Correcting misapprehensions

Whenever a Christian festival arises, it seems that the Letters sections of newspapers and the blogosphere begin filling with debates over the relative merits of Christianity and Atheism. At Easter, for example, even a bishop or two got drawn into the debate in one of Sydney's newspapers.

As a "dissenting" evangelical, I belong neither to the atheists' camp nor to that of the bishops. I felt a certain privilege, being able to observe without having to participate. Several thoughts came to me as I watched.

One point raised was that Atheism can lead to systematic and systemic violence and abuse. This argument comes up regularly, and is a poorly-considered reaction to Atheist accusations that religion is divisive, and always leads to violence and war.

Of course, the Pol Pot, Stalin and (perhaps) Hitler regimes were atheistic and few would disagree that they were horrifically violent. Proponents of non-Atheist religious positions should realise that this doesn't, however, mean that Atheism always leads to violence. The error is that of confusing causation and association.

On the other hand, when Atheists make similar charges about religion, they should recognise that they are falling into the same illogicality. Violent people use religion or irreligion to legitimate their violence.

It takes only a little acquaintance with history to show that this is a weak argument.

A second area of discussion was over whether Atheists can be truly moral. I am interested to note that see fewer believers charging that Atheists must be immoral than I see Atheists assuming that this charge is a Christian position.

As I read the Bible, it seems to me that it supports the idea that religious people and irreligious people are roughly equally moral. After all, it declares that humans are created in the image of a moral God. By the same token, the Bible is also clear that we human beings are all equally failures when it comes to morality. This doesn't mean that the crimes of some are not more horrifying than the crimes of others. We generally consider murder a more evil crime than stealing a biscuit from the office jar. However, both acts are moral breaches, and the Bible argues that no one can claim anything like moral perfection.

Those Christians who think that Atheists are immoral are probably influenced by such Biblical statements as, The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' The Psalmist's point, however, is that those who think they can get away with injustice and oppression because there is no God to give account to are fools. This is not quite the same thing as claiming that Atheism necessarily leads to immorality.

A further point of debate is about charities and community service. I suspect that Atheists and Christians may tend to focus on different areas in this respect. Certainly, Christians seem to predominate in welfare-related services and I think that many Atheists are drawn to environmental causes, but I don't know if my assessment is supported by any hard evidence.

What is true is that both believers of various kinds and unbelievers do engage in community service. However, there is evidence that, at least in the case of the young, "...those with serious spiritual and religious beliefs were likely to donate more money, participate more in their communities and be more concerned about their society than their non-religious counterparts." (2007 research by academics from Monash University and the Australian Catholic University, reported in The Sydney Morning Herald, 27 Jan 2008.)

What we don't know is whether this tendency persists into adulthood. I don't think the research has been done in Australia.

A final charge laid by the Atheists was that Christians who participate in charitable works do it only to gain points towards entry into heaven, or to compensate for a fear of judgement.

I have no doubt that even some Atheists volunteer so as to gain a heaven they do not believe in. Everyone acts in large part on unconscious feelings and desires. However it is certainly no part of Evangelical Christianity to believe that good works contribute "points" towards gaining heaven or avoiding hell. The Bible -- particularly the New Testament -- clearly and consistently rejects the value of works done to gain God's favour or out of mere fear of punishment.

In fact, the orthodox Evangelical position is that eternal salvation is only available through repentance, giving up efforts at self-justification and trust in Jesus Christ for the gift of salvation. To seek salvation through our deeds is a rejection of God's loving gift, and, in fact, treats God as a whore who dispenses favours to the best payers.

The corollary of this Evangelical belief is that eternal life is already the possession of those who trust in Jesus Christ, and that working for the good of others is an appropriately loving response to the Christ who loved us and gave himself for us.

I don't think many Christians in other traditions would disagree to far with that position.

Talking about weather

I was late getting off to sleep on Sunday night, because, having left the windows open for cooling, I found myself having to fend off autumn mosquitoes. Usually, the little monsters are leaving me alone well before March ends. How I wish we didn't have ancient windows that are unsuitable for insect screens!

The Weather bureau tells us that unseasonably warm, sunny days will continue in Sydney for the rest of the week, peaking on Friday with a top of 26 degrees, or about 4 degrees above average.

Some of my American and English friends mocked advocates of global warming during the northern winter because of the extreme cold they experienced. As I remarked then, weather is not climate. And, in Sydney this week, the weather is not the climate, either.

