Probably the worst video on youtube....ever!

OK first time through I only managed 15 seconds of this...

Second time I got as far as 53 seconds. Can you beat me? Special mentions on the blog for anyone who manages to watch the whole thing.

Good news from Sedgefield?

Had he stayed as an MP like Margaret Thatcher did, like John Major did, then I would have respected him more.

They said on the day he announced his intention to step down as PM that he would also state that day that he was going to leave Parliament all together. When he did not I actually thought good for him.

I thought here is a man who wants to serve his constituents. Now of course he may say that by bowing out he is serving them better, but it just feels like he considers it beneath him. Clearly Blair entered politics to be the statesman, to perform on the world stage, not to represent people. After all he made no secret of his disliking for Parliament.

Now we have a new era, someone today said that the world has changed in 10 years. She said we had all become more social liberal in that time. In actual fact I think we all became much more socially liberal long before then. Back in the Major years. I believe that the reason that John Major lost so heavily was because for so long the government was out of step with the country. The country was much more liberal.

I could be wrong but I actually think that period is now over. I suspect what keeps labour in power is not it's liberalism but it's old fashioned left wing nature. If I'm right then in actual fact David Cameron arrived just in time for history to pass him by.

The new Prime Minister is pushing out, what might seem to a liberal, old fashioned 'conviction politics'. Which if I'm wrong is out of date.

I don't think I am wrong...I think Brown is shrewder than that.

Only one thing worries me about Brown and that is his desire to give the right of appointment of Bishops to the Church. He feels it is not right for a Prime Minister who could be of any faith to appoint Anglican Bishops.

I think this will be a disaster for us. The last people I want to have control over appointing Bishops are the members of the Church of England.

Careful please, Mr Brown.

Blair Brown Tony Blair Gordon Brown Labour Prime Minister

Spam?

Hi ! I'm from Russia and I would like to meet kind man to be my guide and maybe more.
So if you haven't wife or girlfriend now, you may reply.
I'm going to work in USA for five months. My friends tell I look well enough.
Please send your letter directly to my email mary.loverova@gmail.com
(this is mary.loverova at gmail.com) and i send my foto to you.
I am waiting for your reply. Buy, your Mary

My ex

Somone has spent a hour or so pouring over every aspect of this blog.

Every entry...every word...every picture...

I have a fan!

I'm guessing it's my ex.

Term ended...

Rats term has ended....I still have about 5 Big Ticks to write up not to mention actually do...

What about the Cheerleaders, the Gliders, the Pims o'clockers????

It is funny feeling being a Uni Chaplain at this time of year. Working in Student Support when the students have gone home.

I am very tired and probably wont blog very much right now, but strangely I didn't want them to go. Always have trouble letting go me. I feel just sort of listless. You know that feeling of satisfaction of a job done but coupled with it is that feeling of that's it. There is no more to come. 06/07 is over. Could I have done more? Was the year a success?

These and other feelings bounce around my head. Probably that sort of hyper feeling when you come out of a club. Your tired but wound up and it takes a while to settle down. Which is why you end up taking a mate home and talking till 6 am.

I probably need to switch off...take the weekend off and then...relax...

I have the whole summer ahead of me...only 4 weeks of it is holiday.

S is for SUGGS

SUGGS. Not the lead singer of Madness. Southampton University Grape and Grain society. This is actually a many headed beast bought about by the monster that is Union Policy.

Let me explain how this works. You want to start up a society. Say campaigning for the re-opening of a Tunnel you know exists on campus. You get 25 mates together. You start a society. If you can affiliate it to the Union they will subsidize your activity. So Balloon modeling would obviously get help from the union to buy balloons. Pottery Society would get money towards clay.

Now of course suppose a student was into 'drinking' surely the union would subsidize that? Well yes. But along comes another student with 25 friends who likes a different drink and all of a sudden you have hundreds of societies all dedicated to drinking at the union's expense. Wall to wall vomit and a bankrupt union.

The Union, sensibly saw this one coming. So it founded the Grape and Grain Society to cover all drinks. You can have any particular tipple as your society of choice within that.

