Author Archive for AlexAsAdmin

Comment: Sam Harris rejects ‘atheism’, the word

Atheism, the word, is problematic for many atheists and so historical and colourful alternatives are proposed for fellow-travellers – brights, free-thinkers, non-believers, disbelievers, and the like. Harris in a 2007 address to an Atheist Alliance conference argued against all such words: the concept as a label is inherently flawed. See http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1702 for an on-line video and edited transcript.
 
Harris sees any non-belief label as hopefully anachronistic and unneeded as non-slavery or non-astrology are today. In Harris’ ideal future the religious would be the categorised ones with the normality of atheism making it “scarcely intelligible as a concept”.
 
Harris addresses more immediate problems with terms ‘atheism’ and ‘atheist’, the crass marginalisation of genuine criticisms of religious attitudes and the bluntness of simple rejection of all religions. Demands for evidence and reason to support religious claims are often sidelined by accusations of ‘militant atheism’ or ‘new atheism’. Also Harris advises that critics of religion to be more nuanced in their attitudes and attacks. They need to be aware of religious differences and the different threats they pose for a secular society. Harris sees extreme forms of Islam as being more dangerous (and popular) than their Christian equivalents.  He quotes a poll showing that 30% of British Muslims support death for apostasy, leaving the faith, and 68% support criminal prosecution for Islamic insults. Most problems with Christian fundamentalists are with child-abuse through narrow faith education. Again Harris returns to the need for critics to reject atheist labels and demand for evidence, reason and free thought to characterise our society.
 
Harris rightly comments that atheism is wrongly characterised as an alternative worldview to religion. That is simply not true. Atheism is a position on what exists (and not exists) in our reality - metaphysics in philosopher-speak. Atheism says nothing about origins of the universe, life, and human morality. It says nothing about moral or immoral behaviour. An atheist can live an upstanding life – many do – without any reference to his or her metaphysical position, or alternatively atheists like many Christians, Muslims, whites, blacks, Democrats, liberals, conversatives, and Jews may inflict considerable pain on others.
 
Finally Harris highlights the need for atheists (whomever they are) to recognise that people can have genuine contemplative experiences, ’spiritual’ experiences in lieu of a better term. This does not mean accepting any notion of a soul but seeing spiritual, a horizontal version, coming from within us and our responses to the physical world – not mysterious but special.

Alex McCullie

Comment: What Is Religion?

For Australians like most in developed Western countries the traditional symbols come to mind: special places like churches; crucifixes, alters, and other special objects; groups praying and singing; biblical texts and hymn books; special rituals; and priests and ministers preaching. These represent the practices and beliefs we associate with religions or, at least, the ones we see or participate. On further reflection or after overseas travel we realise the narrowness of these conceptions. I am reminded on Mencken’s warning about seeking a simple answer to a complex issue as quoted on this page.

Theologians, sociologists, philosophers, anthropologists, biologists, and psychologists have studied religions to identify the illusive essence. Each have, not surprisingly, approached from the perspectives of their disciplines – the theological, social, philosophical, biological, and psychological. 

Here are a few definitions to broaden the thinking:
 
 

“Belief in spiritual beings” Edward Tylor, 1871
 
A propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man which is believed to direct and control the course of Nature and of human life.” James Frazer of The Golden Bough fame late nineteenth century.
 

 
a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say apart and forbidden, beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community, called a church, all those who adhere to them.” Émile Durkheim, 1912
 

 
religion is a system of beliefs and behaviours that formulates and answers questions that are important, recurrent, and must be answered.” Susan A. Johnston, The George Washington University, 2009, adapted from Arjun Appadurai. This definition appears in an recommended audio course on the anthropology of religion from the Modern Scholar series at http://audible.com.

 

 From the last definition a religion consists of beliefs and behaviours to varying degrees. We easily forget that Christianity is a very ‘bookish’ religion with an emphasis on correct belief, even from the early days of Christian history. Other religions often emphasise rituals ahead of doctrine. Religion is also a system embedded in culture often with a strong interdependence. For example Christian churches reflected and influenced their surrounding hierarchical political structures during development.
 
Religions not only answer the fundamental questions of life – our purpose, origin, and destination -, but also formulate the questions to be answered, a surprising, though not unreasonable, aspect of this definition.

Finally how does science compare with this definition of religion? Interesting!

Alex McCullie

News: Boston Catholics advertise to stop falling confessions

The decline of the mainstream Christian churches is self-evidence in most parts of Western society. The world-wide increase of Christians comes from nations of Africa, Asia, and former Soviet republics. The latest casuality, much to my surprise as an Australian, is the confessional numbers in US Catholic churches. While older parishioners persist, young people are staying away, preferring to see “their faith as a spiritual and less an institutional concern”. An online Boston Globe article shows Boston Catholic churches desperately ’spruiking’ the benefits of confession via radio and web-site campaigns. The best they seem to hope for is “planting the seed”.
 
