Morality in the 21st Century

One of the podcasts I listen to and admire a lot is “Philosophy Bites”. David Edmunds and Nigel Warburton interview philosophers on various topics and put together very interesting 15 minute segments. In this episode entitled “Morality in the 21st Century”, Susan Neiman, the head of the Einstein Forum in Berlin, talks about the progress humanity has made in relation to morality and the Enlightenment as a good source for a moral code for our time.

Neiman suggests that the Enlightenment is often misunderstood and caricatured in ways that aren’t helpful. Contrary to these views, she proposes that the Enlightenment was essentially about 4 things:

(1) Happiness: Neiman is not talking about that warm, fuzzy feeling we get inside here, but happiness in terms of personal and societal wellbeing. She thinks that the Enlightenment thinkers believed that people should be free from worry about their basic survival, and free to pursue a life with meaning and purpose.

(2) Reason: Neiman says that this has been an absurdly caricatured aspect of the Enlightenment and criticises the “new atheists” for getting on board with this. Reason is not the polar opposite of faith. The Enlightenment thinkers were not coldly rational and saw the very clear limits of reason. They still strongly emphasised passion, intuition, and the transcendent.

(3) Reverence: This is the big surprise for many people. The Enlightenment thinkers were not against spirituality, but they were opposed to organised religion and the way it had been used to oppress and control people. There was recognition that the Judeo-Christian religious traditions and positions were strongly reasoned ones. The scientific methods grew out of a desire to know the Creator better through understanding creation better. Neiman suggested that the core of this element was essentially a sense of gratitude about the world and an appreciation that we didn’t make it. A notion that could unite secular and religious people.

(4) Hope: This is very different from optimism. Neiman says that the Enlightenment didn’t necessarily see humanity is good, marching forward to this positive future based on their goodness. There was a lot of attention given to the problem of evil in the lives of people and in the world. However, they did believe that these ideals they were thinking through could actually improve the world and make it a better place should people commit them and act upon them.

It’s very interesting stuff and there is a lot more than what I have previewed here. It’s less than 15 minutes long, so it won’t take long to have a listen and to see what you think...

Shalom...

Out of the Mouths of Babes

My son Lewis is 4 years old and conversations with him can begin and end anywhere. This morning, our conversation began with, “Dad, do you still have that sore in your bottom?” I couldn’t work out what he was talking about and then he reminded me that I had had a sore in my bottom a few weeks ago. This is where the conversation went from there...

With a smile, I said, “The sore is gone now buddy. It got better.”

“Why?”

Why did it get better?”

“Yes.”

“Well, your body is designed in such a way that when you get a sore, it gets better over time and it goes away.”

Long pause.... “Dad..... Why did God make things so hard?”

Slightly taken aback, I asked, “What do you mean, why did God make it so we get sores and things like that?”

A little nod...

At this point, I’m moved, amazed and impressed by my little man and his big question – probably the biggest question that a person can ask at almost any point in their life (although it seemed a little out of place coming from a 4 year old) - “Why did God make things so hard?” So, we talked about this for a short while. I told him that God had made things good and that when people decided not to do things God’s way, it wrecked a whole lot of stuff for everyone and made things hard. I went on to say that God wanted to try to get back all the good stuff for people. He wanted people to live God’s good way.

Lewis then said, “God doesn’t want people to go to jail does he?” (I love the leaps)

I smiled and said, “No, God doesn’t want people to go to jail. He wants good things for them”

“What if they keep doing bad things? Will he put them in jail?”

“Well God wants good things for people. He is very patient and kind and he wants to give them lots of chances to be good and enjoy his good things.”

Another pause... “I think I’m going to talk to God now.”

“Okay...” (trying to keep up with whatever is happening)

Lewis, walking around the lounge room prays, “God, can you fix everything and make it good? Can make things right?”

“Amen.” I said.