SUGGS therefore at the moment is two societies in one. The Wine Society and the Real Ale Society. So this was two ticks in one. Now the rules of this are that I take part in an activity that the society does. So I know what your thinking:

“Ah Yellow! You went and got pissed again”

No! No! No! Nothing could be further than the truth. Tell SUGGS that their society is all about getting pissed and they will frown at you and wag their fingers. It's all about the appreciation of the substance. The taste, the colour, the texture.



To that end I popped along to the Beer festival they were hosting. I examined the choices. They had lots of names like “Fuggle Dee Dum” “Boondoggle” and “Ale of White”. I was sort of looking for a Bishop's Bits, or Dean's Donker or Nun's Whimple, sadly not to be. Those were the Ales anyway. Then they have a whole host of guest ciders too.

“Right” I said to them “Where do I start”

They recommended an Ale that was a deep redish brown. It was thick, slightly cloudy and creamy. It had quite a full texture and was therefore quite filling. It was easy on the tongue with no after taste. I had a pint.

While I drank I chatted to the various members of the society. It is a very sociable society. They really like to discuss things. Especially beer. They like to buy each other drinks, but also they are very prepared to share a pint. If someone finds something interesting then the pint is duly passed round.

They suggested for my next round I should try a cider. I plummed for a sweet because I prefer sweet cider. They returned with a pint of clear yellow liquid. It was a very sweet cider almost sugary. It was definitely an English cider it had that crispness that very suggestive of a cox's. It was also rich in apple. Not just a hint but whole bites. A really nice refreshing drink.





To follow that up one of the guy's suggested I branch out a bit with a dry cider. They returned with something that was very dry indeed. Citrusey almost lemony it literally stripped my mouth of moisture. Not an unpleasant experience but definitely strange to be drinking and yet getting thirster. Obviously after that I needed another drink. This time moving on to the ales I had one that was darker in colour but lighter in thickness. This was was really multi layered in it's taste. Wheat and hops shone out from the glass, and made for a mellow combination almost like drinking a double bass.



I wondered off to the loo.

I tried several other people's drinks and then decided to call it a night. At that point a couple of members of the society told me that I was owed some drinks so it seemed impolite to leave.



Another Ale followed that was Brown and fluffy and had a taste that sort of grew as you took deep drafts of it. Almost bitter and yet drawn out.

A cider that was appley and sweet. Filled with flavour and really appley and sweet. Did I say that already?

An ale that was medium brown and oaky and wet.

Another ale that was...um...well you know....yes.

Cider...er...in a pint glass...um....yeah....liquid....mmmmmm

A dark brown um...then....um....a pint...um....something....er....something else...er....



Light brown....good head....er....

Pint....half....er....try this....um....yes.

Stuff. That's what happened next.

Some of the stuff was in a pint glasses.

Then it wasn't. Because it was drunk.



I wonder off to the loo again. On entering I realise with horror that I have accidentally wondered into the wrong loos. I was about to walk out quickly before anyone saw me when it hit me: The ladies doesn't often have urinals and the person with their back to me was probably just a bloke with long girly hair. As I thought this he obligingly looked round.

“Why are you staring at me?” he asks rather abruptly.
“I'm not...I'm...um....looking for a urinal.” Hmmmm, that didn't sound convincing.
“Well I'm pissing in one at the moment. You can have it when I've finished.” he says.
“Cheers! I'll wait here then.” I reply. An awkward silence follows before he leaves rather quickly without washing his hands. Leaving me alone in the toilet.

I return upstairs and decide to try out my pastoral skills. I had many long conversations with a number of students.

This is Zara a first year English student who is originally from Windsor and...em....another student.



I spent more time talking and then woke up the next morning.



SUGGS: A pint of Ticks.

I think they've gone!

A little peek at my stats indicates that the Radical atheists have gone...

So I guess it's safe to come out again now...

Actually come to mention it...everyone's gone!

Must be the end of term

I'm so glad...

...The Bishop isn't on facebook.

Dear Diary

Got up.

Went to work.

Made tea.

Talked to students about life.

Made tea.

Visited library.

Talked to student about relationship issue.

Made tea.

Wrote blasphemous comedy dialogue between God and various Biblical characters.

Made tea.

