Friends of the Blog-o-sphere, and indeed friends of the real world...hello! It has been many a month since I last dabbled with the world of The UnCritical Thinker, and for that, I am not entirely sorry. Why, you may ask, would this very notion of blog-related abandonment not bring me to tears? The reason for that, is that I have just, as of around about 12.30pm on Monday October 25, in the Year of Our Lord, 2010, just handed in the final hard-copies of my thesis. It has been the main object of this last year of academic work and examined the topic of the separation of religion and the state within a political-philosophical construct. I examined the writing of John Locke and Wilhelm von Humboldt in order to provide said political-philosophical arguments, as well as some key Biblical texts to provide a look into the key materials around which the Enlightenment thinkers developed their arguments. As it stands, I have been thinking of nothing else for the last few months, and so it was an exercise in discipline and prioritising that I have stayed away from 'le Blog'. Despite my lengthy digression, I will now return to the particular point of this post.
I just read over the blog post Christendom Schmistendom (http://stephlentz.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/christendom-schmistendom/) written by one of my friends from church, and as per her request, have spent some time considering/replying to her concepts and ideas. As I started writing this response, it occurred to me that it was going to end up as another of my typical miniature essays, so why not put it up on my blog, says I. So here we are...
Steph's blog relates to the notion of living in a society in which Christian morals and ethics are/are not the accepted norm, and indeed whether it is a good thing that we no longer live in this kind of a state of affairs, know as Christendom. My response deals not only with the arguments contained in Christendom Schmistendom, but also an element of "where to from here?" for the Christian and the church as a whole, in relation to the points contained within the original text.
Personally, I think that there certainly are benefits and detractions from living in a Christianised society. In fact, I don't even know if that's the right way to express what I mean. Some of it is selfish ponderings of 'how I wish society was like X', and some is perhaps more considered...
The key detractions and negative side-effects of living in Christendom, I believe, are provided throughout the history of European Christianity, in which the church was intrinsically linked with the relevant State. It was a problem of people living 'like' Christians, but not living 'as' Christians in that their words and voices praised God, but the desires of their hearts were placed on anything but loving God and serving his people. There was hypocrisy and cruelty in the church, which ensured that it lost its position as a social and moral authority. The most extreme form of this which jumps to mind, was perhaps the state of affairs in Bourbon France up until the French Revolution in the late 18th Century, where the state-supported Roman Catholic Church copped the brunt of a disillusioned, angry and frustrated nation. Churches were looted and destroyed, priests and other clergy murdered, and a Cult of Reason established in Notre Dame cathedral. The absence of a changed heart and the development of an attitude focussed on God will undeniably, and potentially irrevocably, damage the potential of Christianity to act as an authority, and I think we can see from many examples more recent than the 1700s of how this has played out.
I do not, however, think that the notion of Christendom is perhaps doomed entirely. Or, at the very least, we shouldn't write it off entirely. I'm certainly not condoning a return to the European state of affairs (as I'm sure you can figure out for yourselves), but neither am I suggesting that the Christian/the churches should stay out of the affairs of government and society, and only interact with non-Christians at an inter-personal level, or in the form of reactionary sound-bites from the church hierarchy directed at venom-fuelled comments made by critics and commentators about the church and its activities...
In the middle somewhere is where I think we should try and place ourselves. Classic Gen Y, Facebook 'maybe attending' status update kind of response I hear you say. Au contraire! I think to take up the middle ground on this issue is appropriate and necessary.