Perhaps the Roman Catholic Church has more systemic image problems with the young, issues inconsistent with today’s community attitudes – explicitly anti-homosexual attitudes by Catholic leadership; rejection of women for religious leadership roles; continued rejection of condom use; celibacy of the priesthood; prolonged hiding of child-abuse by church officials; stigmatising many sexual behaviours as ’sinful’; concept of being born with an original ’sin’; the improbability of doctrines like ‘Transubstantiation’; and inability to explain problems of evil (all-powerful, loving God with needless suffering). Is any sort of advertising campaign, no matter how slick, going to overcome these impediments? This is especially so when combined with largely antiquated and irrelevant ceremonial practices often held in ostentatiously ornate buildings? These attitudes and practices, even if unfairly stereotyped at times, are condemned by so many in society as well as by the younger people.
 
Alex McCullie

Comment: Bouma blames atheism for sectarian intolerance

According to The Age newspaper online ”Monash University Professor Gary Bouma says people without a specific faith are fuelling sectarian conflict and cause division in society.” He essentially blames atheists, treated as one homogeneous group, for saying that theists are stupid and also saying that religious discourse should be driven out of the public space. As always with these silly generalisations, some do and many do not, especially when 1.1 billion people world-wide are estimated to espouse some form of religious non-belief .

Even with espousing anti-religious comments, atheists can hardly be held responsible for different religious groups fighting amongst themselves. History shows otherwise. Over the last 1500 years, during the dominance of Abrahamic religions, faiths have claimed exclusive access to God and salvation and condemned others as heretical and deserving eradication. A compounding feature of Christianity and Islam has been their insatiable desire for new converts. The resulting religious fervour fueled conflict and violence as European history will attest. During most of this time atheist views, as total non-belief, were rarely openly expressed: very few people held them and the personal repercussions were too serious for open dissent – death, imprisonment, social isolation, and job loss.

How about church behaviour today? Many Western churches are more tolerant, reflecting broader social trends rather than changes to sacred texts, essentially unchanged over 1500 years. But despite these improvements, church intolerance still persists, unacceptable to our wider social values. Apostasy, the crime of leaving the faith, can still be punished by death, imprisonment, and forced social and family separation in different parts of the world. “But that’s not in Australia.”  Many Australian religious officials openly discriminate against fellow human beings on the basis of their sexuality. Christian theology sees unacceptable sexual practices as ’sinful’. They will reject homosexuals participating in religious services as well as leading services; women are excluded from positions of religious authority; and unmarried woman with children are barred from church administration. Our broader society in Australia is thankfully more progressive and humane than those churches. All this seems highly hypocritical when the Christian faith professes Jesus as the founder, a Jesus ascribed with progressive messages of acceptance.

So what is Bouma’s problem with atheist criticism of religions, particularly of Christian churches? There is another possibility. Churches have limited social and political privileges to protect them with external criticism, exceptional for the churches’ history. The Catholic church learnt an early valuable lesson with its appointment as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine after being treated as a marginised and despised religious sect. Church leaders realised they needed the support of the political regimes, no matter how oppressive, to ensure their on-going survival. Never again would the orthodox Christian religion – Catholic or Protestant – be an outsider of power. The plight of the poor, though important, comes second to the church’s survival to provide salvation and redemption for all. Our secular society creates an intractable barrier for religions seeking to impose their faith on others, no state sponsorship. Church apologists, like Bouma, will have to live with criticism – even strident criticism – of the veracity of their underlying beliefs as well as their practices. Unfortunately for atheists, though, special privileges still exist: tax-free statuses and exempted discriminary employment practices some to mind. We can only keep agitating no how much it irritates the faithful.

Alex McCullie

Comment: Robert Winston stereotypes atheists on BBC

A Personal Rant

In a recent BBC Hardtalk interview with Stephen Sackur, Robert Winston, renowned British scientist and occasional Christian apologist, typecasts atheists as believing in the absolute and, therefore, unreasonable certainty of science. By implication many non-atheists take a more reasonable, nuanced view that scientific knowledge is probabilistic with some claims being more assured than others. Interestingly, Christians like Winston are quick to complain that critics generalise Christians as having a Middle Ages theology rather than acknowledge the ’new age’ Christian variants of today. Karen Armstrong has turned this claim into an industry.

Atheists typically reject beliefs in an ‘other’ (à la William James) reality extra to our physical world, especially one with ultimate influence or control. Also most atheists see science as our best shot at achieving reliable knowledge about our world rather than using the religious repertoire of personal revelations – imaginings, feelings, and guesses - and deference to traditional religious authorities. Scientists may admire Darwin or Newton but do not seriously use their data or conclusions as the basis for current research. This is typically not so in religious circles.