Spoke to graduation office about this year's ceremonies.

Made tea.

Went home.

Forgot to eat lunch.

C is for Contemporary Dance

I can't dance. I really can't dance. I really make a prat of myself trying.

Mel and Alex told me about Contemporary Dance Club. I e-mailed the president. She was lovely. She said I should come. I said I would. Oh shit.

Dancing was difficult last time. That involved a partner and some fairly specific steps. That was the only reason I agreed to go to Ballroom and Latin Soc. The fairly specific steps bit. Not the partner bit. Honest.

Contemporary Dance seems to suggest a whole other sort of thing though doesn't it? It suggests a form of dancing that is up to date. And... well, a bit vigorous and not easy.

I had visions of me being a bald man in a leotard, arms flailing with huge sweat patches under them surrounded by a large quantity of fit young women. I mean people used to doing exercise. You lot need to go and wash your minds out with a Dick van Dyke film. However even the fact that you were thinking about them being 'fit' in the other way illustrates my problem.

You see picture a bunch of female undergraduates. Imagine them doing a dance. Put them in leotards if you like. Now imagine them forming a little circle as part of their little dancey thing. Now put me at the centre of that circle. Does that add anything to the picture? Do you find yourself trying hard to imagine this scene? Does it feel like there has been a bit of photo montage? Does it make you feel like thinking about something else?

I thought so.

Now you see my dilemma.

It doesn't have an awful lot to do with dancing.

Alex said I needed to wear comfortable clothing and take a spare pair of feet. I decided to talk to Mel who was also a member of the club.

“I feel a bit awkward” I confided “I'm going to be this older bald man in a room full of young women and I can't dance.”
“Oh don't worry about that” she said “we get that all the time.”
“The one old bloke who can't dance at the back of the class?”
“Yeah” she says.
Hmmmmm....that piece of information made me feel a little more uncomfortable. I thought about the dancing.

I just crapped myself when I did that.

I kept saying 'I'll go tonight' and then just was too busy or once I couldn't find the class and then it was too early. Then I got talking to a student on the way and they needed to chat. It didn't feel like I was deliberately avoiding them, but when I looked in the mirror I knew I was lying.

Finally I wondered down to the class. What would I say? How would I introduce myself?

As I approached where I thought the class was I was spotted by a woman.
“Excuse me” I said “Is this Contemporary Dance down here?”
She turns out to be Rachael the president.
“You must be the chaplain, she says, go right in.”

Rats.

I enter the class. I was faced with about 20 female undergraduates. They all looked like they exercised regularly.

Rachael introduces me to the teacher. She explains that they are preparing for a show. She asks me if I'd like to be in it.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

“I'm not sure.” I reply.

She suggests that I join one of the groups and make up the numbers, as not everyone in the show has turned up this week.

I join one group. They show me the steps in their dance.

“OK then we swivel and stretch out our arms here.” she says.
“Like this.” I try.
“Yeah, kind of like that.” she says without any conviction whatsoever. I do it again. She seems to have trouble composing herself. Perhaps it's hay fever and she is suppressing a sneeze.
They do their little bit of the dance and I sort of follow it.

“Right everyone” says the teacher “Let's run through the whole dance. Um...Yellow can you come to the front and er....help me choreograph.”

Wow! I feel privileged. With my newly promoted status I willingly sacrifice my role as a mere dancer.

The dance is very good. And quite quick. There are clearly very talented. I should know I was the assistant choreographer.



Finally as the class drew to a close we did a windmilly thing. We all spread out across the room and swirled our arms around us. As it turns out I was actually in the middle.

A thorn surrounded by many roses.

I said thorn. I meant prick.

I had fun. You would too if you went along. Probably best to go to the beginners class rather than a rehearsal for the end of year show.

I would definitely go back.

I'm not sure I'd take a camera next time.



Contemporary Dance: Stretch, Spin, Tick

So there we are...

I've done three articles now on the subject of the claim that faith is irrational.

I was particularly piqued by the suggestion that faith, any faith, my faith was dangerous and that there seemed to be a problem with faith in power. This seemed to suggest to me that believers should be in some sense controlled.

However leaving aside that emotive issue what I have tried to do is a three step argument.