In regard to the former, and the notion of a deeply established involvement by the church in the operations of the State. I believe that this form of church involvement is not at all what God intended for when he issued direction as to how the Christian and the church ought to interact with the realm of government. I think this arrangement will, invariably, lead to more harm than good. I won't bore you with the particular details of my thesis, but I think the argument for the separation of religion from the state does not exist predominantly from the perspective of 'for the State', but actually 'for the church' or more specifically, 'for the Christian'. Summary point: government of the State does not correspond with the role of the church, therefore, end result does not look promising
Regarding the latter notion, that the church and Christians should sit behind a 'wall of separation' and leave the running of the State to the elected officials, whose best interests are always that of the nation, and whose personal beliefs will never factor into decisions...*cough*...not withstanding that little display of political cynicism, I do believe that it is the duty of Christians to be involved in the operation of the State in which they find themselves. As equal citizens, we have every right to be involved in the political process, and our voice is just as legitimate as those who preach the opposite message. Simply having and voicing an opinion does not correlate with forcing religion upon others. I would go so far as to say that it is our obligation to make our voice heard. If we can make the State a better reflection of God's purposes for humanity and this is in fact helping our fellow-citizens, and not harming them, then I would think of this as a good thing.
(Train of thought side note: It has occurred to me over the course of my thesis writing that meeting a balance between democratic liberalism and Christianity is perhaps harder than it might appear at face value. Perhaps a topic for another day and another blog...)
It seems to me that finding the middle ground of political involvement without government/State attachment is perhaps easier for the church to achieve and harder for the State/the people to accept. This attitude is certainly framed by the Sydney Anglican experience, where I think we find a highly intelligent and intellectual (not the same thing) diocese, at the level of both the leadership and the members. There are an assortment of means through which Christians in Sydney can, and do, engage with the government and the public alike. Particular examples that jump to mind would be things like the Diocese's "Social Issues Executive" and the Centre for Public Christianity (CPX). I haven't really dwelt much on whether we (as Christians) in Sydney are actually doing a good job/whether we're being effective in our mission, but I think we've at least got some things right in that both the Diocese and individuals are trying to find ways to engage with the community and influence the public morality and ethics framework as well as raising awareness in regard to Christianity and its relevance, whilst not attacking the beliefs and attitudes of our fellow-citizens.
I think I've about hit the end of my current and undeveloped thoughts on the topic, but as usual, post any responses and questions below. Make me think a bit more about what I've said here, because if it's indefensible, well then I probably shouldn't hold the position...
Hopefully I won't be so tardy in keeping you all updated over the next little while, so check back soon comrades!
Monday, October 25, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Irony, atheism and analysis
I experienced a moment of great irony this morning as I walked through university. Campus Bible Study has recently started its typical Second Semester Mission on campus. One of the activities involved in this is something called soapboxing. For the purposes of Sem2 mission, basically it involves standing on a milk-crate somewhere public (in this instance the Science Lawn just off the main walkway) and giving your testimony of how you came to have a relationship with God. The idea is that it’s a public way to discuss one’s faith and hopefully people will stop and listen to what’s being said. The aforementioned ironic moment that coincided with this little tangential story however, was that as I walked past where this soapboxing was occurring, one of the other students walking past looked up, shook his head and muttered ‘...Jesus Christ!...’ and kept on going. I don’t think I need to explain why I found this ironic and quite humorous at the time – it truly does ‘speak’ for itself.
Mission this semester is being run under the title of ‘Living for Nothing?’ and addresses the New Atheist movement in particular, looking at the claims that they make and addressing ideas such as that Jesus never existed (something extraordinarily claimed by Christopher Hitchens in his book God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything), is there truth out there, the problems with religion, can I be good without God and what sort of evidence is there for God? In essence, the purpose of the different talks and outreach events is to challenge people in regards to what they believe, why they believe it and to consider Jesus and Christianity as a viable and worthwhile system that deserves consideration.