However being atheist does not mean being blind to the limitations of scientific endeavours: they are conducted by humans within social contexts and, therefore, subject to the same limitations as other human endeavours. However good science embraces attitudes of exploration; reproducible evidence and reasoning independent of personal faith; and welcomed public criticism and comment. Most importantly, unlike religious history, heretical namecalling should have no place in genuine search for knowledge. This does not mean accepting every new idea with substantial independent support from evidence and reasoning – not so open to new ideas that the brain drops out!

As a contrary example, most world-wide Christians, even today, accept the historicity of the physical resurrection of Jesus – reanimation of a dead body – and even apply that hope to the physical resurrection of all believers when God’s kingdom arrives in the future. All this is described in some clarity in the Christian bible. Remove the Christian faith – personal feelings and authority appeals - and its basis looks very shaky. In fact to non-Christians – religious believers or not – these claims, so fundamental to much Christian theology, look very fanciful and somewhat naive. Many Christians in western nations quietly walk away from these biblical claims though unwilling to publicly criticise these beliefs for fear of hurting fellow brethren.

So how do the claims of modern science look compared to religious claims of bodily resurrections?

Alex McCullie

Comment: Current Readings Jesus & Christianity – Earl Doherty & Linda Woodhead

I spend a lot of time travelling and, so, reading articles and books and listening to recorded lectures are my constant companions. My latest are interesting, a book – Jesus: Neither God nor Man by Earl Doherty and a talking book – Christianity, A Very Short Introduction (OUP) by Linda Woodhead.

Before discussing those, or at least my first reactions, here are two recommendations. I have traditionally bought books from Amazon and still do. However a serious alternative for Australians is http://bookdepository.co.uk (in UK) with its policy of free international postage. I typically check the prices between Book Depository and Amazon with postage costs to make the choice. One trap is the ease of ordering a single book from the UK booksellers while I would accumulate books at Amazon before commiting to purchase! For audio lectures and talking books check out the Amazon company, http://audible.com. I started with a gold membership with one download per month for $14.95 after a three month special. Their UK operation, http://audible.co.uk , has different pricing.

The reconstructions of the historical Jesus vary as widely as there are Jesus scholars. Conservatives see the gospel portrayals as essentially accurate. They often argue with mainstream historians about the inclusion of miracle stories in any historiography. I see N.T. (Tom) Wright, prolific author and Bishop of Durham, in this category. The vast majority of scholars take a middle position: the gospels give us clues as to the nature of Jesus. Now the similarity of these scholars end with vastly differing profiles: cynic philosopher, apocalyptic prophet, wise sage, and so. Then towards of the sceptical end of the spectrum we have Earl Doherty, one of a smaller number of scholars who dismiss the very existence of any recognisable Jesus as the founding figure of Christianity.

Jesus: Neither God nor Man is Doherty’s latest book, an expansion of his earlier The Jesus Puzzle. To give some sense of his arguments he argues that we read Paul’s letters, the earliest canonical writings, in light of the later gospels with their biographies of Jesus. Without the gospels, Paul’s writings talk nothing of a historical Jesus but a mystical God-like Christ Jesus who appeared to Paul as an incarnation of God. Doherty argues, quite cogently, that Paul refuted bad behaviour of ‘his’ fledgling Christian communities in the eastern Mediterranean with arguments from Jewish scripture and God’s revelations. Even though Jesus was later quoted in the gospels as saying something very relevant according to Christian traditions, Paul never used these sayings. This absence of a physical Jesus in Paul’s earlier writings is part of the Jesus puzzle.

Linda Woodhead’s Christianity is an excellent non-sectarian introduction to Christianity – faiths, history, and many forms – accessible to non-Christians and non-believers alike. She is Professor of Sociology of Religion at Lancaster University. The Very Short Introduction series from Oxford University Press is a great series of short introductory texts of academic subjects for the enquiring non-specialist reader. Also check out Atheism by Julian Baggini, a very engaging British philosopher.

Alex McCullie

News: Separating Christ from Christian Charity

In US and Australia governments fund Christian charities to help the disadvantaged. The question is whether or not government-funded activities should be free of Christian proselytising. This area has always been problematic for supporters of a secular society: is it state-sponsored religion through the back door?

The Washington Post, drawing from a New York Civil Liberties Union article, has an interesting article outlining the problem for US legislators. US government agencies will monitor the charitable activities of the Salvation Army to ensure that the recipients are not subjected to Christian proselytising, perhaps a welcome change under President Obama.

According to the Post article though discriminatory recruitment practices are still acceptable – Christians to work for Christian organisations, syphoning off social tax dollars for religious conversions are not.