I have questioned the existence of 'rationality' in an objective sense (pointing out the impossibility of standing sub specie æterni. I have also questioned whether rational is always good since rational thought is also something engaged in by unethical people with unethical rational outcomes.

I have argued that in Aquinas' third way there is a rational way to argue in the existence of God, and that in the absence of a complete refutation of that the decision to believe in God is rational. I could have gone further and pointed out that no less and philosophical authority than Richard Swinburn (Emeritus Professor at Oxford) has argued a rational case for major Christian doctrines and so has done more than just argue for theism. As long as a rational argument can be made it is perfectly rational to accept that argument no matter if others disagree with it.

I have finally argued that to use the language of irrationality is unhelpful in the current political landscape.

I have not tried to persuade anyone indeed I'm not sure given the intransigent nature of the opinions I have come up against that it would be possible to persuade anyone. I was simply trying to point out why I don't accept this 'dogma' of Dawkins. That's all I've done. Although given the nature of the intransigence I might reflect some more on how and if we change our opinions another entry.

I think the route I've taken has been original, whereas the line 'faith is irrational' is pure Dawkins.

I would say in closing that I am a reasonably educated person who usually thinks carefully, has spent something over 10 years considering these questions and examining them with people (some of whom had quite a few degrees) I do not recognise the irrational person they are looking for.

Anyway back to what I was saying before.

*Deepest sigh* Third of Three

My third argument is unashamedly pragmatic.

I was thinking of how best to approach this subject when I was sent a link of Susan Blackmore’s article and that crystallised what I wanted to say.

You see she attacks ‘faith’. Which she says is opposed to reason and ‘much else that we value’. This made me think. What is this much else? I look at my own values as a western Christian and I see no conflict. The head of my church will place the crown on the head of the monarch. I am enthusiastic about democracy, woman’s rights. I agree with the legalisation of homosexuality. Where is the conflict?

Of course there is only one religion being discussed in the article and that is Islam.

Islam which seems to challenge our western values. Islam is always the unspoken target of these attacks. Unspoken because Islamophobia is not something anyone wants to be accused of so instead ‘faith’ is attacked.

When thinking of irrational faith the suicide bomber is always the example par excellence.

Yet actually are they entirely irrational?

It would be irrational if the conversation went something like this:

“Abdul, look! The woman on early morning TV is wearing blue! Let’s go and kill people!”

Now I admit, watching Lorraine Kelly does make me want to commit random acts of violence, and it’s true that “LK Today” doesn’t engage with the rational bit of my mind but that isn’t what’s going on in the life of a terrorist. Nor is it about the 72 virgins which everyone always goes on about make the whole thing seem even more irrational. Consider the following logical sequence:

1) I wish to have sex with 72 attractive women who have had no previous sexual partners.
2) There are several billion women on earth.
3) It is nearly certain that significantly more than 72 will be attractive to me.
4) It is nearly certain that a significantly more than 72 will have had no sexual partners (though this number will fall drastically during fresher’s week)
5) It is highly probably that more than 72 will have consensual sex with me. (we’re talking billions here….the odds are not bad)
6) Ergo it is highly likely that there are at least 72 attractive woman prepared to have consensual sex with me who have had no previous sexual partner.
7) Therefore I must make a bomb, strap it to myself and detonate it in a public place resulting in my own death.

Clearly nuts!

Where as what is actually going on is much more rational:

Stated Political aim: To remove all western forces from the Arabian Peninsula and end western influence in the region.

Direct military attack will not work since western forces are far too strong. Nor will an attempt to sway the governments in the region. Western politicians are too well protected. Therefore the only means to change policy is by bringing the electorate to bear on them. It is far more effective to move a population by fear and terror than any other method and the most effective terror weapon is the suicide bomber, since it is virtually impossible to defend against (unattended baggage easy to spot, but bloke getting on a train with a bag – normal) and speaks of utter fanaticism.

It is a rational process going on here.

Unethical? Yes. Evil? Yes. Irrational? No.

I suspect that a lot of rationalists think that any thought that comes from rationalising has to be good because rational thought always leads to truth, and therefore to the good. I personally believe that the rightness of the rationalising is very much dependant on the person doing it.