To coincide with this, as well as just to develop my personal understanding of the arguments and issues at hand, I’ve recently been reading Christopher Hitchens’ book (that I mentioned just above). It seems to me that a lot has been said and written about Hitchens, Dawkins et al and the issues that they raise are significant enough to necessitate public debate and have translated into very sizeable book sales for most of the relevant parties. Instead of taking the approach of the New Atheists and not actually engaging with the issues at hand, but simply bad-mouthing everything that has ever been associated with your opponent, I thought it would be better at a personal and academic level to actually read their books and address their areas of concern and criticism – giving them the respect they’ve denied to world religions. This area of respect is a key difference in what make the New Atheists actually ‘new’. Hitchens is a self-professed anti-theist, not simply an atheist, so his mission is essentially to wipe religion from the world’s collective existence and memory. He, exceedingly arrogantly, concludes that religion is something only for the foolish people of yesteryear and that great minds such as himself are above such things. The general attitude from he and his peers such as Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University is that religion is unnecessary, foolish and a detriment to society. They would prefer a world in which reason, logic and science were the governing influences on people’s minds, not the supposedly irrelevant, fabricated, violent, illogical and irrational un-truths of religion.
The argument to be made here is of course that religion (or at least the Reformed Evangelical Christianity to which I subscribe) would argue that belief is actually something that is both rational and logical, as well as being supported by clear evidence. I, personally, wouldn’t say that you can ‘prove’ God exists, but equally nor can you ‘prove’ that He doesn’t exist. Despite the claims of the New Atheists to have done the impossible and disproven God’s existence, what they have really done is presented evidence as to why He may not exist, and if He does, why they don’t really like the version of God that they’ve created in their minds. What they deal with, for the most part, is not the God of the Bible. I can’t speak for those of other faiths, but I certainly don’t think the God that Dawkins, Hitchens and the like argue against is who we see in the Bible.
On this topic, whilst I wouldn’t pretend that I could somehow ‘defeat’ the academics and intellectuals that make up the New Atheist movement, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t engage in empirical, rational, logical and respectful debate or discussion. What we’re undertaking isn’t a matter of shouting down the opposing attitudes; it’s one of mature, respectful, thought out, fundamentally intellectual process of examining what evidence we have and critically analysing the arguments presented by both sides. If the intention of the New Atheists is to get people to use their books, speeches and other literature as evidence against religion, well then it seems only fair that we address each of their claims on the basis of their reliability and accuracy as well. Just because a book is written by an atheist doesn’t therefore make it beyond textual analysis. In fact, if they project themselves as the bearers of truth and salvation from the drudgery and idiocy of religion, then surely they are deserving of greater criticism and investigation.
One good thing that I feel has come out of the attacks launched by the New Atheists in regards to the Christian church and worldview is that it has encouraged internal reassessment and examination of what is going on in the particular system. For instance, the attacks upon the historical reliability of the Gospels and of Jesus have meant that more work is being done in regard to these (I would hold) historical truths. If people want to take a better look at Jesus and his teachings, then I’m all in favour of it. Even if their conclusions are that what Jesus said wasn’t true, wasn’t for them or what have you, at least they’ve then actually considered the arguments that are being presented before them, not simply writing them off because some crazy, right-wing bloke from the deep south of America was quoted on the news saying that ‘God hates fags’ (Westboro Baptist Church) or other such inflammatory and frankly un-Biblical attitudes. I’ve previously written here at the UnCritical Thinker about the benefits of generous reading of texts, and I think a similar principle can be applied to the Bible. Christians are unfortunately what the Bible will be judged by. We aren’t perfect. Some people might seem to claim that they are, but well, they’re wrong. If something seems a bit odd (in a good or bad way) then check it out. That applies as much to Christians as it does to anyone else. Don’t let preachers get complacent. Read the Bible yourselves. We’ve been given the great gift since the Reformation in the 16th Century that we can read the Bible in our own language and try and grapple with its truths, so just do it. Challenge people on what they think, why they think it, and where it can be found in the Bible.
Even though many people won’t judge Christianity off the Bible or from what Jesus said about himself, I think this is the best way in which to get an understanding of what it is that Christians belief and stand for. Likewise, I fully intend to read through the works of New Atheists, and be challenged by what they have to say, but with the intention to understand what it is that they are arguing for and against. From this basis I can then present a more informed and accurate analysis of what it is that they say and what they stand for. The critics will probably get a lot of things right, and probably get a lot of things wrong, but I am confident that they have not in the slightest bit ‘proven’ that God is not real and that he is not relevant today. With this is mind, I thought I might address some of the different claims that Hitchens makes as I read through his book and share my thoughts with you here on the UnCritical Thinker. I’m looking forward to it, so keep tuned for progress reports.
