I was working in a local park the other weekend which had just been re-developed and was looking very neat and tidy for a change. Several local artists had been invited to exhibit their work on the park railings – we’re talking more Lowry than Banksy here – they were mainly all in their 60’s or 70’s. I got talking to one of the artists about how nice the park looked, he agreed but said that there had already been a bit of graffiti on one of the monuments – and what a shame it was that there weren’t more Christians as there would be less anti social behaviour.
As I was employed to be there I didn’t want to start a big debate with the man, but looking back maybe I should have challenged him on this. A lot of Christians seem to associate being Christian with being good, but as I said in a previous post about “good living” this isn’t always the case. But it’s this assumption that atheists can’t be good people that should probably be challenged more often, and I regret not saying something now.
Our sense of ethics and morality come from many places and have evolved in a similar way to our physical selves. From the very first time one of our ancestors punched someone else, and that other person punched him back people have realised that there are consequences to our actions. People learn from experience, education and peer pressure about what are acceptable ways to behave in this society, and most of us live by the rules.
To think that an ancient text which is the revealed wisdom of a vindictive hateful god, is the basis of our moral identity is nonsense. Christians, like the rest of us, are shaped and moulded by society’s mores, and will only cite scripture when it supports these already well established shared standards. And it’s the same tired old verses that get trotted out about loving thy neighbour etc. We rarely hear Christians advocating the stoning of adulterers.
The Catholic Church had apparently updated it’s 7 deadly sins this week. But later in the week it turns out that it was just a senior Vatican official who was just talking about a re-interpretation of the original 7 rather than a new set of commandments sent from on high.
I’m not going to bore you with the details of these new interpretations of the 7 deadly sins as I’m sure you’ve read them elsewhere, but it interests me to know how these decisions are made.
Presumably by a committee of old men sitting in the Vatican, and I’m sure this has been true right back to the foundation of the church. It’s just with the older dictates of the church people seem happy to think about these as revealed wisdom, not just man made decisions which they patently are.
Sticking with the Catholic Church, a member of the Irish Atheists forum atheist.ie managed to register the domain name Catholic.ie – check out this video they have on the home page.
Last night I saw Derren Brown performing in Belfast. For those of you who haven’t heard of him you should really check out some of his stuff on you tube.
I highly recommend his book also, which for me really brought home the importance of critical thinking and scepticism. He always says that his shows are “magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship”, and has been criticised for not being honest about how the tricks are done, but he does say he is honest about his dishonesty - afterall he is a magician, I think we can allow him a few secrets.
I have recently joined the Religion and Belief Network at my work to put the atheist / humanist point of view forward. One of the first issues raised involved the “Jesus Loves You Belt”
Here was the Dilemma:
“A colleague has approached me to express his concern over an item of clothing worn by a team leader in the office. The item is a belt which has the words “JESUS LOVES YOU” studded into it. As a Christian, he finds this inappropriate and offensive. As far as he is aware the person in question does not wear the belt as an expression of their faith but as a fashion accessory. I would be interested to know what my colleagues’ on the network view of this is?”
This was my response:
This would be a difficult one to judge without knowing the views of the individual wearing the belt.
If there has been a history of conflict between these 2 individuals then it could be construed as a deliberately provocative act. If there has been no history of conflict then we are still not in a position to judge as we do not know if it is an expression of faith or not.
If we can establish that it is an expression of faith then I don’t think we have a problem.If we can establish that it isn’t an expression of faith and is just a fashion accessory then we have to consider the individuals freedom of expression.
If we are allowed to wear religious symbols in the work place, then surely this should extend to those of no faith as well. But on the other hand this belt couldn’t really be seen as a symbol of the individuals lack of faith (like the atheist “a” symbol) and it could be seen as a facetious attack on the Christian faith.
So to take a more pragmatic approach, and emphasising cooperation and respect between those of different beliefs, the individual could be approached at line manager level to see whether s/he would consider not wearing the belt.
It is important to emphasise that this isn’t a political correctness issue. The department shouldn’t be stipulating what any individual chooses to wear. But we have to respect that someone has taken offence and deal with this type of incident on a case by case basis. Hopefully the individual concerned will be gracious enough to accept that the item of clothing has caused offence and agree not to wear it.
So, the Jesus belt – a crime against religion or just a crime against fashion?
Since taking more of an interest in scepticism and reason, it is somewhat inevitable that eventually I would take a closer look at some of the beliefs I have held in the past in the new light of my improved rationalism.
I think I have always been sceptical of religion, more so as I have educated myself on the matter.
But when it comes to politics, like most people I’m sure I’m led by my heart as much as my head.