In fact, the expectation is that, sometime on Saturday, temperatures will drop quickly, and ANZAC Day (Sunday) will be quite cold in the morning, warming to a maximum of 23 degrees.

The cause of the change will be the movement of an intense cold front through Victoria and NSW, bringing rain and cool winds

.

On the climate side, Professor David Hand, President of the Royal Statistical Society, a participant in the review of the so-called "climategate scandal", recently concluded that the University of East Anglia scientists had behaved honestly and fairly and had not engaged in deliberate scientific malpractice. In fact, re-analysing the data, he concluded that it shows a clear warming signal.

However, Professor Hand was also critical of the scientists' use of inappropriate statistical methods, which have exaggerated some of the effects of warming. He rejects the infamous "hockey stick" curve which has been criticised by warming sceptics in the past. Hand was surprised that scientists working in the climate change field, where statistical analysis is so vital, had chosen not to obtain more assistance from professional statisticians.

The unfortunate comment by Professor Phil Jones of East Anglia, about a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures was accepted in the report as a mere reference to a statistical technique rather than a devious act to misrepresent data.

An earlier investigation had also concluded that the expression "hide the decline" was scientific shorthand for the act of discarding erroneous data and that, when Jones spoke of a "trick" he meant it was a neat way of handling evidence -- a fairly common use of the term.

One good result of the entire kerfuffle is that, regardless of the outcome of a third investigation focusing on Freedom of Information issues, it is unlikely that climate scientists will be as inclined to hoard raw data or attack their opponents as the East Anglia scientists obviously have been. But, most importantly, the investigations are reinforcing the argument that we are facing climate changes which are at least to a significant extent caused by human activities. And that's something to worry about and act quickly upon.

Catholic Sex Crisis

As a young Christian, I had some involvement with the youth group of what we would now call "an ethno-specific church." That is, it was made up of people with a shared language, culture and geographic background. I saw something sad: the young people had nowhere to go. It was their parents' church and could never be theirs, because they had grown up English-speaking in Australia, with a mixed cultural background.

The majority of the young people left the church entirely, because that was the option they could see. A minority went to Anglo churches, but often integrated poorly. I had a suspicion that, for some of the parents, assimilation was a worse fate than apostasy.

What has this to do with the Catholic Church? The fact is that many Catholics feel they are in the same position. If they do not like, or do not feel they fit in the Catholic way of doing things, they have no clear path ahead. Unlike the Catholics, most Protestants feel that, if they don't like the Baptist way, for example, there are always Anglican, Quaker, Pentecostal or Uniting Churches, and that's just a start.

A religious group which lacks a clear exit path is dangerously close to being a cult.

With the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, many Catholics are disgruntled. German statistics already show a marked decline in Catholic Church attendance. But one must feel for those Catholics who want to leave but don't know where to go. It would be healthy for the Catholic Church to recognise that those who jump ship for another church aren't necessarily abandoning Christianity.

However, many will no doubt stay, and will be faced with the tensions between, on the one hand, wanting to tidy up and go on with business as usual and, on the other, going all out for radical transformation.

It seems to me that celibacy is a major factor in the crisis, though I don't subscribe to the "give them a legitimate sexual outlet and they'll forget about children" idea. Paedophilia is a deeply engrained thing, and tends to persist despite marriage. It is found in all walks of life, not only the Catholic priesthood.

The celibate priesthood clearly not only has room for those genuinely called to a celibate lifestyle, but also for many who, while not desiring sex with adult women, struggle against attractions in various other directions. The priesthood becomes a hiding place and concentration pool, where exposure is more easily avoided. Additionally, where a married minister finds most of his or her community within family, I suspect that Catholic priests are forced to find most of that community sense within their own circles. "Family blindness" is clearly a factor in how so many priests have protected each other.

I am concerned about this crisis, and sad for those affected -- the victims of paedophiles, and the ordinary, decent Catholics who are also victims.

But I am also hopeful. Nearly 50 years ago, the Catholic Church set out on a path of reform. It has been a bumpy road, but progress has been made.

Perhaps the current crisis will be a catalyst for further change. It will certainly tend to weaken hierarchical control and perhaps push Catholics to rethink some of the ways in which traditions -- such as celibacy -- have come to dominate church thinking at the expense of more critical issues. The church probably needs to brace itself for a period of chaos, but, out of chaos, positive change can come.

Let's pray for our Catholic friends.

