A fascinating article about the relationship between religiosity and fertility can be found here http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/faith-equals-fertility
Basically it seems that religious communities (of whatever religion) produce more offspring than agnostics and atheists. If this is so, it should help Richard Dawkins' arguments for evolution but not his position as an atheist. Atheists will gradually evolve out of existence as the more religious communities increase in number.
The jury is still out on the reasons for this phenomenon. It may be that believers have larger families because of what they believe, or it could be that having a larger family predisposes you to be more open to religious belief. If the latter is the case then Dawkins and his motley crew of atheists are stuffed again ..... if they try and increase the population of atheists by having larger families they are more likely to "get religion" and their children will follow suite, so the population of atheists will actually go down. Perhaps Dr Dawkins ought to carve a niche for himself and become a specialist in "religious evolution" rather than just general evolution.
Saturday, 20 December 2008
Sunday, 14 December 2008
Traumatic Week
Rather a traumatic week this week. Last weekend Mrs Journeyman and I took advantage of the fact that Journeyman Junior had gone on a school trip to Germany, and went for a Christmas shopping weekend in Norwich. It was bitterly cold, but apart from that things went fine until about 2.00pm on Saturday. Standing in the middle of John Lewis' Mrs Journeyman's mobile phone goes off. Even on a weekend away she feels obliged to answer ..... so, answer she did. It was the girls at home to report that the cat had had a freak accident and was now at the emergency vets with a mangled leg, the like of which the vet had never seen before. The only practical option was to have her put down. So there we were in the middle of John Lewis' having to make life or death decisions with weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth at both ends of the phone.
"Can I help you, madam," asked the manager in the furniture department. "I don't think so," said I, "we're in the middle of a major family crisis!" "Oh, I'm sorry," he replied, "I'm afraid that is something we can't help with" and he wandered off to accost someone else, leaving us to our trauma.
The girls had calmed down a bit by the time we got home the following afternoon, but Journeyman Junior wasn't due back from Germany until later that evening when we had to break the news to him, accompanied, as you might imagine, by more weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Exactly one week later we now have a new kitten. Grey tabby with a white tummy. 5 months old. The rescue centre said her name was Lola and there seems to be general agreement to keep that name, although she doesn't actually seem to respond to it. Seems to have settled in well ......... watch this space for further developments.
"Can I help you, madam," asked the manager in the furniture department. "I don't think so," said I, "we're in the middle of a major family crisis!" "Oh, I'm sorry," he replied, "I'm afraid that is something we can't help with" and he wandered off to accost someone else, leaving us to our trauma.
The girls had calmed down a bit by the time we got home the following afternoon, but Journeyman Junior wasn't due back from Germany until later that evening when we had to break the news to him, accompanied, as you might imagine, by more weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Exactly one week later we now have a new kitten. Grey tabby with a white tummy. 5 months old. The rescue centre said her name was Lola and there seems to be general agreement to keep that name, although she doesn't actually seem to respond to it. Seems to have settled in well ......... watch this space for further developments.
Friday, 28 November 2008
The Strange World of Economics
I'm no expert on economics and have long struggled with the strange notion that when house prices fall they say it is a bad thing. Common sense would dictate that when house prices fall more people will be able to afford to buy a house, therefore it must be a good thing. I appreciate that when people have borrowed a high percentage of the price of a house and then the value drops, and then they want to sell, they are rather stuffed, but surely a house is something you buy to live in, not to make money on?
But this week's goings on seem even stranger. We are facing a severe "credit crunch". The main reason for this seems to be that for a long time people have been spending too much. And to fund that spending they have been borrowing more than they can afford to pay back. Now pay-back time has finally been called, things go pear-shaped. So what does the Government do to try and help? It reduces VAT with the declared intention of encouraging people to spend more! Are they mad? Are they really so short sighted that they have forgotten the fact that we are only in this mess because people spent too much in the first place? They should be encouraging people to only spend the money they have got, not encouraging the financial institutions to lend them even more.
