I rather liked this meditation by Christina Patterson on the Church of England in the light of 1 Corinthians 13. Christina Patterson: Thank God for the Church of England - Christina Patterson, Commentators - The Independent: "I love it because it is patient. It does not expect the world to change in an instant, or to be bludgeoned into belief, because it knows that certain things take centuries. I love it because it is kind. It is kind enough to welcome strangers, whatever their beliefs, and shake their hands, and offer them drinks. It is kind enough to suggest that the biblical teaching on sex before marriage is a mere technicality that can be disregarded, and to offer couples with clear evidence of this disregard (in the form of children) its blessing in the form of weddings when they want them and baptisms when they want them, and even both at the same time, if they want them.
I like the fact that it is neither envious (of more flamboyant, more attention-seeking and more successful-at-proselytising religions) nor boastful. I like the fact that it is not arrogant or rude. I like the fact that it does not insist on its own way, but is genuinely tolerant of other religious beliefs and none. I like the fact that it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but quietly presents an ethical framework of kindness. I like the fact that it believes in the values of the New Testament, and of St Paul's description of love, which I've just paraphrased, but also believes that it is more important to embody them than to quote them.
I like the fact that it doesn't speak like a child, think like a child, or reason like a child. I like the fact that it is mature enough to recognise doubt. I like the fact that it is calm. I like the fact that it recognises that the religious impulse is here to stay, and that the more you try to crush it, the stronger it will be, and that all human beings, irrespective of their beliefs, have yearnings for the transcendent."
14 September 2009
An anti-religious form of Tourette's?
"You get the sense that Dawkins just can't control it. It's as if he suffers from an anti-religious form of Tourette's syndrome."
It being making snide and snarky comments about religion, even when he's set himself the task not to ...
Review: The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins - opinion - 14 September 2009 - New Scientist
It being making snide and snarky comments about religion, even when he's set himself the task not to ...
Review: The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins - opinion - 14 September 2009 - New Scientist
11 September 2009
How others see us: Alpha
This article Alpha 10: the reckoning | Adam Rutherford | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk is the final of a series in which an atheist (Atheist?) attends Alpha. It's salutary reading and I think that all of the ordinands at our college ought to engage with it (you know you want to peops). This last article summarises the main lessons learnt and this paragraph is the nearest to a summary of the whole thing:
Oh, and the final sentence is actually pretty encouraging too: "The revelation and truth I witnessed is this: if you are an atheist, you could do a lot worse than spend some time around those with whom you most profoundly disagree. Amen." And so say all of us (substitute your own faith stance for 'atheist').
"It may be impossible for someone like me to comprehend faith. As displayed during Alpha, evangelical Christianity simply fails to stand up to even the most superficial scrutiny. It seems unfathomable that intelligent people could genuinely believe that Christ rose from the dead, or that the Bible is not frightening, or that disease can be cured by magic. But they do. This movement feeds off ignorance and the deep-rooted latent cultural Christianity that bestows familiarity with the language and promises, but doesn't offer up enough information to say 'hang on, this doesn't make any sense, and isn't even very fair'."
Oh, and the final sentence is actually pretty encouraging too: "The revelation and truth I witnessed is this: if you are an atheist, you could do a lot worse than spend some time around those with whom you most profoundly disagree. Amen." And so say all of us (substitute your own faith stance for 'atheist').
In control? Think again. Our ideas of brain and human nature are myths
In an article which is useful for providing a fairly good, quick, overview of where we're up to with brain/neuroscience research as it impinges on how we live together and make policy. It ends with this 'left field' comment which I think we should take note of. The whole thing is here: In control? Think again. Our ideas of brain and human nature are myths | Madeleine Bunting | Comment is free | The Guardian And here's that very nearly final comment:
Now there are several things to note here. One is that this provides us an insight as to why Buddhism is attractive to certain sections of British society (and we should note that in the period 1970-2000, Buddhist groups in UK grew from 74 to around 400 -see p.19 of linked article). I'd take a punt as to what sections of Brit soc, on the basis of a little observation (so this is a hypothesis to be tested): it seemingly appeals to middle-aged, middle-class slightly left-ish people. Why? -it connects science and spiritually-searching sacralised-selves, ironically in a philosophy which is all about eliminating the self -sacralised or not (rephaps the burden of a sacralised self is too much to bear?). Those people who look to meditation and the life of the mind as ways to help them to deal with life. Bunting's paragraph puts together just what I think I'm observing about the attraction of Buddhism in our society.