Answering the vulture and the earthworm

I was sad to see Senator Fielding on the ABC's Q&A panel together with Richard Dawkins. Senator Fielding does not have a good grasp on matters of fact outside his specific professional training, which clearly has little to do with science.

I was sad, too, to hear Professor Dawkins' cheap shot at the senator, as having the intellect of an earthworm. It is this kind of abusive arrogance which gives him -- and, by association, atheism -- a bad name. Dawkins writes eloquently and ignorantly about religious matters, which reveals, not that he is intellectually defective, but that he is lazy in assuming that a junior Sunday School understanding is sufficient to make him an expert. Not unlike Senator Fielding's position with science, really.

I have a growing concern that we Christians often tackle atheism inappropriately.

If I were a Muslim, I would definitely be troubled by Dawkins and his ilk. If I were a Jew, I would at least be uneasy. Neither religion has strong grounds to argue against atheism except on the grounds which atheism itself defines. It is hard to win an away game.

Of course, Dawkins has a point. Religious people can't provide proof of God's existence in the terms he demands. More accurately, science is incapable of determining whether or not God exists -- much like the question of the Higgs-Boson particle. This does not mean that God does not exit. It only means that God's existence is a question is outside the realm of science.

This is not, however, fatal to the question. There are many areas where science can contribute little. It can't tell us if Julius Caesar existed. At best, it may help sort through the evidence.

So why do Christians try to do battle in areas where Christian arguments tend to be weak, and atheist ones strong, yet ignore areas where the tables are turned?

It seems to me that we need to turn our focus back onto Jesus. Let's develop our arguments from a Christological base rather than a philosophical or a merely scientific base.

After all, there is a strong New Testament theme that Jesus makes the unknown, inaccessible God known.

John 1:18 tells us, No one has ever seen God; but God, the one and only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

In the 12th chapter (verse 41ff) we see that, in respect of his vision of the exalted Lord in the temple, Isaiah saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.

John perhaps rounds it off with his quotation from Jesus, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."

Similarly, the writer to the Hebrews tells us (Heb 1:3): The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

Paul, too, writing to the Colossians (1:15) describes Christ as ...the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

There is therefore a clear New Testament assertion that God the Father himself is beyond our direct knowledge or observation, but that Jesus is the revealer of God.

This suggests to me that teleological, ontological and such arguments are something of a waste of time for those who would convince those who argue that no case can be made for God's existence.

While this doesn't mean that there is no place for philosophical points, they are more of a further hint at God's existence than primary ingredients of a case. If a person wants to "see" or "see evidence for" God, surely the place to start is Jesus.

The question, then, is, "How does Jesus reveal God?"

The answer is that Christians are convinced that the attitudes and actions of Jesus show us something about the attitudes and actions of God. If we would know God's attitude to the outcasts of society, look at how Jesus treated them. If we want to know God's attitude to ethnic outsiders, look at Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well. If we want to know about God's judgment, we will find more when we see Jesus attacking hypocrisy, exploitation and fruitlessness than we will learn merely from reading about the Israelites and the Amalekites in the Pentateuch.

I do not often find comments I find useful to repeat in the writings of Rev Fred Nile, but I believe he hits the mark in a recent newsletter:

"If you want to know if there is a God, start with Jesus Christ, who will reveal the truth about Himself and His Heavenly Father."

I'll say, "Amen!" to that.

URGENT: Genocide on the Thai-Burmese Border

I just received this news flash from Geoff Pound, a journalist working in the Middle East. Time: Tuesday 23 Feb 2010, 5:30 pm Thai Standard Time. He didn't give the source of the quote below:

"...I received a call from one of our leaders from the Nyaung Lay Bin District of the Karen State (Kawthoolei) requesting urgent help and assistance (food, medicines, clothing) for the 3000 plus IDPs [Internally Displaced People] who are running for their lives as the Burma army soldiers attacked and burnt down their villages and shooting them on sight."

"This is clearly an act of genocide, the Burma army soldiers attacking, shooting on sight and killing our innocent people, driving them out of their villages, destroying their crops, burning their rice barns or stores. This similar Burma army military operation took place in many ethnic (Arrankan, Chin, Kachin, Shan, Karenni/Kayah, Karen, Mon) areas."

"We are calling for the International Community, the UN, US, EU, China, Russia, Japan, India, Asean Community to halt all the Burma Army military operations against our ethnic nationalities IMMEDIATELY."

Cults

A VISIT to Silver Street Mission in Marrickville from John and David Ayliffe on Sunday 14 February will help us understand the problem of cults in our world and in our country.

