Humphrys in search of God

John Humphrys talks to religious leaders about his unfulfilled desire to believe in God on R4 (here) tues am. In this mornings program his guest is the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams and next week will be Professor Tariq Ramadan, Muslim academic and author. I believe the talk is worth listening to again if the BBC provide that facility in the course of time. Of particular interest to me in this weeks discussion was the subject of religion in geo-politics. Also discussed was the nature of God and whether God is an interventionist? What purpose does prayer serve (if God is not an interventionist) and if you have difficulty believing and die, what happens to you? (see the transcript here)

George Bush: intelligent design??

No beating about the Bush

RELIGION was branded "stupefying" by a professor during a fierce debate at the Cambridge Union.

Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens and Cambridge philosopher and author Prof Simon Blackburn battled it out over the motion "This House Believes That Religion is the Opiate of the Masses".

Other speakers included Gurpreet Bhatti, author of the play Behzti, which depicts murder and rape in a Sikh temple. It sparked violence and was dropped by Birmingham's Repertory Theatre in 2004.

In opposition, Prof Blackburn said: "Religion stupefies your understanding. There is nothing beyond man's interpretation of religion. I am an equal opportunities atheist. I find it implausible the whole design of the universe would conspire to create George Bush."

Gurpreet Bhatti said: "People use many things to avoid reality, religion is not the only one. It's not the message that is at fault, it's the messenger."

The motion failed.

Dancing on the graves of the brave

Can this comment on Newmania's blog be true?? Judge for yourself:

Why would bodysnatcher Harman pose as the enemy of money grabbing local authorities? I can't imagine any possible reason which doesn't ultimately have money or power in it for Harman an co.

This is the Minister who pushed through the initiative giving local and church authorities the right (imperative?) to steal graves and to dig other ancestors' mortal remains - even those of our our parents for money. Such remains should be 'compacted' said Harriet and reburied deeper to allow the plot to be resold to the families of the several others who must share plots there.

One short note on what compaction entails. I understand it means chucking what's left of our family members into the large grinders used in Crems, where the remains are ground into pellets the size of cat litter.

Some may argue that this is a perfectly rational way to treat our ancestors and family in these days when construction land comes at a premium and every bit of green space is being grabbed for development.

However, most cemetaries are much needed green spaces and wildlife areas.

More important, In common with our country's rich heritage of old villages, historic towns, old churches and listed buildings, Cemetaries and old graves are one of UK's most vital attractions to overseas visitors who's family and/or ancestors were born - and died - here.

The availability of the UK censuses (1841-1901) and the BMD indexes online and greater accessiblity of 4-500 year old parish registers during the past few years has resulted in a huge boom in family historians and resultant tourism.

How big is the potential tourist market for the UK? Massive. When the British 1901 census was released online it received around 20 million hits an hour, the most from overseas - and crashed under the strain.

Ms Harman's government's short sighted policy of mass migration and concreting over UK will not only destroy the reason for much of that tourism, it will force many of us to leave our country. yet does she give a toss about that? No way - as long as her government's raking it in.

Catholic witch hunt or bid for truth?

KENILWORTH, 12 SEPTEMBER 2006 — A threat to out gay Catholic priests and bishops in Scotland has been condemned as a 21st-century witch-hunt by the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA).

The threat comes from a group of Catholics called Catholic Truth, which is based in Edinburgh. Catholic Truth says it will “name and shame” homosexual clergy as part of its “heavenly witness protection programme”.

In its widely-read newsletter, the group says it is currently investigating the extent of homosexuality among priests and bishops in the Church north of the border, claiming that exposing homosexuality within the upper ranks of the Church would be a “great work of charity”.

Catholic Truth also makes a connection between homosexuality and paedophilia. The newsletter calls on its readers to out senior churchmen who they suspect may be gay. It also says: “We do not want you to contact us merely to give us information ... but then insist that we keep it to ourselves. ... If you give us information that we find is credible and trustworthy, then we will make it public.”

Patricia McKeever, who edits the newsletter, told the Glasgow-based paper The Sunday Herald: “The key objective behind naming homosexual priests and bishops is to raise awareness of the problem within the Scottish Church, ultimately to ensure the safety of others in the Church. Not just the physical safety of children, important though that is, but also the spiritual safety of people and congregations entrusted to the care of a homosexual priest or bishop.”

She said she had received information on gay priests in at least two dioceses and one other Church institution.