Of course, the other dimension is why connection isn't being made to Christian faith with regard to this. It's not as if there isn't extensive reflection by Christians about the nature of the self etc. Some of this I would propose is naked dismissal of Christianity which is fuelled by a pomo suspicion of power and the Church-state thing gets in the way. Some of it is post-Enlightenment rationalism and the contemporary equivalent of Schleiermacher's 'cultured despisers of religion' -in this case Christendom-mode Christianity is mostly in the frame. Some of it is because we Christians have not really understood what the challenge is and have been slow to reacquaint ourselves with the relevant parts of our tradition and have responded to the challenge of neuroscience in Modernist categories rather than pomo mode.
We also need to better understand Buddhism; what it actually says about such things, and how we as Christians might respond to westernised appropriations of Buddhism (and it's interesting to note that there is debate in the wider Buddhist community about what we might term enculturation into Western/Northern cultural perspectives see this article, for example). Much of this is already picked up in stuff I've blogged previously... Here regarding selfhood and karma; here about it's possible relation to pomo; And a discussion about spirituality and apologetics in the contemporary West/North refers to it too.here is comment on research relating to teens. OMF have produced a really good brief introduction to Buddhism which is written in a way that highlights the challenges to Christians. But remember, in crafting apologetics to Western/Northern Buddhism-attracted seekers, we need to understand which bits are attractive and how and address that rather than simply transplanting the apologetic moves already developed in south-east Asia or Japan, for example. Be informed by them by all means but don't take them over wholesale.
To add one more element to this potent brew of extraordinary ideas: what has been left out of the UK debate so far is how much of this new research maps on to Buddhism. In the US, a group of researchers has been involved in an ongoing dialogue with the Dalai Lama to deepen understanding of the correlations between the new research and Buddhism. Here is a system of thought which has maintained for several thousand years that the idea of a separate individual self is an illusion, which urges a set of practices to increase awareness of the processes of the mind in order to transform them and cultivate ethical habits such as compassion or courage.
Now there are several things to note here. One is that this provides us an insight as to why Buddhism is attractive to certain sections of British society (and we should note that in the period 1970-2000, Buddhist groups in UK grew from 74 to around 400 -see p.19 of linked article). I'd take a punt as to what sections of Brit soc, on the basis of a little observation (so this is a hypothesis to be tested): it seemingly appeals to middle-aged, middle-class slightly left-ish people. Why? -it connects science and spiritually-searching sacralised-selves, ironically in a philosophy which is all about eliminating the self -sacralised or not (rephaps the burden of a sacralised self is too much to bear?). Those people who look to meditation and the life of the mind as ways to help them to deal with life. Bunting's paragraph puts together just what I think I'm observing about the attraction of Buddhism in our society.
Of course, the other dimension is why connection isn't being made to Christian faith with regard to this. It's not as if there isn't extensive reflection by Christians about the nature of the self etc. Some of this I would propose is naked dismissal of Christianity which is fuelled by a pomo suspicion of power and the Church-state thing gets in the way. Some of it is post-Enlightenment rationalism and the contemporary equivalent of Schleiermacher's 'cultured despisers of religion' -in this case Christendom-mode Christianity is mostly in the frame. Some of it is because we Christians have not really understood what the challenge is and have been slow to reacquaint ourselves with the relevant parts of our tradition and have responded to the challenge of neuroscience in Modernist categories rather than pomo mode.