Mission this semester is being run under the title of ‘Living for Nothing?’ and addresses the New Atheist movement in particular, looking at the claims that they make and addressing ideas such as that Jesus never existed (something extraordinarily claimed by Christopher Hitchens in his book God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything), is there truth out there, the problems with religion, can I be good without God and what sort of evidence is there for God? In essence, the purpose of the different talks and outreach events is to challenge people in regards to what they believe, why they believe it and to consider Jesus and Christianity as a viable and worthwhile system that deserves consideration.
To coincide with this, as well as just to develop my personal understanding of the arguments and issues at hand, I’ve recently been reading Christopher Hitchens’ book (that I mentioned just above). It seems to me that a lot has been said and written about Hitchens, Dawkins et al and the issues that they raise are significant enough to necessitate public debate and have translated into very sizeable book sales for most of the relevant parties. Instead of taking the approach of the New Atheists and not actually engaging with the issues at hand, but simply bad-mouthing everything that has ever been associated with your opponent, I thought it would be better at a personal and academic level to actually read their books and address their areas of concern and criticism – giving them the respect they’ve denied to world religions. This area of respect is a key difference in what make the New Atheists actually ‘new’. Hitchens is a self-professed anti-theist, not simply an atheist, so his mission is essentially to wipe religion from the world’s collective existence and memory. He, exceedingly arrogantly, concludes that religion is something only for the foolish people of yesteryear and that great minds such as himself are above such things. The general attitude from he and his peers such as Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University is that religion is unnecessary, foolish and a detriment to society. They would prefer a world in which reason, logic and science were the governing influences on people’s minds, not the supposedly irrelevant, fabricated, violent, illogical and irrational un-truths of religion.
The argument to be made here is of course that religion (or at least the Reformed Evangelical Christianity to which I subscribe) would argue that belief is actually something that is both rational and logical, as well as being supported by clear evidence. I, personally, wouldn’t say that you can ‘prove’ God exists, but equally nor can you ‘prove’ that He doesn’t exist. Despite the claims of the New Atheists to have done the impossible and disproven God’s existence, what they have really done is presented evidence as to why He may not exist, and if He does, why they don’t really like the version of God that they’ve created in their minds. What they deal with, for the most part, is not the God of the Bible. I can’t speak for those of other faiths, but I certainly don’t think the God that Dawkins, Hitchens and the like argue against is who we see in the Bible.
On this topic, whilst I wouldn’t pretend that I could somehow ‘defeat’ the academics and intellectuals that make up the New Atheist movement, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t engage in empirical, rational, logical and respectful debate or discussion. What we’re undertaking isn’t a matter of shouting down the opposing attitudes; it’s one of mature, respectful, thought out, fundamentally intellectual process of examining what evidence we have and critically analysing the arguments presented by both sides. If the intention of the New Atheists is to get people to use their books, speeches and other literature as evidence against religion, well then it seems only fair that we address each of their claims on the basis of their reliability and accuracy as well. Just because a book is written by an atheist doesn’t therefore make it beyond textual analysis. In fact, if they project themselves as the bearers of truth and salvation from the drudgery and idiocy of religion, then surely they are deserving of greater criticism and investigation.