To decry Islam as irrational is to disengage from it and most importantly its genuine grievances with the western world. If we don’t here and respond to those grievances they will make themselves felt through more actions like suicide bombings.

There are many of us who fear Islamophobia who are trying desperately to make people aware that the problem is with the POLITICAL aims and actions of a few. The problem is not with Islam.

Nick Griffen has argued the opposite that Islam is prone to irrationalism, naturally leads to violence and terrorism. His answer is to remove Islam from the UK.

Now I am not accusing Susan Blackmore or anyone who has commented on my blog of Islamophobia or being a supporter of the BNP. I would imagine that Dr Blackmore’s opinions are in exactly the opposite direction to Nick Griffen’s.

What I would say though, to people who say that faith is irrational, is similar to what I would say to senior church leaders (Bishops and the like) regarding homosexuality. I do not for a second believe that any Bishops would physically attack a homosexual. Nor that they approve of such things, but you have to be careful what you say, because someone will take it as permission to do something nasty.Since there is evidence that most people choose their religion in childhood I think the paralell between faith and sexuality can be made.

I think that statements like ‘faith is irrational’ are best left unsaid because they feed Islamophobia.

Christians in the UK have nothing to fear from the far right. We are too venerable, too inoffensive, too established and far too white.

However I think Muslims read some of what is written about faith, and crap themselves.

A small look at my inbox

This is a small part of my inbox.

A Chaplain's job tends to be a bit lop sided. I speak as one who used to do that whole 'Church thing', you know standing at the front.

Generally like the lyrics of a certain song you can wake a chaplain when September ends. Then for 10 weeks I don't really stop working. Well that's not strictly true I sleep occasionally.

At this time of year things generally get a hell of a lot quieter and gradually students slip away. Every day I start my working day by reading my e-mails, which is where a lot of my work comes from. By this point in the year my inbox is empty. Only as you can see it isn't.

Not that this is a problem. I'm sitting here at the end of a week that has seen my blog beat it's record for the most hits in a day and in a week (currently I'm on target for most hits on a Sunday!) and I've got quite a lot of comments too. It's been hard to keep up with them all. There was even one point in the week when I got up at 3am to moderate the comments so I could keep the conversation going.

It is interesting what caused a storm. I got quite a few hits once before when I suggested that the government's Sexual Orientation Regulations were basically alright and when I wondered out loud if CUs couldn't just be merged with Chaplaincy.

I never really set this blog up as an attack blog, when it was first suggested to me by a student that I should blog I had a look around a pretty much decided that I didn't want to write a and-jesus-is-a-bit-like-that blog "Today I saw a cobweb..." I don't think I wanted to write a bile filled the-whole-world-can-just-shut-the-fuck-up sort of blogs either.

I've been writing some of my longest and densest postings but people are reading (which makes a change). It's also forced me to go back to some books which I haven't opened for a long time. My mind is being exercised, which is a change for a chaplain who has made shite production on an epic scale his stock in trade.

I have one more posting on this subject to go which will probably be up tomorrow. Then I have to catch up with the Big Tick and then I can get back to attacking some religious people which is what I was going to do just after my original post on Richard Dawkins.

Then I have a mountain of crap to tell you about.

I say 'you' though obviously some of you might not be reading by then!

*Deeper Sigh* second of three...

This is the second in a series of three looking at whether radical/ militant atheists are right in claiming that they are rational while believers are irrational. I began in my last post by questioning whether the very idea of rationality was in fact cogent.

So to move on.

Let's look at the question of whether belief in God is rational from another point of view.

Once again I'm going to argue that we need the right tools for the job. In other words philosophy of religion. Although I am not at heart a rationalist there are a number of rationalists who are in fact theists.

They justify there theism by appeal to some sort of argument for the existence of God. There are a number of such arguments. They range in complexity. They also range in how successful they are as arguments from the argument from design (easily the weakest of them) through to the cosmological argument.

The cosmological argument as contained in Aquinas' third way is by far the strongest of the arguments. Supplemented by the work of Leibniz. Although there have been significant criticisms of these by among others Hume and Russel, these criticisms are just that criticisms. They are not a complete refutation.