We also need to better understand Buddhism; what it actually says about such things, and how we as Christians might respond to westernised appropriations of Buddhism (and it's interesting to note that there is debate in the wider Buddhist community about what we might term enculturation into Western/Northern cultural perspectives see this article, for example). Much of this is already picked up in stuff I've blogged previously... Here regarding selfhood and karma; here about it's possible relation to pomo; And a discussion about spirituality and apologetics in the contemporary West/North refers to it too.here is comment on research relating to teens. OMF have produced a really good brief introduction to Buddhism which is written in a way that highlights the challenges to Christians. But remember, in crafting apologetics to Western/Northern Buddhism-attracted seekers, we need to understand which bits are attractive and how and address that rather than simply transplanting the apologetic moves already developed in south-east Asia or Japan, for example. Be informed by them by all means but don't take them over wholesale.
10 September 2009
Review: ID: The Quest for Identity in the 21st Century:
I got this because I'm interested in the issue of identity both from an anthropological kind of view and also political (ID cards etc). I also have a long-standing interest in neuroscience as an ammateur onlooker and Susan Greenfield is a populariser of neuroscience -so just the kind of author I'm likely to find useful.
This book offers seeks to address the interfaces between IT, biotech and nanotech with a view to exploring what these things singly or together may do to human identity. To do this, there is a rather intriguing big picture approach to different forms of idenntity in different socio-cultural miliuex.
I found the Anyone, Someone, Nobody and Eureka typology interesting and worth funther reflection. 'Anyone' is about collective identities born of an extreme ideology where the individual is subsumed in the collective; 'Someone' is about identity formation of extreme individualism; Nobody is the danger of 'descent' into mere sensoriness and effectively losing or not activating the higher thinking capacities; Eureka is a creative identity which seems to synthesise the best of all and avoid the worst of each,
There are some interesting discussions of belief and a use of the seven deadly sins to think about the dangers of social identities. An interesting idea but needing more development and care to convince those of us who 'do religion' on a regular basis.
ID: The Quest for Identity in the 21st Century: Amazon.co.uk: Susan Greenfield: Books
This book offers seeks to address the interfaces between IT, biotech and nanotech with a view to exploring what these things singly or together may do to human identity. To do this, there is a rather intriguing big picture approach to different forms of idenntity in different socio-cultural miliuex.
I found the Anyone, Someone, Nobody and Eureka typology interesting and worth funther reflection. 'Anyone' is about collective identities born of an extreme ideology where the individual is subsumed in the collective; 'Someone' is about identity formation of extreme individualism; Nobody is the danger of 'descent' into mere sensoriness and effectively losing or not activating the higher thinking capacities; Eureka is a creative identity which seems to synthesise the best of all and avoid the worst of each,
There are some interesting discussions of belief and a use of the seven deadly sins to think about the dangers of social identities. An interesting idea but needing more development and care to convince those of us who 'do religion' on a regular basis.
ID: The Quest for Identity in the 21st Century: Amazon.co.uk: Susan Greenfield: Books
09 September 2009
The issue of suffering is not why but how?
That's what I have preaced several times in various churches I've been in. The thing that Buddhism made clear to me for my own faith is that suffering is and for most purposes the thing to do is not to focus on 'why?' questions but 'how...?' in particular 'how do I/we make this suffering count for eternity?'; for me this arises from reflection on Luke 13:1-5 where, in many ways, this seems to be the way Jesus answers.
Anyway, here's Richard Rohr saying something related which I very much resonate with. It's found at Brian McLaren's blog:
Do we transform our pain ... or ...:
Anyway, here's Richard Rohr saying something related which I very much resonate with. It's found at Brian McLaren's blog:
Do we transform our pain ... or ...:
"f we do not find some way to transform our pain, I can tell you with 100% certitude we will transmit it to those around us. We will create tension, negativity, suspicion, and fear wherever we go. Both Jesus and Buddha made it very clear to their followers that “life is suffering.” You cannot avoid it. It is no surprise that the central Christian logo became a naked, bleeding, suffering man. At the end of life, and probably early in life, too, the question is, “What do I do with this disappointment, with this absurdity, with this sadness?” Whoever teaches you how to transform your own suffering into compassion is a true spiritual authority. Whoever teaches you to project your doubt and fear onto Jews, Moslems, your family, heretics, gays, sinners, and foreigners, or even to turn it against yourself (guilt and shame) has no spiritual authority. Yet these very people have often preached from authoritative pulpits."
08 September 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)