Lewis then looked at me and said, “I’m not going to pray to God anymore.” To which I replied, “Well, I think God is going to miss you talking to him. I’m you daddy and I love talking to you, and God is like your daddy in heaven and he loves talking with you too.”

Another pause, then, “Well, I’ll talk to him and I’ll just tell him that I love him.”

Tears in my eyes... “I think he’ll like that buddy.”

A morning to treasure...

Shalom...

Heaven Can't Wait

There is a lot being written about spirituality and religion at the moment – even if most of it is negative or dismissive. This weekend, the Weekend Australian Magazine published an article called “Heaven Can Wait” by Johann Hari. With the tag line, “It’s time to get over the myth of the hereafter” (or something like that) it’s not too difficult to work out the direction the article takes.

It’s a mixed article. It suffers from the foibles of a lot of atheistic writing – it has a lot of “straw man” set ups; weak arguments with large holes; a convenient and creative historical account of the development of ideas; language designed to make anyone who is even considering there might be an afterlife feel like a mindless zombie; and most of all, it suffers from that classic rationalistic, atheistic assumption that anything you can’t see, tag and classify, isn’t worth considering and reflecting on... The good thing about the article however, is that it provides us with a challenge to reflect upon our beliefs about heaven and how these beliefs impact upon our lived out lives.

When most people think about heaven, they think about a future, disembodied, other worldly existence in the presence of God and all the other “saints” that goes on forever (and many also see clouds, wings and harps somewhere in the picture). But the interesting thing is, when we look at what the Bible says when it talks about the “age to come”, it talks about God coming and making his dwelling place on earth among his people (Revelation 21: 1-7). It seems that heaven might not be the end of the world after all, and that God is committed to renewing this world and this life, and making sure that all that has been lost to God and the cosmos through sin is won back once and for all. This view of heaven is amazingly affirming of this world and this life, and we see the first evidence of this in the very physical resurrection of Jesus, celebrated at Easter.

The other thing that is worth noting is the way Jesus talked about heaven. He spoke a lot about the “Kingdom of Heaven” and said things like “it is near” and that “it is among us”. He taught about this, told heaps of stories about this and lived out the vision of this in the community of people he set up around him. This is where Hari’s main argument really falls down. “Heaven can’t wait”!!! When heaven is seen as a future, disembodied, other worldly experience, then there is a real danger that the concept can at best, be of no use to us, and at worst cause harm to us and others. But when we conceptualise heaven as Jesus did, as a future hope that can be lived out in the present, then it becomes a potentially transformative vision worth living out – especially one that can be “good news to the poor” (because the last will be first “in heaven”)...

When Jesus taught us to pray, he put it to God, “Your Kingdom come, your will be done, on earth like it is in heaven.” Jesus was committed to and working toward God’s vision of Shalom – God’s cosmic groovy-ness where everything is at is should be - and that is a vision just might be worth living for in this life, and carrying forward into the next.

Shalom...

Federal Budget 2010 - How will the world's poor fare?

TEAR Australia's "ChangeMakers" advocacy group, have released an article entitled "Federal Budget 2010 - How will the world's poor fare?". It talks a bit about the budget in general, about Australia's overseas aid commitments, and makes some suggestions about some political action we could take to help the world's poor through political action.


As a Christian person, I think my decision on who I vote for in the next election should be heavily influenced by how the party approaches its commitments to the world's poorest people.

Anyway, take a look and see what you think... if you dare...

Shalom...

Resurrection

I know Easter was a few weeks ago now, and that I'm a little behind the times, but I have just caught up with some podcasts as I have been driving around in my car and riding on the train. The resurrection is the cornerstone event for the Christian faith and its important to consider it and to think through what it means for our lives. If we don't understand the resurrection and what it means, then we can't really understand the Christian faith.