As time has gone on we see that actually some of these criticisms have themselves developed problems.

F.C. Coppleston famously debated on the radio with Bertrand Russell and it is during this debate that he gives the classic account of Aquinas' third way. That there are many things in the world and none of them contain within themselves sufficient reason for their existence (Leibniz famous principal of sufficient reason) therefore there has to be something else which has within itself a full explanation for everything else.

Coppleston is arguing from evidence that, rationally, since everything has a cause there must be a cause of everything. Russel's answer was simply to assert that the Universe simply is 'just there'

Coppleston responds: “I should like to observe in passing that the statement "the world is simply there and is inexplicable" can't be got out of logical analysis.”

Russel finally rejects the concept of a necessary being. Basically he makes the argument that the cosmological argument is contingent upon the ontological argument and all the problems associated with it. Interestingly enough Gerard J. Hughes (a proper philosopher of Religion – read this article to see what he makes of Dawkins) has argued that in fact the cosmological argument is entirely separate from the ontological one.

The end of the debate can be summed up as this:

The Universe does not offer sufficient explanation for it's own existence. Therefore Occam's over quoted razor “Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” (don't except a complicated explanation when a simple one will do) can here be turned on it's head an a further explanation must be posited. One which finally must also contain within itself sufficient reason not just for the existence of everything else but also itself.

While the atheist simply accepts the world exists while rejecting the concept of a necessary being and calling into question the principal of sufficient reason.

In short the debate is inconclusive.

The whole thing hangs on whether you accept P.S.R. and whether you believe that Aquinas was arguing that existence is an attribute (if he is, the argument fails, if he isn't it doesn't). In short there are rational reasons for going with either of them.

It is like choosing between Oxford and Cambridge University.

(if you're a Cambridge graduate it's obvious that Oxford is really shit and vice versa)

Bertrand Russell was arguably one of the greatest philosophers of his age. Yet he acknowledged that his debate with Coppleston ended not with the matter resolved but with an impasse. He also stated quite clearly that he was an agnostic. To argue that theism is irrational is to claim more for oneself than Russell would ever do. Entailing as it does the complete rejection of the work of individuals who are giants in the development of western thought.

*heavy sigh* First of three...

I didn’t really want to do another ‘atheist’ post.

However I will because I want to respond to a number of things that have been said.

I’m particularly troubled by the constant assertion that faith is irrational and there is no evidence for it. Faith in God is ridiculous like faith in fairies. I suspect I’m dealing with a bunch of scientists here. Not just the atheists, from the look on my comments I’d say the theists are either scientists or mathematicians too.

This is the problem I’ve had with the whole Dawkins debate. Dawkins is a scientist and so is Alistair McGrath. That is why he’s the atheists favourite person to debate. He actually shares more in common with the scientific atheists than he does with a more post-modern believer. There are certain assumptions which are givens in the debate between the two men.

However it is a philosophical debate. Specifically a philosophy of religion debate and you can’t really use science to settle a debate in philosophy of religion any more than you can use a French degree to get a job playing the trumpet.

This is the first of three posts and I’m going to approach this question in three different ways in each post.

So firstly the claim that you can settle anything by rationalistic consideration of the evidence.

Rationalism of course dates back to before the likes of Plato and Socrates. It comes about due to the problem that we can never quite trust what we see. I often walk up to people I think I know only to discover 5 minutes into the conversation that I’ve never met this person before in my life. Then there is the problem of relativity. A retired woman would view me as a young person. A 5 year old would think I was old. Who is right?

To combat this ancient philosophers came up with rationalism. The theory that we could abandon the unreliable senses and use reason to approach the truth. The question remains how can this internal approach be successful? To solve this problem often philosophers have conjectured some sort of innate objective knowledge placed there from outside by recollection of pre-birth knowledge (Plato and Socrates) or God (Descartes) However there is no evidence of that as Locks showed, actually the mind is a white paper on which experience writes. All our knowledge Lock argued comes from experience. The trouble with this is that if all your knowledge is based on experience how do you ever (without resorting to “I have innate knowledge”) know that your knowledge is based on something outside yourself.