One good thing that I feel has come out of the attacks launched by the New Atheists in regards to the Christian church and worldview is that it has encouraged internal reassessment and examination of what is going on in the particular system. For instance, the attacks upon the historical reliability of the Gospels and of Jesus have meant that more work is being done in regard to these (I would hold) historical truths. If people want to take a better look at Jesus and his teachings, then I’m all in favour of it. Even if their conclusions are that what Jesus said wasn’t true, wasn’t for them or what have you, at least they’ve then actually considered the arguments that are being presented before them, not simply writing them off because some crazy, right-wing bloke from the deep south of America was quoted on the news saying that ‘God hates fags’ (Westboro Baptist Church) or other such inflammatory and frankly un-Biblical attitudes. I’ve previously written here at the UnCritical Thinker about the benefits of generous reading of texts, and I think a similar principle can be applied to the Bible. Christians are unfortunately what the Bible will be judged by. We aren’t perfect. Some people might seem to claim that they are, but well, they’re wrong. If something seems a bit odd (in a good or bad way) then check it out. That applies as much to Christians as it does to anyone else. Don’t let preachers get complacent. Read the Bible yourselves. We’ve been given the great gift since the Reformation in the 16th Century that we can read the Bible in our own language and try and grapple with its truths, so just do it. Challenge people on what they think, why they think it, and where it can be found in the Bible.
Even though many people won’t judge Christianity off the Bible or from what Jesus said about himself, I think this is the best way in which to get an understanding of what it is that Christians belief and stand for. Likewise, I fully intend to read through the works of New Atheists, and be challenged by what they have to say, but with the intention to understand what it is that they are arguing for and against. From this basis I can then present a more informed and accurate analysis of what it is that they say and what they stand for. The critics will probably get a lot of things right, and probably get a lot of things wrong, but I am confident that they have not in the slightest bit ‘proven’ that God is not real and that he is not relevant today. With this is mind, I thought I might address some of the different claims that Hitchens makes as I read through his book and share my thoughts with you here on the UnCritical Thinker. I’m looking forward to it, so keep tuned for progress reports.
Friday, June 4, 2010
I'm a Sydney Anglican...and fiercely proud of it!
For the more astute of you, two things will have just become apparent to you. The first is that I have not engaged in the battle of words that is blogging over the last few weeks/months. To deal with this point first of all, my apologies to you all! It has been that time of year when assessments and the like have come pouring over those of us who are studying, and consequently, I have been a bit snowed under. On the plus side, it has given me plenty of time to think and write and to formulate some ideas, which hopefully can now be adequately and effectively communicated. To return to my initial statement, there was a second point that some of you might have picked up from the title of this blog. I don’t know if any of you out there are Monty Python fans, but I plucked that line from The Meaning of Life, where the since sadly passed Graham Chapman sits in his plush arm chair looking out the window at some poor children trudging past on their way to be used for medical experiments (just watch it. It makes sense...sort of). As they do so, he mutters to himself/his wife some things to the effect of “Bloody Catholics filling up the bloody world with their bloody children”, to which his wife asks “Well, what are we then?” and his (paraphrased above) response is “Protestant! And fiercely proud of it!”
The point of this half-mad reminiscing of days of brilliant, vodka-fuelled comedic shenanigans gets at a somewhat more meaningful area of discussion however. The particular bent of this blog is my increasing frustration at those brothers and sisters of mine who (it seems) feel that they have to qualify their attendance at brilliant, Bible-based churches with the comment “Yeah, I’m a...” *air quotation marks* “...Sydney Anglican” (since when has that been a bad thing?)...GASP! Shock horror! What is the world coming to when people want to go to churches that try to faithfully preach the word to as many people as possible, both here in Australia and abroad? I appreciate that there are certain stereotypes that come with being a ‘Sydney Anglican’ that not everyone feels comfortable with, or don’t think really fits their view on things, and I get that, but it seems to me, for all the potential negatives, there is a far greater range of good. I’m not arguing that everyone should just suck it up and agree with whatever the church happens to say or do, but I find it incredibly frustrating that people seem to feel that it’s embarrassing to be associated with the Sydney diocese despite regularly attending services at churches that fall under its heading. I was not raised in the Anglican church, and I have no pretentions to its perfection or otherwise, but what I am is fiercely proud to be a part of it and its mission to bring the word to people in Sydney, Australia and the world.