After a brief flirtation with the liberal democrats in my late teens, I went to university and became your typical lefty student involved with the Anti Nazi League, Anti Poll Tax, and Animal Rights movements.
I’m still broadly left wing but hope that my beliefs are more driven by reason than hippy idealism.
To look at me as a student, the word “hippy” wouldn’t have been far from your lips. I still hate to wear a shirt and tie, but I’ve never really liked the hippy label.
I think it really only applies to a specific time at the end of the 60’s and start of the 70’s when people were really motivated by radical social upheaval - the backdrop of Vietnam and the emergence of a distinctly new type of youth culture providing the impetus for genuine change.
But as the hippies grew up and went on to create multi-national ice cream companies, they left behind this legacy of a vague group of wishy washy individuals trying to meld some deeply held revolutionary convictions with a pick and mix eastern mysticism.
The guardian recently ran an article raising the importance of spirituality in the environmental movement.
Here are a couple of quotes:
The hippies were fond of speaking of Gaia, Mother Earth, as a living organism. But as the environmental debate eventually reached the ears of politicians and scientists, it moved away from talk of spirituality and began to concentrate solely on a rational, scientific analysis of the effects of climate change.
“Look at what realists have done for us. They have led us to war and climate change, poverty on an unimaginable scale, and wholesale ecological destruction. Half of humanity goes to bed hungry because of all the realistic leaders in the world. I tell people who call me ‘unrealistic’ to show me what their realism has done. Realism is an outdated, overplayed and wholly exaggerated concept.”
“Realists” seems to be a very broad category of people to blame for all the worlds ills. Any way, this was my response:
The implication here seems to be that if you aren’t “spiritual” then you don’t truly understand the needs of the planet.
I’m more of a rationalist, and at the same time as understanding the need for respecting the planet and moving towards a less consumer based society, I would also be sceptical of this wishy washy spiritualism that supposedly gives certain “enlightened” people a direct line to the earth’s “energies”.
Your spirituality may give you a sense of personal fulfilment and motivate you as a steward for the planet, but that doesn’t mean that the non-spiritual are any less capable.
I acknowledge that some spiritual leaders have some wise things to say about the planet, but I don’t get this reverence for spiritual wisdom above reason and evidence.
I loved the episode of Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit” where they got a load of people at some concert to unwittingly sign a petition against water. Sure - an emotion driven response will get you motivated to act - but I’m always going to want the facts somewhere down the line.
I was glad to see ASDA taking a stand against people who aren’t disabled using disabled parking spaces.
This is something that has annoyed me for years. It’s one of those areas where we can show our sense of ethics and social responsibility, by the way we choose to behave in public.
I really don’t know how people have the nerve to behave in such an inconsiderate manner. But then perhaps some people aren’t motivated by “doing the right thing”.
I wonder if you talked to these people would they think they were “good” people?
I actually once saw a car with the Jesus fish on the back misusing a disabled parking space! The question - what would Jesus do ? springs to mind. Now obviously you can’t tar everyone with the same brush, and their are plenty of good Christians as their are plenty of good atheists.
But their seems to be this assumption that if you are Christian that means you are “Good Living”. This is a very popular term here in Northern Ireland. It is generally taken to mean that you are someone who abstains from drink, doesn’t have sex before marriage (and very little after marriage), attends church regularly (wearing the right clothes), doesn’t swear…you get the idea. I don’t have a problem with people choosing to behave in this manner, but it doesn’t make you a “good” person - they are all personal choices that fit in with your faith, but have little meaning beyond that.
So it seems you can be “good living” and still park your 4×4 over the cycle lane outside the church on the Ravenhill Road in Belfast ( a regular occurrence every Sunday ), you can be “good living” and still park in a disabled spot, you can be “good living” and still shoot an abortion doctor, you can be “good living” and sectarian, you can be “good living” and homophobic…etc
If the church wants to promote “good living” they could start with social responsibility for their own congregation. I’m sure many churches do promote green issues, but as the main issue facing this planet you’d think the church would take more of a lead in encouraging us in reducing our consumption or driving smaller cars, but instead you get the likes of Joel Osteen with his prosperity theology telling us that god wants us to be rich.
As Ghandi said “The world has enough to satisfy every mans need but not every mans greed”
Well, I’m now going to demonstrate my “good living” by cycling home.
The ID debate in Lisburn boldly strides in to a New Year.
Another article in this weeks Ulster Star shows that the debate is far from over.
‘Teach Yourself Evolution’ by Dr. James Napier presents the reader with the challenge of deciding whether the evolution theory can sit within a religious framework.
That’s right - a book on evolution by a Lisburn writer!