But this week's goings on seem even stranger. We are facing a severe "credit crunch". The main reason for this seems to be that for a long time people have been spending too much. And to fund that spending they have been borrowing more than they can afford to pay back. Now pay-back time has finally been called, things go pear-shaped. So what does the Government do to try and help? It reduces VAT with the declared intention of encouraging people to spend more! Are they mad? Are they really so short sighted that they have forgotten the fact that we are only in this mess because people spent too much in the first place? They should be encouraging people to only spend the money they have got, not encouraging the financial institutions to lend them even more.
Saturday, 22 November 2008
Stuff is really nothing
Interesting find of the week - according to New Scientist, physicists have now proved mathematically that material stuff (i.e. everything around us) is really no more than "fluctuations in the quantum vacuum". In other words, stuff is really nothing. So if scientists can take what everybody knows to be true and prove the complete opposite, how much easier should it be for them to "prove" the existence of God - something that the majority of the world's people believe to be true anyway? And if they did, would Professor Dawkins and his cronies then change their attitude? Hmmm ..... interesting concept. Professor Dawkins bases his atheism on the lack of scientific evidence for the existence of God. But if his fellow scientists provided a scientific proof (which, it appears, they are now quite capable of doing), would he then believe it?
Saturday, 15 November 2008
Christian v "Green"
I am an avid follower of Sam Norton's blog "Elizaphanian" but a recent posting annoyed me somewhat .......
"the criteria for decision making between the Christian and the Green eventually diverge. The Christian is finally concerned with human flourishing; the Green is finally concerned with the health of the planet."
Does he think that being "Green" is a religion in its own right that poses some kind of threat to Christianity? Or does he just think that life is to be led in little boxes or cubicles from which we should be shielded from the thoughts and activities of the people in different boxes?
"Green" is used as a term to indicate someone's interests and concerns. It doesn't mean they are not interested in anything else. You can have a "Green Christian" just as easily as you can have a "Conservative Christian" or a "Socialist Christian". Not only is this a possibility but, I would say, it is essential for Christians to be "green", given the mandate in Genesis to be stewards of the Earth.
Sam goes on "I don't believe that a Christian perspective can see the environment as an end in itself." ...... " The Christian seeks the elimination of the sin, with a glad consequence of restoring environmental health."
This sounds very much like a "sitting on the fence" position to me........ a blame culture. His stereotypical Green, on the other hand, would say "Never mind why it happened or who is responsible .... what are we going to do about it?"
If you ever read this, Sam, which do you think is the most Christ-like approach?
"the criteria for decision making between the Christian and the Green eventually diverge. The Christian is finally concerned with human flourishing; the Green is finally concerned with the health of the planet."
Does he think that being "Green" is a religion in its own right that poses some kind of threat to Christianity? Or does he just think that life is to be led in little boxes or cubicles from which we should be shielded from the thoughts and activities of the people in different boxes?
"Green" is used as a term to indicate someone's interests and concerns. It doesn't mean they are not interested in anything else. You can have a "Green Christian" just as easily as you can have a "Conservative Christian" or a "Socialist Christian". Not only is this a possibility but, I would say, it is essential for Christians to be "green", given the mandate in Genesis to be stewards of the Earth.
Sam goes on "I don't believe that a Christian perspective can see the environment as an end in itself." ...... " The Christian seeks the elimination of the sin, with a glad consequence of restoring environmental health."
This sounds very much like a "sitting on the fence" position to me........ a blame culture. His stereotypical Green, on the other hand, would say "Never mind why it happened or who is responsible .... what are we going to do about it?"
If you ever read this, Sam, which do you think is the most Christ-like approach?
Saturday, 8 November 2008
What is the Church?
Good quote from Bishop Gene Robinson while being hassled about his homosexuality :-
“None of us is on the selection committee. God is on a committee of one, and he is the selection committee. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. The most likeable and the most unlikeable, the most loving and the most hateful are all God’s children. It’s time for us to stop worrying so much about the Church. The Church is not ours to win or lose. The Church is God’s.”