Catholic Truth, based in Edinburgh’s Princes Street, seeks to restore “traditional” Catholicism in Scotland. It has previously criticised safe-sex messages in schools and condemned liberal Catholics. When Cardinal Keith O’Brien declined to support Bishop Devine’s view that homosexuals should not be allowed to teach in Catholic schools, Catholic Truth accused him of being “unfit” for office and demanded his resignation.

George Broadhead, secretary of GALHA, said: “This is a 21st-century witch-hunt. People who are innocent of any kind of misdeed could find themselves on the website of this obnoxious organisation being condemned by association as paedophiles. This malevolent woman must be stopped before she causes enormous harm to innocent people. We hope that the Catholic hierarchy in Scotland will distance itself from this truly revolting campaign. However, given its own rampant homophobia, we don’t hold out much hope.”
Repost: : GALHA Homepage

What should be on the national curriculum?

And what is a good citizen? Simply one who never says, does or thinks anything that is unusual. Schools are maintained in order to bring this uniformity up to the highest possible point. A school is a hopper into which children are heaved while they are still young and tender; therein they are pressed into certain standard shapes and covered from head to heels with official rubber stamps. - Henry Louis Mencken

But should they be pressed into sex, religion or cooking? What should we be teaching in schools?

In Scotland on Sunday, Sun 21 May 2006, it was reported that:

OFFICIAL guidance on how to teach Scottish schoolchildren about gay sex is being issued for the first time since the abolition of laws which banned "promoting" homosexuality in schools.

Teachers will be told they can discuss issues including safe gay sex and where to get advice on homosexual relationships, in a move which has already set religious groups and health professionals at loggerheads.

Senior health officials have told Scotland on Sunday the current sex education guidelines need to be expanded because they are "heterosexist".

But the move has been condemned by the Catholic Church in Scotland as "appalling, outrageous and utterly unnecessary".

The guidelines come six years after the massive row over 'Section 2A', which - after months of bitter argument - saw the abolition of laws that effectively prevented teachers discussing gay sex education.

Health officials have now admitted that sex education guidelines written after the 2000 repeal of Section 2A - the Scottish version of the law known as Section 28 south of the Border - did not include homosexuality, because of the political sensitivity over the issue at the time.

Scotland on Sunday can now reveal that the Sexual Health and Relationships Education (SHARE) sex education programme is being amended to include gay sex.

More on this soon but as I see it we have a problem with teenage pregnancy and obesity. In schools they teach sex ed but not cooking...... duh??

newmania said:October 1, 2006 10:58 PM permalink
Mr. TARGET- How interesting . Perhaps you would ask you good friend god to explain some things that have been bothering me
1 If god is responsible for moral law he either picked it arbitrarily ( so murder might be good ) or it pre dated him , so he did nothing .Only if you can believe that murder could be good if god said so can you believe god is responsible for moral law . If he is not , then what is the point of him.( I read this in Bertrand Russell but he is quoting someone.. J S Mills I think ) 2The unmoved mover : A concept that predates knowledge of infinite sequences. 3 When the heliocentric Solar system replaced the Ptolemaic it was clear which was right because the former required vastly less assumptions to `justify` the same observations . Thus if we can explain everything we see without an outside force we must prefer this simpler explanation as requiring less to explain the same . An argument from `beauty ` if you like 4 As an explanation of complexity ( the implication of the watch is the watchmaker) the problem is only once removed . So the 18th century apologists did not see that requiring an explanation for complexity in the universe was no more or less logical than requiring an explanation of the complexity of God containing whithin him this possibility . In other words the problem is the same with or without ( see 3 above) 5`What is the meaning of life then?` a stumbling block for many that is really mostly a semantic error . Not all sequences of words that fit received grammar are meaningful . For example . ( outside poetry ) . What colour is prayer ? ..is meaningless as Colour is not a property of prayer . How drunk is a mountain and so on . Apply the word meaning to other objects . What is the meaning of a mountain .. gibberish , what is the meaning of a hammer ... almost works . In fact only `words`/ linguistic utterances have meaning as a property so `explained purpose` for which meaning is shorthand can be substituted. Try hammer again . What is the explained purpose of a hammer ? Aha it is to knock in nails . So a hammer has `meaning ` . On the other hand `What is the purpose of a mountain` , Is equivalent to asking what is the colour of prayer and `What is the meaning of life ?` may be such a meaningless sequence of words. The traditional concept of a false question is adequate to explain the supposed difficulty of the question . What is the meaning of life ?` Interestingly those sentences that are `meaningful` beginning . `What is the purpose of`` must always have a purpose imagined by a maker . So table . yes .. gun .. yes...green.... no...time .. no and so on . You will see that to ask the question `What is the meaning of life already contains the assumption of an outside purpose giver and a purpose . ( See para one) ` Don't go saying ah yes but for me `What is the meaning or prayer` is meaningful this isn't poetics its semantics . Imagine if you didn't know what a hammer was for . There is an answer /purpose` with or without your ignorance of it . That about wraps it up for god I think
TARGET DUDE I`m sorry if the crisis of faith my cleverness evokes causes you to give up your studies and take a menial job as a gardener, and obviosuly ignore me completetly if you want to live a lie ....( just kidding)