Alex McCullie

Comment: Finding the historical Jesus in the Gospels

With only sketchy support from non-Christian references for Jesus, Christian scholars still rely on the gospels, especially the so-called synoptic gospels, for constructing the historical Jesus. How should we read these gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke – critically? And should we include John as well?
Here are a few ideas.
  1. Gospels were written as proclamations of faith, literally the good news, about Jesus as the Christ, the messiah. So, despite being structured as historical narratives, the gospels are better seen as fantastic (in the traditional sense) biographical stories of Jesus, initially written around first and second centuries CE for fellow followers of Christ. Not unreasonably, gospel historical claims should be treated with scepticism unless supported by separate independent sources.
  2. Scholars have long recognised that the three synoptic gospels are closely interrelated with the popular consensus of Matthew and Luke drawing heavily from Mark. So be aware that three versions of the same story in the synoptic gospels may be the same one repeated many times. By contrast John’s gospel came from a separate tradition, but that writer presented a vastly different type of Jesus – the incarnate god.
  3. Despite church accreditations to apostolic authors – apostles or apostle companions – the gospels are considered anonymous by most scholars. Similarly there is no clear consensus of the locations of authorship. So we do not know who wrote the gospels and where they were written. Most scholars agree their initial appearances occurred between 70CE and 120CE.
  4. You are likely to be reading one of the many English translations of “reconstructed” Greek documents. The first full manuscripts of the gospels are copies made around the fourth century, some 300 years after their initial authorships. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are famous examples. Interestingly, the earliest copy is the fragment P52, small section of John (18:31–33), dated around 130CE.
  5. The initial copies of the gospels were handwritten by amateur copyists -a literate member of the local Christian community – and then circulated by hand to fellow believers. Many historians estimate that less than ten percent of the population were literate in Rome even at its height. After hundreds of years of copying, editing, and further copying, these documents were collected together to be finally canonised. It is worth remembering that many texts, considered sacred by many Christians were ultimated rejected by the church authorities. Epistle of Barnabas and Gospel of Thomas are well known examples.
  6. The gospel presentations of Jesus draw heavily from Jewish religious symbols and traditions of the day, while being shaped by the surrounding influence of local Greek and Roman culture. Many scholars have long identified Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and other eastern religious myths and symbols embedded in the Jesus stories, not surprising with the authors likely to have been Greek-literate Jews living in urban areas of the Roman Empire outside of Palestine.
  7. Even though the authors of the gospels are unknown, we can surmise that they were urbanised Greek-speaking Jews living outside of Palestine and Galilee in particular. Their Jewish scriptures would have been the Septuagint, an earlier Greek (Hellenistic) translation of the Jewish scriptures. They portray Jesus as an Aramaic-speaking, rural Jew, preaching in Galilee some 70 years previously (and who is divine, of course). His scripture would have been the Torah, at least, in Hebrew and, at most, a Jesus would have probably known some Greek only. A large Greek-speaking city of Sepphoris was nearby rural Galilee. So we could expect a large disconnect between the gospel authors’ environments and world-views and that of less literate earlier rural preacher.
Not surprisingly, Christians revere the canonical gospels as sacred texts. However they are in no way privileged as historical documents. A critical reader has every right to approach with considerable disinterested scepticism – unknown authorships; overt promotions of faith; dubious or unsupported historical claims like the first born killings and empire-wide census; consistent internal contradictions; and years of subsequent manuscript copying and editing before modern printing.
The Internet is full of resources varying from literal interpretations (gospels as fully accurate historical documents) to sceptical responses (Jesus never existed as a recognisable historical figure). While a simple Google search will start you off, have a look at http://virtualreligion.net/ .
Alex McCullie

Link: Non-Belief – Third-Largest Religion

Without tackling the “atheism as a religion” argument here are some interesting statistics on religion from Adherents.com

  1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
  2. Islam: 1.5 billion
  3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
  4. Hinduism: 900 million
  5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
  6. Buddhism: 376 million
  7. primal-indigenous: 300 million
  8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
  9. Sikhism: 23 million
  10. Juche: 19 million
  11. Spiritism: 15 million
  12. Judaism: 14 million
  13. Baha’i: 7 million
  14. Jainism: 4.2 million
  15. Shinto: 4 million
  16. Cao Dai: 4 million
  17. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
  18. Tenrikyo: 2 million
  19. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
  20. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
  21. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
  22. Scientology: 500 thousand

 P.S. The scientology figure of adherents is greatly debated. See SolitaryTrees for one such debate.

Alex McCullie

News: A.C. Grayling on Cherie Blair

Great AC Grayling article at Richard Dawkins site about the ‘morality’ of Cherie Blair’s decision to be lenient on a religious (Muslim) assaulter of another. Would we treat the surviving 9/11 perpetrators with some leniency for also being religious, which they certainly were?

Alex McCullie

Comment: Jesus, Christians, and Pliny

Around 110 CE Emperor Trajan appointed Pliny the Younger, Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, as Governor of Bithynia-Pontus, on the southern coast of the Black Sea in modern-day Turkey. He was to investigate financial and administrative problems and deal with political unrest. Pliny was a successful middle-ranking bureaucrat from the Equestrian order, the lower of the two aristocratic classes, below that of Patricians. Remarkably, Pliny collected many of his letters and responses, made over his lifetime to friends, superiors, and juniors whom he encouraged. His letters were organised as a series of books in which number ten contained official correspondence with Trajan, where Pliny sought administrative advice during his time in Bithynia-Pontus.

