"One Shot Mega-Luck"...?

A few years ago, I asked for the book "The God Delusion" for Christmas. This is a book about atheism by the world's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins. For the last few years, I've been looking into atheism. I've been reading books and articles, and listening to podcasts etc, trying to get a handle on it. I'm quite a critical thinker, and I don't like the idea that I've fallen into Christianity just because it's the religion of my childhood. At the same time, I wouldn't want to reject it for that reason either... I have been genuinely interested in what atheists have to say and I like to make sure that I haven't just been kidding myself that Christianity is a viable worldview option to own for my life.

I have to say that I've been a little disappointed with what I've found on offer by the "new atheists", and I'm quite fascinated by my level of disappointment. Megan, my life (typo - I meant my wife), laughs at me when I tell her how disappointed I am that the atheist's arguments haven't been able to sway me. I think she thinks there's something strange about that - not that the arguments haven't swayed me, but that I was so disappointed that they hadn't. My disappointment comes from three main things...

The first disappointment is that the level of argument against God hasn't been very sophisticated. I was genuinely hoping for more and hoping to be deeply challenged by the latest, cutting edge thinking in atheism - and it just wasn't there. Some of the arguments could have been refuted by Sunday School kids and others just demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the nature of religion and spirituality in any form or expression across most of the world. I thought it might be just me, but then I heard two different people on two separate occasions on podcasts say that the arguments of the "new atheists" weren't as good as some of the great atheists of the past (and one of the people who said this was an atheist himself!)...

The second disappointment is the continual use of "straw man" arguments. "Straw man" arguments are when someone who disagrees with a point of view, weakly and erroneously builds up a picture of that point of view (the straw man), and then sets out to tear down the point of view bit by bit with apparent ease. Some of these guys are talking about strokes, hallucinations and being swept away by mega-church experiences as religion and then coming across like they've said and done something significant when they've talked down these things. It would be like bringing up the recent "Climategate" email scandal or CSIRO research scandal and then claiming that you've brought the field of science to its knees. It's kind of sad and funny at the same time...

But the third and biggest disappointment is the lack of an answer as to our origins or anything's origins for that matter. I was thinking that surely there would be some new insight into this or some new scientific discovery about this to back up this new zeal and fervor of the new atheists. I can appreciate a lot of the talk from atheists about how amazing evolutionary processes might be, but I've never heard any good response to the question of how the process began - which to my mind, undermines the whole credibility of the process as a useful theory. This seems like a pretty important piece of information to have a grasp of if you are going to be confident in your a-theism. But I was listening to Richard Dawkins talk at the Global Atheists Convention last month about evolution, and in this particular podcast his description of the origins of the universe and then of life was that there had been a does of "one shot mega luck"...

What? What did you say? One shot mega luck? - that's what you've replaced the notion of God with... You, what?... One shot mega luck? You must be kidding... This is what the world's most prominent atheist travels the world armed with as he confidently dismisses the existence of God. Sorry Richard, I was looking for more from you and the crew. I'm feeling a little more confident about where I'm at... but ever watchful. Truth can turn up in the most surprising of places.

Shalom...

"God and Caesar"

(For those of you on Facebook, this “note” is a blog post on my blog called “Steve’s Greenspace” – about the relationship between personal and public spirituality. The posts come across to Facebook as notes and all my “friends” get them inflicted upon them. If you don’t want to receive them, please feel free to not read them, but please still be my friend... Steve)

Angela Shanahan wrote an interesting article in The Weekend Australian a number of weeks ago called “Godless politics has gone too far for democracy”. It is worth reading... In the article, she recounts a question asked by an audience member on the ABC’s “Q & A” panel show. A young man asked the panel whether people with strong religious beliefs should be allowed to participate in politics.

The philosophy or attitude behind this question is one that is on the rise in Australia at present. I wonder if it coincides with the rise of a more overt and activist atheist movement in the country – not sure, but maybe... Anyway, the philosophy is one about the meaning of secularism and how it relates to democracy. The philosophy promotes an understanding of secularism which means “no religion” in the public sphere, rather than “all religions” in the public sphere (and not just all religions, but all worldviews and voices). It comes out of a misunderstanding of the meaning of “the separation of church and state” and of a New Testament phrase - “Give Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:15-22).

Angela Shanahan takes a look at these ideas as part of her article as well. The misunderstanding of the “God and Caesar” idea promotes the idea that religion is one thing, politics is another thing, and the two shouldn’t mix. When church leaders enter into political debates, politicians are likely to politely respect their opinions but kindly invite them to go back to what it is that they are good at (IE – not politics). When Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give to God what is God’s”, he had no intention of encouraging people to leave their spiritual lives at the door of the public arena. He was simply giving a clever answer to a question that had been designed to trap him into an answer that would cause him trouble.

The Jews were a conquered people, struggling under Roman rule, and Religious leaders came up with a question that was sure to get Jesus into trouble with his hearers – “Should we pay tax to Caesar?” If Jesus answered “yes” then he was supporting the people’s oppressors; if he answered “no” then he would be encouraging dissent or even rebellion. So, Jesus (who doesn’t feel the need to fall into people’s traps for him) says, “Give me a coin. Whose face is on it?” The answer was “Caesar’s”. Well then, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give to God what is God’s.” Jesus is not much of a game player and he doesn’t give a lot of airplay to the game players. The question wasn’t a serious one, so rather than engage with it, he turns (as he often does) the potential trap into an opportunity to promote his own hobby horse – “give your life over to God”.

This is a technique I’ve seen many politicians use. ("Well Kerry, that is a good question, but what the people of Australia really want to know is...” ). Maybe Jesus should have gone into politics... But I digress. Jesus’ message to people, over and over, was “take God seriously in your life, or don’t, but whatever you do don’t flounce around in-between.” And this was his message for all of life – not just what some regard as the “spiritual” parts. It even applies to the world of politics...

Shalom...