This post is simply a "heads up" for an excellent podcast on the resurrection. It is a sermon by Rob Bell of the Mars Hill church - the one he did for his church on Resurrection Sunday. It really inspired me to value the importance of the resurrection and it reminded me that at the heart of the meaning of the resurrection, is that God values this world and this life, and that it is an event for hope in the here-and-now as well as for hope in the future. Rob provides a number of very useful analogies that helped me to understand some of the implications of the resurrection for our lives.

Have a listen and see what you think...

Shalom... 

"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...

Monty Python and The Life of Brian

"The Life of Brian"... I love this movie. I used to use segments of it when I taught RE is schools. I had it worked out perfectly so as to miss all the bits with swearing in it. Except for that one day, when I was standing at the back of the classroom, day dreaming a little, without the video remote control in my hand, and Brian tells everyone who is trying to follow him to "Fuck Off!!!" I hastily made a deal with the students that involved them going out from class a little early in return for not telling anyone that there had been swearing on the TV in the chaplain's RE lesson.

But I digress...

A few weeks ago, we were watching "Monty Python's - Almost the Truth: the lawyer's cut" on the TV and there was a great segment on the time John Cleese and Michael Palin had a TV debate with The Bishop of Surrey (I think) and Malcolm Muggeridge about the whether the film degraded Jesus or not. I couldn't find that particular segment online but I did find another Youtube video on it, and it is worth a look:


I love it... I'm totally on the side of the Python crew... I love the conclusion that they come to that they can't find enough in the teachings and life of Jesus to ridicule him. What they did come up with in the end was pure gold. It's hard to imagine the movie being anything else other than what it is...

Shalom...

Blowing the Cobwebs off this Blog...

It has been ages since I've made a post on this blog and there have been many blog-able things going on. I've been a little busy with work and life, and the blog is the thing that suffers when that is the case. I just don't have, what my wife calls, "the mental real estate" to think and write about stuff when too much is happening on everywhere else in my life... Today, I just wanted to let people know that there is a great article in today's Australian called "Looking for the Real Abbott". It is about Tony Abbott's "Conservatism" and "Catholicism" (again) and how the media has been dealing with it. This article kind of builds on from my previous post (back in the dark annuls of history that it is)...

Paul Kelly (editor-at-large - what a great job title) says that the media are doing Tony Abbott a dis-service by presenting his faith in a particular way that matches a religious "narrative" about him that makes good viewing or reading, but does not present the factual story or a well-rounded picture. He puts up as an example, the ABC's Four Corner interview with Tony Abbott called "The Authentic Mr Abbott" from last Monday night, saying that Liz Jackson goes out of her way to encourage the "Mad Monk" narrative, focusing on anything negative that can be connected to his faith.

Also in the article, Kelly goes on to talk about the different approach that Kevin Rudd takes to dealing with his faith in public and asks whether the faith of our two leading politicians will become an election issue. While he says it "currently lurks in the background", I think it might be more prominent than that. The targets are seemingly too huge to resist... So, we shall see what develops... (anyway, the article is a good read)...

Shalom...

God is Back (revisited)

In the middle of last year, I did a blog post called "God is Back" based on an article in The Australian about a book by the same name. The theme of the book is the surprising rise of faith, spirituality and religion across the world our journey into an apparently more rational and secular age.In 1999, The Economist published God's obituary, but 7 years later had to change their tune. "God is Back: How the Global Rise of Faith is Changing the World". is written by John Micklewait (editor-in-chief on The Economist) and Adrian Wooldridge (Washington bureau chief of the London-based weekly magazine) and looks at the reasons why spirituality and religion have persisted in the modern world when many predicted that it would die off in a puff of well-reasoned secularism.

I haven't got anything much more to say about that. This post is really to point you toward a very charming and amusing ABC Radio National podcast of an interview between John Micklewait and Phillip Adams, Australia's best-known atheist. The interview, originally broadcast in July last year) is about the book (the podcast is also called "God is Back"). Adams, with good grace, bemoans the book's findings and, with his tongue firmly in this cheek, confesses his growing dislike for the author. The exchanges between the two are quite delightful.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy it...

Shalom...