For 16 years, David was involved in a cult headquartered on Sydney’s northern beaches. During those years, he was alienated from family and friends, lost vast sums of money to the cult, and was entirely devoted to a destructive lifestyle under the control of a woman who claimed to be Christ.

Cults surround us. For several months the manse received regular calls from a young man who had left the so–called Sydney Church of Christ (no links with Marrickville Church of Christ which is, like us, an ordinary evangelical church.) He had been so abused by this cult that he could’nt trust another church, yet he really wanted a genuine faith.

Sometimes we are so accustomed to a cult that it seems little more than slightly off–beam. Yet a closer look reveals the classical features of groups like the Waco–based Branch Davidian or some of the sexually abusive groups reported recently.

Some of the features of cults are:

• Strong, centralised control

• Isolation from former associates including

  family and friends

• Financial control, often requiring income

  to be signed over to the group

• Strict lifestyle control

• Elevation of a secondary source of

  authority (eg., founder’s writings,

  traditions, pronouncements of a “Guru”)

  over the Bible and its revelation of Jesus.

• Severe penalties for trying to leave the

  group, including disassociation from

  family, loss of money or housing

Groups like Mormons and Muslims have been criticised for relying on authorities outside the Bible; Scientologists (who reject the Bible) and Muslims penalise attempts to leave their circles.

Some cults adopt names similar to those of mainstream churches so as to hide their real identity. An elderly lady with poor hearing and eyesight was taken in once by the Mormons, because their name, Church of Jesus Christ (of the Latter Day Saints) resembles Church of Christ. She got out when they asked her to sign a document committing her to tithing.

The underlying problems with a cult usually begin with a leader’s damaged sense of self, often caused by childhood abuse. For example 4th Century Arians went far beyond the idea that we are God’s good creatures, damaged by sin, and thought that we are rotten to the core. So, they taught, nothing human could ever have real contact with God.

Where did Arius get those ideas?

We look forward to what David and John have to tell us.

[10:30 am, Silver Street Baptist Mission, cnr Silver and Calvert Streets, Marrickville. All welcome.]

iPad

The iPad: does it have wings? I guess that Apple hopes it will fly out of the shops, anyway. Some people are saying that it is an iPhone on steroids.

There are specs are at
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/165759,the-apple-ipad-the-specs.aspx

Apple certainly knows how to build up expectations. There's been talk for months. I thought that it might be Apple’s way of getting around the restrictions under which netbook computers suffer. There'd allegedly been a bit of Microsoft-Intel skulduggery with the aim of keeping Linux off netbooks: certainly the specifications for these little devices had been set very firmly by parts and systems suppliers.

Apple has always had one advantage: their current OS is based on Free BSD, a Linux-like UNIX clone. albeit with a nicer interface. If Apple had created a “tablet”, which would not strictly be a netbook, it would be hard for either Intel or Microsoft to dictate the specifications. And Apple had certainly resisted the netbook bandwagon.

And then Apple surprised us all. From the specifications, I was clearly wrong to think that way. The tablet doesn’t use the BSD-related OS and, in a sense, the device comes in below the netbook specification, though not by far. To compensate, it offers greater portability, more responsive hard drive and Apple style.

The following table shows the iPad specifications compared with the approximate specifications of a typical netbook:

	NETBOOK	iPAD
Processor	1.6 GHz Intel Atom*	1 GHz Apple*
Monitor	7” – 12”	9.7”
Weight	1.6kg (typical)	0.7kg
Hard Drive	160 GB (typical, electro-mech)	16 – 64 GB (SSD?)
Connectivity	802.11g/n, Bluetooth, (3g)	802.11g/?, Bluetooth, 3g
Operating system	Win XP Home/ Linux	iPhone
Battery life	under 10 hrs	probably over 10 hrs

* Because the two chips have different architectures, the difference between the two may be less than the clock speed suggests, but it is probable that the Apple chip would process a little more slowly than the Atom chip.

It will be interesting to hear more as more details are released. Things not mentioned in this table are lack of USB ports or a CD/DVD drive. This is a very different beast from the notebook computer - like netbook.

However we are still waiting to see the first models arrive in Australia, and will get a better picture by then of how these devices might be used -- or whether they are a device that comes with limited features and stacks of hype.

* * * * * * * *

Since writing this, more features have been reported, as at

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/12-key-features-the-ipad-lacks-20100128-n1ae.html

For all the hype, this is a very limited device...