One such problem was dealing with Christians. Pliny told Trajan that Christians, who were recognised as a problem elsewhere in the empire, prayed to a Christ as a form of divinity. Some had been worshipping so for some twenty years. He discussed their religious practices of praying in morning followed by a later common meal on fixed days. Pliny noted that they were otherwise law-abiding. Though Christians were disliked and distrusted by Roman authorities and the society in general, Trajan rejected systematic persecution, especially based on unsubstantiated claims.

What do these letters provide us? Mostly they offer a wonderful look at the administrative concerns and processes of early second century Roman empire. However the two letters, reproduced below, showed there were groups, identified as Christians, who worshipped Christ as a form of a god. The letters was written around 111CE with Pliny dating some of their worshipping up to twenty years previous. We need to remember that Paul, according to orthodox Christian traditions, evangelised throughout this area some 50 to 60 years before. He had a similar message of Christ as god. However these letters say nothing of the historical Jesus; only people believed in his divinity 80 years after his death.

A more interesting question is why Christians beliefs and practices were considered illegal by the Roman authorities? Unlike Christian and Jewish beliefs, the dominant pagan religions of the empire were polytheistic, usually accepting and modifying gods with different origins, like Greek, Roman, and Egyptian. Unlike today, religions emphasised ritual practices towards the gods rather the acceptance of correct beliefs. Life was precariousness 2000 years ago with common-place occurrences, like tooth absences, being death sentences and, so, protection of the gods was of prime importance.

Communities had to be particularly careful to appease the local city gods to ensure the city’s well-being. Regular public festivals were for precisely that purpose and everyone was expected to attend. Not doing so would be like Americans today refusing to take the pledge of allegiance. Ironically Christians were, in some respects, similar to followers of other eastern mystery religions: they typically believed in salvation through special knowledge and cultic practices Even though these mystery religions were of great fascination to Romans, the Christians were different. Their religious practices were exclusive and, more importantly, they would not participate in the public religious festivals. Local communities resented Christians and feared the consequences of insulting the city gods and, not surprisingly, most persecutions came from broader communities than from official actions.

Alex McCullie

Free download – letters of Pliny the Younger (Project Gutenberg)

(Letters below – I separated sentences for easier reading.)

 

XCVII

To the Emperor Trajan

It is my invariable rule, Sir, to refer to you in all matters where I feel doubtful; for who is more capable of removing my scruples, or informing my ignorance?

Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them.

Whether, therefore, any difference is usually made with respect to ages, or no distinction is to be observed between the young and the adult; whether repentance entitles them to a pardon; or if a man has been once a Christian, it avails nothing to desist from his error; whether the very profession of Christianity, unattended with any criminal act, or only the crimes themselves inherent in the profession are punishable; on all these points I am in great doubt.

In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have been brought before me as Christians is this: I asked them whether they were Christians; if they admitted it, I repeated the question twice, and threatened them with punishment; if they persisted, I ordered them to be at once punished: for I was persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction.

There were others also brought before me possessed with the same infatuation, but being Roman citizens, I directed them to be sent to Rome. But this crime spreading (as is usually the case) while it was actually under prosecution, several instances of the same nature occurred.

An anonymous information was laid before me containing a charge against several persons, who upon examination denied they were Christians, or had ever been so.

They repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered religious rites with wine and incense before your statue (which for that purpose I had ordered to be brought, together with those of the gods), and even reviled the name of Christ: whereas there is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians into any of these compliances: I thought it proper, therefore, to discharge them.

Some among those who were accused by a witness in person at first confessed themselves Christians, but immediately after denied it; the rest owned indeed that they had been of that number formerly, but had now (some above three, others more, and a few above twenty years ago) renounced that error.

They all worshipped your statue and the images of the gods, uttering imprecations at the same time against the name of Christ.

They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble, to eat in common a harmless meal.

From this custom, however, they desisted after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your commands, I forbade the meeting of any assemblies. After receiving this account, I judged it so much the more necessary to endeavor to extort the real truth, by putting two female slaves to the torture, who were said to officiate’ in their religious rites: but all I could discover was evidence of an absurd and extravagant superstition.

I deemed it expedient, therefore, to adjourn all further proceedings, in order to consult you.

For it appears to be a matter highly deserving your consideration, more especially as great numbers must be involved in the danger of these prosecutions, which have already extended, and are still likely to extend, to persons of all ranks and ages, and even of both sexes.

In fact, this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread its infection among the neighbouring villages and country. Nevertheless, it still seems possible to restrain its progress.

The temples, at least, which were once almost deserted, begin now to be frequented; and the sacred rites, after a long intermission, are again revived; while there is a general demand for the victims, which till lately found very few purchasers.

From all this it is easy to conjecture what numbers might be reclaimed if a general pardon were granted to those who shall repent of their error.

