Cameron's Christianity Codswallop

David Cameron's pronouncements yesterday on Christianity are confused and send out mixed messages. He trumpets that we are a Christian country, when for many practical purposes we are not (see here) - Cameron himself said he was only a vaguely practicing Christian and over half the country said they were non-religious in the latest social attitudes survey! He calls for the revival of traditional Christian values but says he is full of doubts on major theological issues (see here). He's hardly setting a Christian standard is he, so what is he playing at?

His stated idea is that the return of Christian values would help us fight our 'moral collapse'. He's wrong to think that Christianity and the Bible or any other religion and its texts are the basis of our morality. Human beings developed a sense of what is right and wrong long before any formal relgions existed and very likely for evolutionary reasons.

Instead of pronouncing on Christianity his focus should be on effective, practical action to tackle the poor moral standards so evident in politics, policing, banking and financial services, in the media, and in the Christian Church itself. I'm fed up with expenses scandals, police corruption, greedy bankers and business-people, 'mafia-like' newspaper organisations, sexism, homophobia, child abuse scandals...and the advocacy of materialism we've long had from all political colours.

He should be looking at the privileged, influential position of Christianity in the UK and planning to make us a better secular society. He should think through whether the Bible is actually a consistent guide to anything at all. Richard Dawkins says in his book The God Delusion that '...the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unkown to each other, spanning nine centuries...unfortunately it is this same weird volume that religious zealots hold up to us as the inerrant source of our morals and rules for living.'

David Cameron should recognise that actually his doubt is a good thing. Doubt means you are thinking. It means you are asking questions, not accepting the status quo - seeking change for the better. Doubt helps us break away from unjustifiable traditions. With no evidence for the existence of God - quite the contrary in fact - and no convincing arguments either, why believe? If there is a God why is there so much undeserved suffering in the world eg those homeless, cold, hungry, thirsty, lonely, subject to war, terrorism and crime, in hospital...? As Woody Allen said God 'is an underachiever' !

The 400th anniversary of the King James Bible that prompted David Cameron's comments has its significance of course. This book is a major, if not the major work of English literature. Atheist Richard Dawkins sums this up nicely in The God Delusion, '...the main reason the English Bible needs to be part of our education is that it is a major source book for literary culture. The same applies to the legends of the Greek and Roman gods and we learn about them without being asked to believe in them.'.

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16231223

*http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/952

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16224394

*http://www.bristol247.com/2011/12/12/your-say-on-what-grounds-can-we-claim-to-be-a-christian-country-68525/

Support the petition asking the Prime Minister to apologize for the prosecution of Alan Turing for being gay that led to his untimely death

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/turing/ - signed this petition today after seeing a story in The Independent detailing Richard Dawkins call for an apology for Turing. The petition details say...

Alan Turing was the greatest computer scientist ever born in Britain. He laid the foundations of computing, helped break the Nazi Enigma code and told us how to tell whether a machine could think.

He was also gay. He was prosecuted for being gay, chemically castrated as a 'cure', and took his own life, aged 41.

The British Government should apologize to Alan Turing for his treatment and recognize that his work created much of the world we live in and saved us from Nazi Germany. And an apology would recognize the tragic consequences of prejudice that ended this man's life and career.

Charles Darwin: Genius

Professor Yaffle from Bagpuss he may resemble (according to the Guardian tv guide this week), but Professor Richard Dawkins new tv series 'The Genius of Charles Darwin' is well worth watching. Genius is very apt indeed as the theory of evolution by natural selection continues to explain a very large mountain of facts, including masses of genetics that Darwin would have loved to ponder but of course new nothing about! The clip below features Dawkins attempting to open the minds of some young people to basing their views on the best available evidence.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor and the danger, yes he said danger, of reason

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor's standard of argument on Radio 4's Today progam this morning was apalling (he obviously sticks more to faith than thinking). His view is that societies would degrade into totalitarian dictatorships such as those under Hitler or Stalin if based on reason alone. Yes, this is an accurate summary of one of his main points, such as there were, when questioned by John Humphrey's about why we should believe in god and why religion should have the very prominent place it has in our secular society (you can listen to the interview again here, as well as an earlier one with Prof Richard Dawkins giving the atheist view).

He sees reason as dangerous!! Does the Cardinal not see that rule under Hitler and Stalin was certainly not based upon reason? Does the Cardinal not see that in fact faith (in a leader and in a single ideology like Nazism or Communism...) played an enormous role in the dictatorships of Hitler and Stalin? I think the reverse of what the Cardinal said is in fact true - we are much more likely to be ruled over by a dictator, including (or perhaps especially) a religious dictator, if we dont see and use the full value of doubt, questioning and reason.

The Cardinal wants '...improved dialogue between believers and non-believers to establish the shared values that sustain Britain’s plural society.' The dialogue in the interview was a very, very poor start at this 'improvement'. Science and reason cannot and will not ever explain everything fully. It should not be regarded as the be all and end all of knowledge types. However, the answer to questions like: who designed the designer that, apparently, created us? (what designer ?) ; and what is a good explanation of how life came about? (evolution by natural selection), means that I will remain of the view that the existence of god is extremely unlikely until much better evidence and arguments surface !! It is indeed convenient for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor to describe god as 'mysterious' !!

On the Bible as a work of literature and as a source of and guide to morality

We should all gain knowledge of the Bible in 2008 advocates Richard Benson in a letter today. He says '...atheist Richard Dawkins believes that children should grow up with a knowledge of the Bible.'

For a more complete and accurate picture it should be noted that Dawkins view on the Bible, as expressed in his book The God Delusion, is that '...the main reason the English Bible needs to be part of our education is that it is a major source book for literary culture. The same applies to the legends of the Greek and Roman gods and we learn about them without being asked to believe in them.'

As for the Bible and what Richard Benson's letter refers to as 'the beliefs and values that underpin much of our history and culture', Richard Dawkins says in The God Delusion that '...the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unkown to each other, spanning nine centuries...unfortunately it is this same weird volume that religious zealots hold up to us as the inerrant source of our morals and rules for living.'

Its clear that whilst Dawkins does feel that some parts of the King James Bible of 1611 (Authorized Version) have considerable literary merit and should thus be studied so that people can better appreciate English literature, he is certainly not holding it up as a source of or guide to morality!!

Who designed the designer? People made God not God people...

I found this piece in the local paper quite interesting. It seems (shock, horror!) that much about Christmas is made up and of often disputed origin. For me religion itself is likewise. Yes, there is certainly a challenge to explain life. It looks like it was ‘designed’, thus implying the existence of a designer (God). But who or what designed the designer?

The occurrence of life on Earth is highly improbable but the existence of a designer (God) very much more so. Even so, people like US President George W Bush favour the teaching of ‘intelligent design’ as a scientific theory competing with evolutionary theories. As with climate science Bush and his administration again cant tell what is and what is not accepted science, despite what the scientific community tell him.

Evolution by natural selection (championed very vigorously by people like Richard Dawkins) is a pretty good explanation of how complex life with the appearance of design developed stepwise from basic building blocks. Human explanation of the rest of the universe continues to develop and we are further improving our understanding of evolution.

People created God not God people. So, why have religion (it does seem to be everywhere) ? Looking at the world it does not seem to be doing a very good job of consoling people! Or of getting them to live good lives!