Good old Christians spoiling it for themselves

I saw this clip on Youtube today, it is the most watched video at the moment to do with News & Politics (despite the fact that it doesn't really fit into this catergory)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECE77Imki9M&feature=topvideos

Basically the interviewer (Bill O'Reilly) gets so defensive about his faith that his statements and train of thought become frazzled and illogical. The answer to the debate of how scientific and religious views can co-exist is remarkedly simple and I admit I have stolen the view from the TV show the West Wing. Science is about What, How, When etc... Religion is about a supernatural being or higher power.

So teach Science in Science claseses. Teach evolution, the big bang and all of the latest scientific theories. If you want to learn more about a faith based or religious approach go to a church or to other people with similiar views. That's where you children go to learn about those things as well.

Science which is for all is taught where all must access it, in schools
Religions which can be for is taught where all might acces it, in church

Reflections on The God Delusion - Ch 1 - Deserved Respect

I must admit that this section really really confused me and despite reading it through 3 times, I still don't get the point of it! The chapter 'Deserved Respect' begins with the story of a boy lying on the grass who suddenly becomes aware of the wonder that we have around us. From the stems and roots to the ants, beetles and soil bacteria. How complex and wonderful our world is. The chapter goes on to say that this could be interpreted in a religious way or in a scientific way and that there is no explanation as to why people interpret these in different ways. Dawkins goes on to suggest that if people were to experience these explanations keeping in mind the scientific train of thought, that this might lead them towards Darwinism.

I would agree that when looking at the world with the scientific proof/findings you can see how various theories are at work. However I don't believe that evolution and creation theories have to be polar opposites. Darwinism is all about the evolution of our world 'produced by laws acting around us' and for me at least, these laws were created by a higher power. I believe that the reason there seems to be little intregration of the two theories is the failure of the Church to admit to not knowing everything and trying not to change. It is this that Dawkins addresses next. A qoute from Carl Sagan is used to explain that religions dont seem to take new knowledge and use it to expand their religions and concepts, but rather try and keep their beliefs in the same old box. For religion and faith to continue in a organised form, this must change.

The chapter then goes on to explain how the word 'God' is misused. Many people in particular non-believers use it to explain certain things however 'if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally undersood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is appropriate for us to worship'. I think many believers today would agree that  aspects of religious faith have become secular or 'mainstream' and that far too many people do things that have religious connections without realising that they are doing so.

Dawkins then goes on to explain that confusion is caused by 'Einstenian Religion' (when the word God is invoked in a scientific understanding) and Supernatural Religion (when the word God is invoked in praise, wonder, thanks and amazement). A list of scientists who are athiests but who are often mistaken as believers is then given including Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and Ursula Goodenough. The chapter continues by acknowledging that many people 'believe in belief' as they feel it gives them a good life structure, rather than believeing in a supernatural power.

A number of pages is then spent making it quite clear that Einstein was not religious. It mentions several qoutes where he denies following God. And this is followed up the responses given by various Christian/Religious organisations at the time which are truly horrible. Most of the responses are direct and ask him to publically change his mind. This is the true crime as I see it , instead of respecting his decision and if they were truly worried for him speaking one on one, groups and individuals have contacted him telling him 'the truth' as they see it. The inability to respect individuals decisions still lies at the heart of all religious organisations problems.

The chapter ends with an explanation of Einsteinian Religion from Einstein himself ' To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty annd sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious'. A Carl Sagan qoute is also used '.. if by God, one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity'. I would agree that there is little or no point in praying to a God that is only physical in nature. However for me, my personal beliefs are that there is a God who not only established the physical laws but you can connect with in other ways as well.

I starting this post by explaining I didn't understand this chapter very well, and I still don't. I mean I understand that some people see religion and some people see science. And I also see that some quotes I have heard that have been attributed to scientific intellectuals are scientific not religious in their meaning. I would agree that people have the right to have the context and the true meaning of their communications known by all.

But what I don't understand is how this disproves a God. Is it because some smart people thought there wasn't a God that I too should believe one does not exist? Or is it that people who have been converted by being told that smart people think that God exists will now no longer believe having found out the truth? I do not believe anyone should believe or disbelieve based on just listening to someone smarter than you. To me, this chapter misses the point completely. Earlier in this post, I referred to how religions were slow to take up new scientific theories and knowledge and incorporate them into their faith to expand their views. I think a similar critisim could be used for non-believers who refuse to even enter into thought of a personal God. In both examples people are limiting their experiences. People who think and re-think again when prompted are in the clear whether they are religious or athiest. People who continue to stick to the same path and ignore everything are the ones truly missing out on the wonder of our world.

Relections on The God Delusion - Preface

The God Delusion begins with Richard Dawkins explaining that this book is for people who didn't know they could. In specific, for people who have been brought up in religion and don't believe, who feel at odds with the some actions taken by their religion or feel that there is intense pressure by family and friends to stay in it.

On observations on readings and speaking with family and friends I must make this point clear. There are many different degrees to religion. Unfortunately, the fundementlistic areas of all religions give religion a bad name. Whether it is the extremeist Islamic sects or the strong fundementalal Christians in the south of the United States, all show strong views of hatred and strong intolerance towards individuals and groups which in todays society is unacceptable. Luckily, I live in Australia, which although would be described as predominantly Christian, religion just doesn't seem to effect things as much. Whether it is our political system and government or within our communities, religion is present in various forms and denominations but generally there is an 'easy come, easy go' attitude.

All Christians do not believe in the same thing. Speaking to a friend (non-believer) recently he mentioned that he did not like the hypocrasy of someone he knew who although was a 'Christian' he used contraception which the Roman Catholic Church is against. I had to point out that the Pope did not speak for many denominations of the Christian faith and in fact I was not a fan of how the Roman Catholic faith worked largely to strictness, guilt and commanding nature of it. There are more liberal faiths around.