XCVIII

Trajan to Pliny

You have adopted the right course, my dearest Secundus, in investigating the charges against the Christians who were brought before you.

It is not possible to lay down any general rule for all such cases. Do not go out of your way to look for them.

If indeed they should be brought before you, and the crime is proved, they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that where the party denies he is a Christian, and shall make it evident that he is not, by invoking our gods, let him (notwithstanding any former suspicion) be pardoned upon his repentance. Anonymous informations ought not to he received in any sort of prosecution.

It is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and is quite foreign to the spirit of our age.

Course: Historical Jesus – 6 night Course May 2010

I shall be running a six night course, late May 2010, at the Council of Adult Education in Melbourne, Australia, on searching for the historical jesus, looking at the historical figure behind the religion – what do we know?

Course: searching for the historical jesus

Explore the historical Jesus, separate from the figure of devotion. In doing so, review the use of Christian and non-Christian sources and treatment of miracle claims, society, political and regions of early first century Israel and Middle East, analysing the primary source – the Gospels, review of research from the past 300 years, how Jesus, the man, is profiled by today’s scholars and future direction of research.
Class details
6 sessions:
Tuesdays 6.00PM-7.30PM: 25/05/10 to 29/06/10
Venue: 253 Flinders Ln, Melbourne
Session 1:
Review of research over the last 300 years with particular emphasis since Albert Schweiter’s book, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906).
Session 2:
Nature of historical research, including use of Christian and non-Christian sources and treatment of miracle claims with a close look at the Resurrection story.
Session 3:
Society, politics and religions of early first century Israel and Middle East.
Session 4:
Analysing the primary source – the Gospels.
Session 5:
How Jesus the man is profiled by today’s scholars – disagreement and consensus.
Session 6:
Future direction of the Jesus research

Link to CAE details and bookings

Alex McCullie

News: Cherie Blair – Special legal treatment for religious

According to Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society (UK), Cherie Blair, wife of Tony Blair, former Prime Minister, sees religion to be a valid reason for excusing violence.

Shamso Miah, 25 — described as a devout Muslim — went from a local mosque in East Ham, London to a bank where he became embroiled in an argument with another man about his place in the queue. He grabbed Mohammed Furcan and punched him in the face. Miah ran outside but Mr Furcan chased after him and demanded to know why he had been attacked.

Miah then punched him again, knocking him to the ground and fracturing his jaw. Mr Miah said he had acted in self defence but the bank’s CCTV showed clearly that he was the aggressor. He then pleased guilty to occasioning actual bodily harm.
Yet despite saying violence on our streets “has to be taken seriously” Ms Blair/Booth QC let Miah walk free from court, telling him: “I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before. You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”

Alex McCullie

News: Hiring physics teachers is not selecting priests

The following quotation comes from the Age editorial of 3 Feb 2010 on gay rights and the Papacy:

As The Age has argued before, freedom of religion does mean that the right of religious organisations to decide matters internal to them should not be infringed. The state must not tell churches who should be ordained, for example. But the hiring of a physics teacher for a church school is hardly a comparable decision, and when churches claim that it is they succeed only in demonstrating that their commitment to social justice is a selective one. The Pope, and Australia’s bishops too, should heed the example of those Catholic schools that have quietly hired gay and lesbian teachers anyway – and still kept their ”ethos” intact…(my emphasis)

Alex McCullie

Comment: History, Historians, and Truth

Some time back AtheistNexus (http://www.atheistnexus.org/), a very active social network for atheists, hosted a forum question on the existence of a historical Jesus. The posting offered possibilities from ‘actually existed’ including all miracle claims to ‘purely fictional’. As you can imagine, pure fiction was a popular choice amongst the atheists. Moreover one contributor said, quite definitively, that she “[did] a lot of research many years ago and found nothing to support the existence of such a person.” Doesn’t get much clearer than that.

The whole notion of the historical Jesus, in fact of any historical person or event, raises such questions as “what is history and historical research?” and “how does it find truth, if at all?” A common and, perhaps, naive view is that historical research is ‘archeological’, an objective process of uncovering immutable facts of the past. History is an unchanging or static story of events and people, revealed through objective research independent of social and personal prejudices. Getting to the single “historical truth” is a clear aim of such a research. In this paradigm Jesus would clearly have existed or not existed. This similar view is often held of the natural sciences.

Most practising historians would reject doing history is simply uncovering static facts from the past. A popular term of ‘dialogue’ acknowledges the dependency between the researcher’s personal social context and attitudes and the subject of the research. So a twenty-first century U.S. researcher may view first century Palestine differently to that of a nineteenth century European, even if the source data were unchanged. So we should not be surprised to see different analyses from historians from different time periods and cultural backgrounds without one being obviously right. On the other hand, all interpretations should not be treated as equal. Historians expect to find explicit reasoning from publically verifiable evidence that can be analysed and criticised. Like the sciences this is treated as open process of academic discourse.

Here are some points for us laypeople to consider with thinking about history and historical research.

