing of Canaanite children was actually a moral evil. Craig put forward a plausible scenario, that drew much ridicule from Krauss. More commonly, Christians would say that we do not know all the reasons why God would do such a thing, but we must believe that he did not do a moral evil. Hence, we come to the possible source of the myth that Christians say that we must simply accept it by faith. <br />
<br />
It is reasonable to argue that the Christian model of God is inaccurate? For instance, that it was wrong to credit the killing of the Canaanites to the Divine Will? To do this, one must first acknowledge that there is a Divine Will, and that it willed something other than the killing of the Canaanites. The dilemma the atheist faces is that he cannot go there without contravening his own Atheism. He is forced to state that it was an act of greed and xenophobia, but if that greed and xenophobia was nothing more than the outworking of the Israelites' evolutionary heritage, how can he say it was morally evil? <br />
<br />
<h2>
The final score, Craig v Krauss </h2>
<br />
I found Craig’s response to Krauss’ objection reasonable, though time did not allow him to develop it fully. In my assessment, Craig did not develop this argument against Krauss well enough, but instead proposed an alternative based on the Judaeo-Christian tradition. I respect that Judaeo-Christian tradition, and understand that Craig was proposing a plausible scenario, whereas Krauss did not, but it was not necessary to defeat Krauss. Krauss, like many atheists dismissed the alternative, not because it was implausible, but because he did not like it. <br />
<br />
If we dismiss everything because we don’t like it, where would we be? We would certainly not be thinking rationally, which is ironic, as Krauss has crossed land and sea to try to persuade us that rational thinking is the morally right thing to do. <br />
<br />
<h2>
Conclusion </h2>
<br />
I have yet to see a way to defeat the argument that Atheism denies a reasonable warrant to morality. This being the case, the atheist has no reasonable warrant to object to the killing of Canaanite children, or any other act, for that matter. It is his perogative to like it or not, but that is not morality. The morality of these acts can only be addressed in the context of Theism. Atheism is defeated in this case.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that there are only two possibilities; that there is a God and we live in a moral universe, or that there is no God and we live in an amoral universe. The Atheist's outrage at the killing of Canaanite children has meaning in only one of these universes, and it's not the one with no God. Martin Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04657636697389745874noreply@blogger.com2