PaulD said:October 2, 2006 2:36 AM permalink
Newmania - if that's the alternative, I think I'll stick with God, thank you very much.

newmania said:October 2, 2006 4:02 AM permalink
Idlex- Would you call a family a Society. I would say a family was akin to a tribe ,a country, more because one feels unexamined loyalty or "love" for such things .Society , on the other hand is a post Marxist idea (isn't it ? )implying a set of responsibilities that spring from types of political theory.Steven -L Agree with you .Paul D- Don't be hasty. Newmania may not answer prayers but usually answers postings God- What do you think ?..and please be brief

idlex said:October 2, 2006 6:10 AM permalink
Idlex- Would you call a family a Society. I would say a family was akin to a tribe ,a country, more because one feels unexamined loyalty or "love" for such things
I have an almost entirely unexamined love towards my very real brother. He has helped me out about 2000 times in my life, and I don't think many brothers come much better.
Perhaps this was a mistake of mine. I have been making these sorts of mistakes ever since I was born.

Jack Target said:October 2, 2006 1:12 PM permalink
newmania:
We've had religious discussions on here before, and they tend to start dominating threads and annoying the other users! I'll post my reply here, Anyway, the reply -
1. Getting off to a very challenging start! That is quite a problem indeed. Obviously the moral law is a part of God's nature, and we are created from God. C S Lewis demonstrates to my satisfaction that we have an inborn moral law (I'll give you his reasoning too if you like). And since we are created from God, and including his moral law, we naturally think that that moral law is best of all. And in fact, if you believe in God, then it is the best of all (for this creation).
There is of course a question whether it is the best of all possible moral laws in an absolute sense - and yes God is bound by absolutes (the contradictions you raise in point 5. are examples - God could not create a red sound for example). Doctrine says that God is perfect, and if you decide to go long with that supposition, then is God the only type of perfect? For example, is a Trinitarian God better than a 2 or 4 person God. Or a God with only one person, etc. So a similar problem comes when querying the moral law. Is it better than one where murder is always ok? I don't know the answer, but if you accept a Christian theology, then you can say that it is the best moral law for us in this creation, hailing as it does from our creator, and thus in closest harmony with our surroundings.
2. I'm not familiar with this
3. In fact the heliocentric model is also wrong - any point can be taken as the centre of the universe if we like (including the planet earth, including jerusalem, or the vatican, or in fact anywhere whatsoever. The reason for this is that the universe is generally thought to be curved, and thus like a sphere has no centre on it's surface, and so a centre can be arbitrarily defined. Of course a sphere does have a centre, but it is unfathomable from the surface except by analogy - we don't know where the 'centre' of the universe is, or what it's nature is. Perhaps it's God? hehe.
Mathematicians and physicists of all stripes tend to use whatever is most helpful as a centre to describe motion - doing exactly as you say, making the equations simple. Thus they take the sun as the centre for solar system equations, the galaxy for galactic equations, and London for the M25. We do not describe the path of cars on the M25 in terms of their orbit around the Sun.
My point so far is that you can choose whatever centre you like to make the equations simplest. Now taking your point 4 into account, I shall try to hoist you with your own petard, and show that God is simplest.
Godel, a famous and competent mathematician, wrote a theory called "Godel's Incompleteness Theorem". It is a completely sound mathematical proof, and shows that no closed system of mathematical axioms can prove every other axiom in the system. You either have to refer outside the system, or take something as an assumption with no proof. People who seek to describe the universe in purely scientific terms (as I did back when I was a physicist and an atheist...) hit a stumbling block, because their own basis (mathematics) has proven that they will never succeed. As such, comprehensive descriptions of the universe will never be complete if they rely wholly on maths, as current science does. They instead get into an infinite sequence of ever expanding sets of laws, with no end. It is simpler to use God as the assumption, and base our ideas of the universe on him.
5. Are you serious? Are you actually asking me for the meaning of life? I can give you a few ideas, but no solid answers!