  1. Knowing when(the time) and where(the place) are fundamental to knowing history. 100CE Jerusalem is different to 100CE Rome and to 2010 New York City. I’m not suggesting revisiting school days of memorising historical dates for their own sake – how we hated that! Still it is important to know the overall sequence of events and where they happened.
  2. Though often framed as narratives, modern research emphasises causes and effects, the “whys” of past situations. Remember that earlier histories, prior to 1800s, often sought to teach lessons as well as tell historical narratives.
  3. Historical events are invariably complex with multiple causes and effects. It is not surprising that different historians arrive at different plausible explanations for any event. As H. L. Mencken once said “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
  4. Historians rely on physical records – artifacts and writings, although oral histories are included as well. Artifacts can be unearthed pottery, ruins, wall paintings, and even toys. Written documents can be administrative records – taxation, births, deaths, marriages, and business transactions – and personal letters and earlier histories. Remember that written records were invariably maintained by the elite of societies especially in those of very low literacy and so presented a narrow view of society.
  5. Historical interpretations are under constant review and scrutiny. Therefore we need to think in terms of probabilities and likelihoods.
  6. Historical records can be separated into ‘primary’ (writings by people of themselves or contemporaries), ’secondary’ (writings later than the events), and even tertiary (compilation of secondary sources with some primary). There are no known ‘primary’ sources for the historical Jesus.
  7. Historians are very conscious of their time, economic, and social circumstances compared to subjects under study. Twenty-first century, middle-class, well-educated professors are a far cry from first century rural Gallilee of a Jewish Jesus.
  8. Most historians consider miracle claims outside of scope of historical research. One argument centres around assessing the likelihood of past events. Miracles are by definition highly improbable or impossible and therefore as such are beyond the capability of histories to assign any sort of realistic possibility. Furthermore historical research should be understandable to all people regardless of religious faith and religious non-belief, for that matter.
  9. Be wary of coincidences as an explanation of cause and effect. More evidence is needed to draw conclusions of any relationships.

These pointers are starter only to help put historical research into perspective.

Alex McCullie

Some links to ponder over

http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Whatishistory/munslow6.html

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1998historydebate.html

http://www.open2.net/historyandthearts/history/natureofhistory/index.html

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1332-the-nature-of-history

http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/history.htm

http://www.historyguide.org/history.html

http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/hst451w1.htm

http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/hst451w2.htm

http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/gwschlabach/10commnd.htm

http://writing2.richmond.edu/training/project/history/fpbody.html

http://personal2.stthomas.edu/gwschlabach/docs/core_qs.htm

http://personal2.stthomas.edu/gwschlabach/sources.htm#HHGen

Comment: Mark Twain & Christianity

Mark Twain, aka Samuel Clements, wrote some wonderful American literature. After watching a documentary I decided to check out some of those challenging Christian quotes from Mark Twain (http://twainquotes.com/Christianity.html):

One of the most astonishing things that have yet fallen under our observation is the exceedingly small portion of the earth from which sprang the now flourishing plant of Christianity. The longest journey our Saviour ever performed was from here to Jerusalem – about one hundred to one hundred and twenty miles. The next longest was from here to Sidon – say about sixty or seventy miles. Instead of being wide apart – as American appreciation of distances would naturally suggest – the places made most particularly celebrated by the presence of Christ are nearly all right here in full view, and within cannon-shot of Capernaum. Leaving out two or three three short journeys of the Saviour, he spent his life, preached his gospel, and performed his miracles within a compass no larger than an ordinary county in the United States. It is as much as I can do to comprehend this stupefying fact.
– The Innocents Abroad
Collier’s Weekly Magazine for
November 3, 1900
from the Dave Thomson collection

For England must not fall: it would mean an inundation of Russian & German political degradations which would envelop the globe & steep it in a sort of Middle-Age night & slaverly which would last till Christ comes again–which I hope he will not do; he made trouble enough before.
- Letter to W. D. Howells, January 25, 1900


I bring you the stately matron named Christendom, returning bedraggled, besmirched, and dishonored, from pirate raids in Kiaochow, Manchuria, South Africa, and the Philipines, with her soul full of meanness, her pocket full of boodle, and her mouth full of pious hypocrisies. Give her soap and towel, but hide the looking glass.
– “A Salutation from the 19th to the 20th Century,” December 31, 1900
There has been only one Christian. They caught him and crucified him–early.
– Notebook, 1898

The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetics in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve.
– Mark Twain, a Biography

This is a Christian country. Why, so is hell. Inasmuch as “Strait is the way and narrow is the gate, and few-few-are they that enter in thereat” has had the natural effect of making hell the only really prominent Christian community in any of the worlds; but we don’t brag of this and certainly it is not proper to brag and boast that America is a Christian country when we all know that certainly five-sixths of our population could not enter in at the narrow gate.
– Mark Twain in Eruption

I found out that I was a Christian for revenue only and I could not bear the thought of that, it was so ignoble.
– Mark Twain in Eruption