“None of us is on the selection committee. God is on a committee of one, and he is the selection committee. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. The most likeable and the most unlikeable, the most loving and the most hateful are all God’s children. It’s time for us to stop worrying so much about the Church. The Church is not ours to win or lose. The Church is God’s.”
It must be true - I read it in the paper!
It never ceases to amaze me how the local press can take simple facts and draw completely the wrong conclusions from them. The latest example is in the Evening Gazette (7.11.08). The headline declares "Official: we're second most relaxing town". The article goes on to explain that Colchester has been ranked the second least stressful place to live in the country. The reason for this ranking is, apparently, the fact that we have the second highest ratio of stress relieving businesses and organizations to population in the country. These include massage therapists, yoga classes, anger management groups and leisure centres. Colchester boasts one of these to every 4,600 population. But what sustains these businesses? Surely the fact that they are all still in business points to the fact that Colchester is one of the most stressed areas of the country ...... otherwise they would have no customers. I appreciate the local rag trying to put a positive spin on things but the evidence does not really support the headline.
Saturday, 1 November 2008
Samhain
Today marks Samhain, the Celtic New Year festival, closely associated with Halloween, and the cause of much twitchyness and unease among some Christians. "A Pagan festival", they say, so it must be bad!
I have long been interested in the interface between paganism and Christianity and continue to be amazed at how, when a new religion comes along, everything that went before it tends to be immediately written off as sinful and the "work of the devil" by the adherents of the new faith. I, for one, intend to lobby for the rehabilitation of Samhain.
The word means "summer's end" and is still the word used in Irish Gaelic for "November". It marked the last day of harvest and was associated with a festival of the dead when the dead were honoured and tales were told of the ancestors. Nothing un-Christian in that. Most Christian churches have a "harvest festival", though usually a bit earlier in the year now. They also celebrate All Souls Day and All Saints Day at this time of the year to celebrate and honour the dead. In fact this is a widespread custom in many religions and cultures and usually follows the end of the harvest.
Bonfires were associated with Samhain and, in fact this is where the word "bonfire" comes from. It is derived from "bone fire". The day marked the start of the winter season when difficult decisions had to be made. Food was in short supply and would not be plentiful enough to feed all the cattle through to spring. So a proportion of the cattle and sheep were killed at this time. Some of the meat was used for the feast and the bones were burnt in the big fires. Christians too indulge in bonfires at this time of year in commemoration of the Gunpowder Plot and I have never heard calls for their abolition as being un-Christian.
The only thing about Samhain that could possibly be interpreted as un-Christian is that it marks the start of "the Dark season", whereas, six months later, Beltane marked the start of "the Light season". Before Christianity the dark season was often associated with evil ........ it was cold, it was dark, nothing grew, many of the flocks and herds died due to lack of food or being buried in snow drifts. It was definitely not a pleasant time. Modern advances, however, have allowed us to cope with winter much better. It is no longer the threat it once was. Although, last week, we had the first October snowfall in London since 1934, winters, in general, are becoming much milder and some years we get no snow at all. The only "evil" that remains is the long dark nights and we can't do much about that. It is a consequence of the latitude we live at.
At the start of the "dark season" let us remember and look forward to the fact that "the light came into the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out". Happy Samhain.
I have long been interested in the interface between paganism and Christianity and continue to be amazed at how, when a new religion comes along, everything that went before it tends to be immediately written off as sinful and the "work of the devil" by the adherents of the new faith. I, for one, intend to lobby for the rehabilitation of Samhain.
The word means "summer's end" and is still the word used in Irish Gaelic for "November". It marked the last day of harvest and was associated with a festival of the dead when the dead were honoured and tales were told of the ancestors. Nothing un-Christian in that. Most Christian churches have a "harvest festival", though usually a bit earlier in the year now. They also celebrate All Souls Day and All Saints Day at this time of the year to celebrate and honour the dead. In fact this is a widespread custom in many religions and cultures and usually follows the end of the harvest.