Dr. Napier said after following the debate with great interest and reading widely on the topic he firmly believed a more balanced approach was needed.
“I hope that my readers will appreciate the sense of academic reasoning and debate presented in the book,” he added.
The text is part of the renowned ‘Teach yourself’ series published by Hodder Education.
Obviously I will reserve judgement until I’ve read it, but it looks like an interesting addition to the debate, especially here in Lisburn.
Taking offence is a funny notion. I find it hard to think of something that I would seriously take offence at, besides sexual, mental and physical abuse (not including boxing )
When I imagine someone taking offence I imagine them taking a sharp intake of breath and their heart missing a beat. But I find it hard to believe that this is what people are feeling when they say they have taken offence. It is more likely that people are more concerned about what an imagined more sensitive other might feel about the offensive statement.
This is one thing that the “new atheists” receive a lot of flack for. But out of the four main proponents of new atheism – Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens. Hitchens is the only one that I would say deliberately tries to provoke this type of reaction from his detractors, but even he does it with such humour that I find it hard to believe that people will take offence.
As for Dawkins, Dennett and Harris – calm, intellectually honest discourse is what I hear from them. I certainly don’t see them as raving fundamentalists.
The church has been beyond criticism for so long, that when somebody actually speaks up against it believers are going to be forced in to a defensive position and frame the argument as a debate between right and wrong. This could backfire on them significantly, especially if we freethinkers present ourselves in a courteous, reasoned manner. When they see atheists as ethical human beings then the right vs. wrong argument goes out of the window.
The term “Atheist” still strikes fear in to many, because of what their preconceived notions of an atheist are. If the believers can accept that atheists can be good people then maybe they may start to pay attention to what we are actually saying, and not just “take offence”
No idea should be beyond criticism, if you are not open to your ideas being challenged then I would say that you don’t hold those ideas strongly enough. All I want from believers is intellectual honesty – so when you say to me that you are offended – be honest with me now – did you take that sharp intake of breath?
The “war on christmas” comes to the UK and with it comes a new word - “Christianophobia”. I’m not sure if just sticking “ophobia” on the end of a word is a legitimate way of creating a new philosophy.
Undoubtedly, many gay people found the use of the word homophobia empowering, and it allowed them to focus the attention of the public on the attitudes of the anti gay and their inadequacies rather than the other way round.
But tagging the term on to the word christian is just a crass attempt to paint christians as some oppressed minority, and i’m sorry but I just don’t buy it.
Winter festivals predate christianity by centuarys. So if anyone has cause for complaint it’s the Pagans.
Mark Pritchard imagines a secularist conspiracy hell bent on forcing a politically correct festive season on us. But like most stories concerning political correctness it’s either grossly exaggerated or entirely made up.
In fact the research showed almost the opposite, but you wouldn’t know it from the extremely misleading reporting by the Telegraph:
The results showed 64% of the primary schools they surveyed were
putting on a religious nativity play, the headlines about only one in
five were based on taking only what they called “traditional” nativity
plays, excluding all the modern versions.
So if the three wise men do a rap it’s not counted.
Generally I don’t think people are motivated by a sense of political correctness. What they are doing is reflecting the increasingly secualr nature of this society.
Call it Christmas if you want, I couldn’t care less - you could call it solstice, yule, festivmas, the holidays. Whatever your preference is I don’t care. What I do care about is the government favouring one belief system above another. Let the church / businesses / individuals define Christmas any way they want - the state shouldn’t have a role in it.
I was happy to see this article on the Lisburn Star web site.
Just goes to show that even teachers who want religion to be part of their school life still think that ID is a load of crap.
THE Principal of St Patrick’s High School, Dr Seamus Quinn, has expressed his “incredulity and amazement” at recent correspondence from Lisburn City Council encouraging the school to teach the theory of Creationism as an alternative to evolution in science classes.
“My understanding is that no arm of Lisburn City Council has responsibility for any aspect of education within the City.
“It is my understanding that matters to do with educational planning lie with individual schools, the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) and the Department of Education.
“While Lisburn City Council’s Corporate Services Committee may be a powerful, august body, it has no responsibility or authority to request that schools plan to teach a non-scientific concept as part of a scientific discipline.”
Dr Quinn, stressing that he was not attacking any denomination in Northern Ireland, continued: “St Patrick’s is not and will not be teaching in our science classes the religious dogma of certain fundamentalist Christian Sects from America who are promoting their own agenda.
“Lisburn wants to be known as a centre of educational excellence and not a medieval and inward looking town,” he concluded.
Good man Dr Quinn. Hopefully the article will make it in to the paper on Friday.