If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be–a Christian.
– Mark Twain’s Notebook

Christianity will doubtless still survive in the earth ten centuries hence–stuffed and in a museum.
– Notebook, 1898

You can never find a Christian who has acquired this valuable knowledge, this saving knowledge, by any process but the everlasting and all-sufficient “people say.” In all my seventy-two years and a half I have never come across such another ass as this human race is.
– Mark Twain’s Autobiography

The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive…but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born.
– Mark Twain, a Biography

One of the most astonishing things that have yet fallen under our observation is the exceedingly small portion of the earth from which sprang the now flourishing plant of Christianity. The longest journey our Saviour ever performed was from here to Jerusalem – about one hundred to one hundred and twenty miles. The next longest was from here to Sidon – say about sixty or seventy miles. Instead of being wide apart – as American appreciation of distances would naturally suggest – the places made most particularly celebrated by the presence of Christ are nearly all right here in full view, and within cannon-shot of Capernaum. Leaving out two or three three short journeys of the Saviour, he spent his life, preached his gospel, and performed his miracles within a compass no larger than an ordinary county in the United States. It is as much as I can do to comprehend this stupefying fact. – The Innocents Abroad
Collier’s Weekly Magazine for November 3, 1900 from the Dave Thomson collection

For England must not fall: it would mean an inundation of Russian & German political degradations which would envelop the globe & steep it in a sort of Middle-Age night & slaverly which would last till Christ comes again–which I hope he will not do; he made trouble enough before.- Letter to W. D. Howells, January 25, 1900

I bring you the stately matron named Christendom, returning bedraggled, besmirched, and dishonored, from pirate raids in Kiaochow, Manchuria, South Africa, and the Philipines, with her soul full of meanness, her pocket full of boodle, and her mouth full of pious hypocrisies. Give her soap and towel, but hide the looking glass.- “A Salutation from the 19th to the 20th Century,” December 31, 1900

There has been only one Christian. They caught him and crucified him–early.- Notebook, 1898

The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetics in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve.- Mark Twain, a Biography

This is a Christian country. Why, so is hell. Inasmuch as “Strait is the way and narrow is the gate, and few-few-are they that enter in thereat” has had the natural effect of making hell the only really prominent Christian community in any of the worlds; but we don’t brag of this and certainly it is not proper to brag and boast that America is a Christian country when we all know that certainly five-sixths of our population could not enter in at the narrow gate.- Mark Twain in Eruption

I found out that I was a Christian for revenue only and I could not bear the thought of that, it was so ignoble.- Mark Twain in Eruption
If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be–a Christian.
- Mark Twain’s Notebook

Christianity will doubtless still survive in the earth ten centuries hence–stuffed and in a museum.- Notebook, 1898

You can never find a Christian who has acquired this valuable knowledge, this saving knowledge, by any process but the everlasting and all-sufficient “people say.” In all my seventy-two years and a half I have never come across such another ass as this human race is.- Mark Twain’s Autobiography

The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive…but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born.- Mark Twain, a Biography

Alex McCullie

Film: CREATION – a very human Charles Darwin

CREATION
A deliciously-named film, CREATION, is a dramatic recreation of Darwin’s anguish over the death of his 10 year daughter, development of a scientific theory challenging religion of the day, and the impact on this theory on his very devout wife. The film draws from Annie’s Box, a biography from Randal Keynes, Darwin’s great, great-grandson , and promises to be a powerful film about a great man – father, husband, and scientist – wrestling with the ultimate questions of personal meaning. Director Jon Amiel has a tremendous cast of actors (details linked below) including Paul Bettany and real-life partner, Jennifer Connelly. But let me mention a personal favourite – Toby Jones as Thomas Huxley (Darwin’s bull-dog). Jones was excellent in Infamous as Truman Capote, one of my favourite on-screen character portrayals.

We have seen some tremendous books and documentaries on Charles Darwin over the last twelve months as part of the 200 year celebration of his birth (and 150 years since the publication of ‘On The Origin of the Species’). Darwin is certainly one of the great figures of science. CREATION fills in the portrait as only good dramatic film can do to give us a person we can love.

I had the opportunity to join an on-line chat between bloggers and Jon Amiel,the director, where he discussed the film and the humanity of Darwin as he struggled to publish his theory of evolution.

I would heartily recommend adding this to your viewing list.

Alex McCullie

CREATION web-site

News: my CAE Courses Melbourne 2010 (so far)

Atheism & Agnosticism:rejecting the god delusion: Tuesday 6.00-7.30pm: 16 March to 13 April 2010 (5 nights)http://www.cae.edu.au/?course=DNT800

Searching for the historical Jesus – what do we know?: Tuesday 6-7.30pm 25 May to 29 June 2010 (6 nights)

Naturalism – a complete world-view without god: Tuesday July 6-7:30pm 6 July to 20 July 2010 (3 nights)

Alex McCullie