The gift that we have here in Sydney in the form of great teaching, training and preaching from a range of pastors and academics is – I am willing to go out on a limb and say – almost second to none across the world when it comes to evangelical, reformed, Protestant Christianity. The work of the church in passing on this training to future generations has been enabled through means such as Moore College, their involvement in university campus groups such as Sydney University’s EU and UNSWs CBS (even though both are technically non-denominational, the influence is undoubtedly strong), Anglican Youthworks and Matthias Media. Using that wonderful, totally non-academic tool that is Wikipedia, under the ‘Sydney Anglican Culture’ heading on the Anglican Diocese of Sydney page, in addition to those things that I’ve just listed, there was also Katoomba Christian Convention, the Ministry Training Strategy and the Church Ministry Society – all phenomenal ways in which the word of God has travelled across the world and been taught boldly and faithfully, and an indication of the direction that the Anglican church in Sydney looks towards.
This is the sort of organisation that I want to be a part of. A church that bases its doctrine off the Bible, off the word of God as is given to us and with an outward, evangelical focus that aims to bring more people to a knowledge and love of Jesus. If this means that I’m branded as a conservative because of the way I treat God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Bible and then how I choose to live my life, well I can take that. If someone was to say “you guys don’t preach the Spirit enough. You focus too much on an academic approach to God. It’s too dry”, I’d try and take that on board as I move forward, looking for personal and general shortcomings in the church’s ministry and seeing where we can all improve. There are certainly areas that are not taught on as often as others, as with any church anywhere across the globe, but I will not apologise for what I believe or for the church that I am a part of. It is truly humbling to be a part of a movement such as ours that can reach so many people in so many ways and so incredibly effectively. I don’t ask people to stop questioning the motives and direction of the church – please, keep it accountable so that we might all be lifted up – but brothers and sisters, do not be ashamed of what we belong to.
Finally, a warning. Let us not fall into arrogance, thinking that this is a case of “look at what we’ve done, aren’t we great?” but by all means be proud in what has been achieved, be filled with joy for the gift that we have been given is a great one that can reach out and touch people’s lives and impact them in ways we don’t understand. Look at what the church in our great city has done and be proud of that. Not that we have done it ourselves, but with God’s help. Be proud of what we can achieve when God is with us. The church is doing good work, so let us actively and prayerfully work together to make it better and to help it bring the message of God to many more people across Sydney and the world.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Generosity - an academic construct?
By means of an explanation of the stated concept of generosity, I must take you back to March of this year. In the first class of one of my subjects this semester at university, our lecturer/tutor/what have you discussed the notion of being ‘generous’ in the way we read texts and deal with arguments; something I found rather intriguing. I think at some levels it is a bit old hat, but it was a really great reminder to treat other people’s arguments with respect and balance. What she was referring to was in essence trying to get inside the mind of the theorist whose work we were reading. Be generous in that if you can try and empathise with their position and what they’re trying to express, that would make your analysis somewhat more developed and even handed. I thought that this was really interesting because of what I’ve found in theoretical analysis we, as the respondent, tend to just look at a text at its face value and pick out small areas of the argument and tar the rest of what they have to say with the umbrage that we have built up against them.
Further to this, for those who find the concept of blogging pretentious, self-absorbed and generally wrong, I hear you. Whilst I am fundamentally writing this for my own benefit, I am essentially acting like the remora to the shark – attaching myself for the ride, costing the world nothing, and gaining for myself transportation. In this case the transport that I’m mooching is for my ideas to get to those people who would have an interest in reading them and hopefully giving me some manner of feedback, which can only help in developing these ideas further, reassessing where I may have missed something or been completely wrong. To reiterate, please, be generous.