You are probably sitting looking at this on a monitor which sits on some sort of desk. You can see that desk, you can touch it. If you hit it you can probably hear it and you can try tasting it too. However the philosopher Barkley argued in several books that actually although your perception of the desk exists, the desk itself does not. I don’t actually accept Barkley’s arguments but it is near impossible to prove him wrong. You’d think that proving the existence of your desk would be an easy matter quickly cleared up compared with the much harder question of the existence/non existence of a deity.

Finally up pops Hume. Hume is my second favourite philosopher. Hume fundamentally questioned the link between cause and effect. The fact that one event follows another does not mean there is some kind of cause between them. A man farts, and the roof blows off his house. He assumes that he has a very bad case of wind. But actually there was a gas leak that ignited at exactly that moment.

Hume asked why do we always assume things from what we see. Why when we see a bullet do we posit a gun? The answer is experience. We have seen water boiling at 100 degrees. So we imagine that it is a heat of 100 degrees that has produced that. We actually do not know that. We have tried it many times so we assume it will always work. This is the principal of universal constant. It’s wrong.

If, like me, you follow the ideas of Hume and Locke you are left with only one conclusion. You must be sceptical of everything.

When you add a philosopher like Kierkegaard into the mix it gets even harder. Kierkegaard was the first philosopher to argue that in deciding truth people had to take time into account. When you do that you start to see that truth actually changes over time.

What you end up with is an inability to be certain (Descartes famously felt that thought was sufficient proof for the existence of self – he was in fact wrong, there is no proof that I exist). You also end up with a truth based entirely on your observations. You will live for less that 120 years, probably less that 90, and in that time you will see a tiny fraction of this universal spec we call a planet and there is nothing in you or anyone else that is a secure ground for your reason.

Rationalism is a very modernist and very Anglo-Saxon way of looking at the world. I have met a lot of evangelical fundamentalists who have become atheists. It looks like they have radically changed. Actually it’s all surface. Underneath there fundamental assumptions about the universe have not changed, they have just changed the ‘facts’. My own journey has been different. On the surface I have not moved one inch. I’m still a Christian but underneath everything is different and I cannot understand this modernist approach. It is so clearly wrong.

You say faith is irrational. What, I ask you, is rational?

Advertising

It seems advertising is in the news.

With this in mind I have turned once again to chaplaincy advertising. That evasive chaplaincy strap line I have been searching for.

Various things suggested

"Chaplaincy: weird in a good way"
"Chaplaincy: cake or death?"

and today's suggestion:

"Chaplaincy: Getting to know you (in the Biblical way)"

I am disturbed... and yet strangly compelled to go away and add it to the web site.

Blogging is a bit like life...

You never know do you?

Over the course of a year this blog has been mostly about the shite.

Tunnel socs and Big Ticks, occasionally it's been about my crisis of faith and inability to make sense of a lot of the contemporary Church and occasionally it's been about my desire to become a stand up comedian. It gets a few people pop in. From time to time.

I've mostly stayed out of the whole Atheist debate thing, because I see it as a very rational thing, with atheists saying "look you can (almost) prove that God doesn't exist" and conservative theists saying "Look you can (almost) prove everything about Christianity is true. Because I like to think that faith is about saying "I don't know" and about recognizing our smallness and inability to speak beyond our human world and life I sort of sat out on this one.

Having spoken to some atheists and done some thinking I decided to write something, and low and behold it has become the most popular blog of the year (in the dark side chaplaincy at least). I'm not complaining, it's just I just didn't think that post would be the one everyone would pick up on. Still you never know what's going to happen when you post something out into the great unknown. Blogging is like a box of chocolates, isn't it! Do keep your comments coming. They make me think. Sometimes I even change my opinions because of them.

I still don't think that anyone has really answered my two main points in the original post.

One radical atheism is an oppressive meta-narrative. If you want that in English it's basically about forcing your views down other people's throats. I don't like that. I think radical atheists do it.

Secondly I pointed out that radical atheists are mostly anti-Bush and therefore basically have a misplaced political agenda.

No one has picked up on those points.

Which mean either

a) I didn't make them clearly enough
b) I'm right!!!!!