And it would be these more liberal and relaxed faiths that although would want people to stay connected with their faith and spirituality, would respect people if they felt they needed to change their views or affliations. In a church where all are accepted regardless of sex, race, sexuality and past, all people are wished well if they choose to decide to continue their journey elsewhere. In a church that is strict and judgemental, people are often chased out for having different views or guilted back into the mainstream.

But back to The God Delusions... Dawkins then suggests that we should imagine a world with no religion and gives several examples of things that would not have happened if religion didn't exist such as 9/11, the crusades, Northern Ireland troubles, televangelists, Taliban and others. I'm not going to pretend that religious belief isn't a  major cause of angst in all of these situations and that without it, the majoirty of these problems would disappear all together. What I would suggest is that as a whole humanity has grown considerably in the past few centuries and that of all the institutions in our world, religion is the last to change, the most resistant.

As a 25 year old I can not imagine a world where women or people of other races could not vote and did not have a say. However for a large percentage of people alive today these changes occured in their lifetime. Humanity as a whole is rejecting oppression and discrimination. Are religions and some churches slow to accept this, Yes. Does it excuse them for the hatred and angst they foster, No. Should society continue to push the beliefs and actions of religious organisations and challenge them to reevaluate how they act? Absolutely!

I am not going to use the excuse that religion does a lot of good so it balances out the bad. Anything wrong within society's standards is clearly unacceptable. Although Roman Polanski maybe a brilliant director, it doesn't mean that he can raper and assualy young girls and then never be charged or punished. It doesn't matter if 10 million extra people have been fed in Africa if a 12 boy is being sexually abused in the middle of a populous town. I would say however for past wrongs in times where there have been similar problems that reflect on society rather than religion that these should be forgotten.

Dawkins then goes on to explain a little about each chapter and I will leave that for later posts! He then speaks about people should be able to be proud that they are atheists and comment how people particularly in America are anti-athiest. While I understand where he is coming from, that people should not have to hide their thoughts and life-values, neither do I think you need to rub them in everyone's faces. I do not walk down the street yelling at people to 'listen to God'. Neither do I sit in church and scream 'A God that gives free choice, but if you don't follow his way you die?'. While it is imporant to be able to share your values and opinions, it is more important that you can live your live free of people continually judging you, no matter what your spiritual beliefs. As for people being more likely to vote for anyone than an athiest, it shows that people are obviously care about others religious beliefs more than anything else. I don't believe that this actually makes people better letters or politians and is probably more of a sad reflection on the state of our corrent society than anything else.

In concluding before going on to thank all the people who helped him with the writing and publishing of the book, Richard Dawkins states that he hopes that religious readers will be athiests by the time they finish the book. I must admit that this is the part that made me put the book back on the shelf on my first read. How dare he write something that is specifically designed to make people lose faith! I guess this is hard for me to take as while the church I attend certainly wants to grow the faith, none of our material is designed to turn a persons spiritual beliefs in reading. Not even the Bible does that!

On reflection however I know that many religions do in fact have material specifically designed, debated, tested and trialled to target those in need, depression or trouble and offer them a way out and Dawkins is doing nothing more than that here. Perhaps I just feel that it should be handled a different way whether it be being wanting to learn more or learn less about a religion's views and beliefs. Don't target those who are weak but offer to all in a conversation and  discussion rather than these are the facts. Accept them and be rid of your situation or ignore them and stay miserable.

So that's the preface done and dusted. Sorry again for the spelling and grammer woes... Really need to sort that out!

A Spark, the Start, Motivation!

I always have ideas for this and that but they nearly always end before they get started. Well today I start. After watching a TV prgroam called QANDA (Questions and Answer) last night I think that it is important that I do this. Not to try and covert people to Christianity, not to persuade people to think about their own spirituality. I need to do this so I can think and work through some issues of my own faith. On the the show, there are 5 guests who take it in turns to speak various issues in response to questions. The topics I watched being discussed were:

• Disasters - God & Miracles
• In Defence of Religion
• Evangelical Atheism
• Religion & Society
• Atheist For PM

One of the guests was Christopher Hitchens who amongst many things is the writer of 'God Is Not Great' a 'fierce denunciation of organised religion: 'violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children.'

He was certainly entertaining in many ways but I must admit that he also offered some very thought provoking concepts. In particular I liked how he said that Governments should not rely on religious organisations to provide essential services like health and aged care. The entire episode is available for download from the ABC website (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda) and the episode aired on Thursday October 1st 2009.

It was later in bed that night that I realised quite a long time ago I had bought Richard Dawkins book 'The God Delusion' with the idea of reading through it and writing out some thoughts as I progressed. However after reading the prologue I was so annoyed that I decided it was better left of the bookshelf. Since then I have grown some what in my views of the world and while no doubt parts will distress me as I read, I have a different theory.

My theory is essentially this - We are all wrong. No one has thier ideas/beliefs/life view 100% correct and as such we need to look at others view and try to understand it from their perspective.  If any one group, person, religion or organisation understood everything and knew it all then they would have the right to enforce 'their' way. Any attempt to enforce the 'right way' simply shows no humilty and basic reasoning that can only suggest that 'right way' is in fact wrong! In my eyes not only includes material by Richard  Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens but also by religious groups or leaders such as the Pope.

In this blog I also intend to write about subjects that make no sense and frustrate me in my own faith but for the moment I intend to focus on blogging about each chapter and topic in 'The God Delusion'. First up... the prologue I never made it past the first time!