Bonfires were associated with Samhain and, in fact this is where the word "bonfire" comes from. It is derived from "bone fire". The day marked the start of the winter season when difficult decisions had to be made. Food was in short supply and would not be plentiful enough to feed all the cattle through to spring. So a proportion of the cattle and sheep were killed at this time. Some of the meat was used for the feast and the bones were burnt in the big fires. Christians too indulge in bonfires at this time of year in commemoration of the Gunpowder Plot and I have never heard calls for their abolition as being un-Christian.
The only thing about Samhain that could possibly be interpreted as un-Christian is that it marks the start of "the Dark season", whereas, six months later, Beltane marked the start of "the Light season". Before Christianity the dark season was often associated with evil ........ it was cold, it was dark, nothing grew, many of the flocks and herds died due to lack of food or being buried in snow drifts. It was definitely not a pleasant time. Modern advances, however, have allowed us to cope with winter much better. It is no longer the threat it once was. Although, last week, we had the first October snowfall in London since 1934, winters, in general, are becoming much milder and some years we get no snow at all. The only "evil" that remains is the long dark nights and we can't do much about that. It is a consequence of the latitude we live at.
At the start of the "dark season" let us remember and look forward to the fact that "the light came into the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out". Happy Samhain.
Friday, 31 October 2008
Brother shall rise up against brother.
Nothing much going on at the moment so let me take you back a couple of weeks to a matter that deserved comment before I had got this blog up and running.
In The Times 15 October 2008, under the heading "Parishes urged to rise against liberal bishops" it was reported that "Evangelicals at a conference in Central London were told that the Church of England now consists of two religions, one liberal and pro-gay and the other conservative and strictly biblical". Presumably the statement was made by someone who considered themself to be in the latter camp as the conference attendees were then urged to seek alternative oversight from another bishop if their own diocesan bishop expounds "unbiblical" teaching from the pulpit.
This stance is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that "conservative" Christians are biblical and that "liberal" Christians are either not biblical or only partly so. I have not got time to go into all the arguments at the moment, so I'll just outline the two most obvious ones.
1. By urging splits and dissention in the Church the speaker himself is being just about as unbiblical as you can get. Jesus prayed that his disciples "may be one", just as he and his father are one. To advocate finding another bishop just because you don't like what your own bishop says hardly gives the impression that this man is following the will of Christ.
2. The general reviling of "liberal" Christians as somehow "unbiblical" conveniently overlooks the fact that Jesus himself was a liberal. That may come as a shock to the rather blinkered "conservative" group, but it shouldn't do. If they are as biblical as they claim, they should have realised that all the evidence points to the fact that Jesus was the prototype liberal. The Concise Oxford Dictionary has three main definitions of "liberal":-
(i) "directed to general broadening of mind" - which Jesus certainly was. He spent most of his ministry not destroying the existing system but trying to show people what was really important in life; trying to show the Pharisees that they were not "wrong" just extremely blinkered.
(ii) "giving freely, generous, not sparing of " - again the definition fits Jesus perfectly when we consider the feeding of the five thousand, the wedding at Cana, his teaching on giving etc.
(iii) "favourable to democratic reform and individual liberty" - See Luke 4: 16-21 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me....He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners...... to release the oppressed........ Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing".
Jesus kept on saying "He that has ears to hear - let him hear." So what is the problem with these so called "conservative, biblical" Christians? Do they not have ears? Or do they just not listen to what Jesus himself says?
In The Times 15 October 2008, under the heading "Parishes urged to rise against liberal bishops" it was reported that "Evangelicals at a conference in Central London were told that the Church of England now consists of two religions, one liberal and pro-gay and the other conservative and strictly biblical". Presumably the statement was made by someone who considered themself to be in the latter camp as the conference attendees were then urged to seek alternative oversight from another bishop if their own diocesan bishop expounds "unbiblical" teaching from the pulpit.
This stance is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that "conservative" Christians are biblical and that "liberal" Christians are either not biblical or only partly so. I have not got time to go into all the arguments at the moment, so I'll just outline the two most obvious ones.
1. By urging splits and dissention in the Church the speaker himself is being just about as unbiblical as you can get. Jesus prayed that his disciples "may be one", just as he and his father are one. To advocate finding another bishop just because you don't like what your own bishop says hardly gives the impression that this man is following the will of Christ.