Anyway it's all getting very serious around here.

Tomorrow more shite.

Robhu

Hello Robhu!

You posted a comment when I blogged about Dawkins.

I mentioned Sam Harris and his ideas that it's actually ethical to kill believers in some circumstances.

You rightly point out that according to Harris you can only do this with the most extreme of beliefs. He's not arguing that we need to round up the worshipers in your average Church or synagogue and cart them off to the gas chambers. He is arguing that only people who have beliefs like 'All US citizens should die' can be ethically killed. Basically the religious terrorists of this world.

Now as I said in my original post I think this is a really, really bad view to hold. Let me explain why.

I can see that someone walking on to a tube strapped up with explosives needs to be stopped. Sure. And I suppose if there is no other way to stop them then you should kill them. However if you're too enthusiastic about that one you will probably get the odd Brazilian electrician too. However taking the life of a terrorists can only be right and ethical if there is no other way of stopping them at that point: On the tube with the explosives. If there was any other way of stopping them without killing them I think you must do that. I'm fairly sure that is what British law says too.

Now if the public are not in any direct danger, for example if the terrorists' attack is still at the planning stage, you cannot just nip round with a swat team and execute them. You have to arrest them and then prosecute them.

What Harris is in fact saying though is not just when they are planning something but actually just sitting at home thinking “Wouldn't it be great to kill people.” then we can kill them. The objection I have here is that he wants to target not terrorists but believers.

Clearly as he says “There is, in fact, no talking to some people.” just kill them. That's a very American way of looking at the world. Divide it into good and evil and kill the evil. I can recommend two books for you on this one “Captain America and the Crusade against Evil” by Robert Jewett and John Shelton Lawrence and “The President of Good and Evil” by Peter Singer. I have heard many an American politician argue that there is no point talking to terrorists. I've heard that from the mouth of Israelis too.

I can't agree because this makes a problem of belief and effectively dehumanizes the believers.

There is always room to change one's views and ruling some people out, not only do you do away with them, but many moderates to boot.

Ian Paisley famously said that he would never talk to Sinn Fein/IRA (by putting those two together as the same thing he showed that in his head all people who believed in a United Ireland were terrorists by default) He also said in 2002 that if any member of his party spoke to Sinn Fein they would be looked upon as a traitor. I believe no belief is so extreme that you cannot engage with the person who holds it, because ultimately I think that when the DUP speak to Sinn Fein there is a real chance of peace. So too for Hamas and Likud.

The issue at root here is how you view belief.

Dawkins and Harris view belief as distasteful, delusional or ultimately dangerous while simultaneously holding a number of beliefs themselves which they erroneously think to be, not beliefs, but rationally proved facts.

This is, in itself, dangerous. Not just to people like me, who have plenty to fear from this type of thinking, but by closing of engagement, at a time when religious conflict is so widespread, it is dangerous for us all.

Church of England Chaplain University of Southampton Southampton University University Soton Uni Atheism

Important Message for Boldrewood Tunnel Soc.

Dear Tunnel Soc.

It's time for a new T.U.N.N.E.L....as you know the Student Union Sabbatical Officers are coming to the end of their time.

As a society seeking Union recognition it is vital that we suck up to build close relationships with SUSU.

To this end I propose we say a big thank you to Ben Rogers and co. How better to do this than with a card. Now you could buy a card from the shop for less than a pound but the message that really says 'I love you, now recognise my silly Tunnel Society' is the card you made yourself.

So get yourself some paper and crayons and draw a picture. This should be in the style of Jordan from year 4 at Bassett Green School. Members from WSA will obviously be expected to draw to at least a year 6 standard, with most of the colouring inside the lines and all the people should have eyelashes.

You can draw and colour in anything you like. It could be a picture of you outside the tunnel.



Or a picture of the Sabs.





Then write a special message.




Finally if you sign your card make sure you put your age including any relevant halves or quarters.

Then send your completed card to SUSU, Highfield, Southampton by using a postbox, an envelop and a stamp. I used the post box on campus but you can use any Postbox. Obviously most members will currently have exams so this is a perfect time to do this, involving as it does a certain amount of procrastination.

Get scribbling!