Another, perhaps more outwardly focussed take on the issue of academic and critical generosity that jumps to mind for me is the response to the works of the New Atheist movement. As a Christian, I naturally have a vested interest in a movement who declares that ‘God is dead’ and that religion is essentially the cause of all evil, therefore it is to be discounted and rejected on all fronts. I think a lot of defences or attacks upon religion and atheism are conducted in a way that is fundamentally rash and lacking in this concept of academic generosity. If either side of the argument is to actually provide an even-handed, justified position, I would find it difficult to accept a case that is utterly dismissive of any fault in their own behaviour and logic. Such a criticism can be levelled at either party, and I feel that if more people within each side of the debate were to allow for more generosity (as it is here defined) then there would not be such a need for the venom that seems to coincide with any minor disagreement over worldviews.
To illustrate my point I would refer to both the criticisms levelled for and against. Firstly, many of the criticisms which popular atheism would level against religion I would argue are essentially one-eyed and biased in the extreme. Take for instance the arguments in regard to the death and destruction caused by, or in the name of certain religions. Clear instances are wars such as the Crusades, where under the banner of the cross and the war cry of deus vult (God wills it), thousands of soldiers from the great European empires tore through the Levant, murdering, pillaging, raping and burning. Clearly none of these actions are reflective of Christian theology which preaches the two greatest commands as to love God with all your heart, soul and mind, and to love your neighbour as yourself (Matthew 22:36-40, Mark 12:28-31 and Luke 10:25-28). Similarly, the religious persecutions during this time – the Inquisition, burning of heretics and the like – are indelible marks against the church that cannot be overlooked. That all being said, the greatest mass-murderers of history have all come out of 20th Century atheism – Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Between them, tens of millions of men, women and children lost their lives in war, death camps and genocide. Simply in terms of scope, the damage done by these four men is far worse than any other event in all time. The simple existence of widespread death and destruction is not simply a religious construct; it is seen to be a human construct that will appear irrespective of that particular individual’s attitude towards God. Much like the faults of Christianity over history, neither can the glaring mistakes of atheism be ignored.
As much as this kind of evidence raises questions of both religion and atheism, taking a generous stance to the points raised would mean that these claims are taken seriously and responded to. I cannot speak for the atheist perspective, as it is not one that I would feel appropriate representing, but in terms of Christianity, it is important that such levelled criticisms are not simply ignored. We cannot hide from the reality of the destruction that has been done in the name of God, whether in war or in the treatment of ethnic minorities and children (or anything else for that matter). There have been, and will be all manner of faults within the community of Christians given our nature as sinful humans living in a broken world. We are not perfect; we cannot be perfect by our own efforts. This does not mean that we accept failings such as those of which we are criticised for. By assuming the church’s infallibility (as some are want to do), this ignores and rejects legitimate criticisms that need to be dealt with. The generous way to respond to the arguments of the modern-day atheist movement is not to sweep them under the rug, but approach them on their merits, accept fault where fault is found and work to improve the situation.
Willkommen!
First and foremost, I feel that it is important to provide some manner of context to this exploration into the world of blogging. A rationale if you will. In short, I have started this blog as a means of compiling my thoughts as they present themselves, and similarly putting them to others to read and respond to, hopefully in a way that is positive yet critical. I am someone who enjoys thinking through issues of academic significance, be that political, philosophical, historical, social or theological and it with this in mind that I frame my future posts. While not limiting myself to these areas, it is probably a good indication of where my thoughts will lead my writing. It is my object to make these posts as developed, structured and thought out as I can, but I think for the sake of equity and fairness, the good old Aussie notion of a ‘fair go’ is what I will stress for following discussion. Some things may simply be the sum of my thoughts at a time on an issue; others may be more established over a longer period and therefore more theoretically developed. That being said, I warmly encourage positive-minded contributions to this forum. I hope you will all find something interesting to come out of here at some stage or another and that some of these posts will get you thinking and get the old grey matter buzzing with all manner of ‘stuff’. I think the mind is a wonderful thing, and it is a shame to let thoughts and ideas go to waste. How can we fully actualise our minds potential if we don’t develop these ideas fully? I feel that a great way of doing that is in an environment of constructive debate and questioning, and thus, ladies and gentlemen, the UnCritical Thinker begins!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)