2. The general reviling of "liberal" Christians as somehow "unbiblical" conveniently overlooks the fact that Jesus himself was a liberal. That may come as a shock to the rather blinkered "conservative" group, but it shouldn't do. If they are as biblical as they claim, they should have realised that all the evidence points to the fact that Jesus was the prototype liberal. The Concise Oxford Dictionary has three main definitions of "liberal":-
(i) "directed to general broadening of mind" - which Jesus certainly was. He spent most of his ministry not destroying the existing system but trying to show people what was really important in life; trying to show the Pharisees that they were not "wrong" just extremely blinkered.
(ii) "giving freely, generous, not sparing of " - again the definition fits Jesus perfectly when we consider the feeding of the five thousand, the wedding at Cana, his teaching on giving etc.
(iii) "favourable to democratic reform and individual liberty" - See Luke 4: 16-21 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me....He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners...... to release the oppressed........ Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing".
Jesus kept on saying "He that has ears to hear - let him hear." So what is the problem with these so called "conservative, biblical" Christians? Do they not have ears? Or do they just not listen to what Jesus himself says?
Sunday, 26 October 2008
The Atheist Bus
What on earth is the world coming to? A group of individuals is now raising funds to pay for advertising on the side of London buses that states "There's probably no God - now stop worrying and enjoy your life." What is this message supposed to mean and who exactly is it aimed at? Presumably atheists are already enjoying life knowing that there is no God. Religious folk are already enjoying life knowing that there is a God. And agnostics probably don't really care either way - they are too busy enjoying life to have time to really consider the issue. I have come across some agnostics who are "searching" but I don't think I have ever met one who is "worrying", certainly not to the extent that they are not enjoying life.
Or is the message supposed to mean that religious folk don't enjoy life? If so it betrays a sad misunderstanding of the situation. Certainly there are a few miserable looking individuals who go to church but, as far as Christians are concerned, one of the "gifts of the spirit" is joy. Statistics also show that people with an active faith life have, on average, a longer life expectancy than those without.
It seems like a sad case of sour grapes to me. The atheists are fed up with seeing various Christian slogans on the side of buses and elsewhere and are trying to retaliate, just to let everyone know they are there. But what is the point of trying to sell nothing? It's like Sainsburys taking out a full page ad in the Times to announce the fact that they are NOT selling bread this week. The atheist lobby, apparently, claim that it is wrong of religious folk to make out that atheism is an absence of anything. Instead, they say, it "constitutes a body of belief in humanity and its virtues". They want it to be known that they have a strong moral framework. ......... exactly what most religious people would claim. The only thing that makes atheists different is the negative aspects. They want to claim the glory but they don't want to acknowledge where it comes from. Christian tradition has it that there was once an angel in the same position - and he came to a rather unfortunate end and has been reviled by most people ever since. Certainly not something you would want to advertise on the side of a London bus!
Or is the message supposed to mean that religious folk don't enjoy life? If so it betrays a sad misunderstanding of the situation. Certainly there are a few miserable looking individuals who go to church but, as far as Christians are concerned, one of the "gifts of the spirit" is joy. Statistics also show that people with an active faith life have, on average, a longer life expectancy than those without.
It seems like a sad case of sour grapes to me. The atheists are fed up with seeing various Christian slogans on the side of buses and elsewhere and are trying to retaliate, just to let everyone know they are there. But what is the point of trying to sell nothing? It's like Sainsburys taking out a full page ad in the Times to announce the fact that they are NOT selling bread this week. The atheist lobby, apparently, claim that it is wrong of religious folk to make out that atheism is an absence of anything. Instead, they say, it "constitutes a body of belief in humanity and its virtues". They want it to be known that they have a strong moral framework. ......... exactly what most religious people would claim. The only thing that makes atheists different is the negative aspects. They want to claim the glory but they don't want to acknowledge where it comes from. Christian tradition has it that there was once an angel in the same position - and he came to a rather unfortunate end and has been reviled by most people ever since. Certainly not something you would want to advertise on the side of a London bus!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)