Stephen Fry calls God an 'evil, capricious, monstrous maniac'

Image courtesy of The Telegraph 

Outspoken atheist Stephen Fry created headlines this week as he described God as 'evil, capricious, monstrous maniac' on an Irish TV interview:

This has echoes of the 18th century atheist David Hume who claimed evil and suffering as "the rock of atheism".

However the response from Christians has already begun....

Giles Fraser wrote a response to Fry. He concludes:

Simply put: there is no such thing as the God he imagines. It is the flying teapot orbiting a distant planet about which nothing can be said. Such a God doesn’t exist. Nilch. Nada. It’s a nonsense. Indeed, as no less an authority than Thomas Aquinas rightly insists, existence itself is a questionable predicate to use of God. For God is the story of human dreams and fears. God is the shape we try to make of our lives. God is the name of the respect we owe the planet. God is the poetry of our lives. Of course this is real. Frighteningly real. Real enough to live and die for even. But this is not the same as saying that God is a command and control astronaut responsible for some wicked hunger game experiment on planet earth. Such a being does not exist. And for the precisely the reasons Fry expounds, thank God for that. [Read more <here>]

Russell Brand has uploaded this:

Fr Ed Tomlinson has written an extensive post on his blog:

For it is obvious from your emotional response that you actually hold life to be precious. Your rage at the worm suggests you see something infinitely precious in humanity that makes it worthy of dignity, protection and care. Good for you! Christians agree and include you in that number. But Stephen….

…why rail against God if you don’t believe in him? I cannot imagine getting cross with a creature I believed mythical, say a unicorn or pixie! No, the emotion you display is only rationally, surely, if delivered to a living agent you do suspect might just be there.

Perhaps then it is not that you disbelieve in God, so much as feel anger towards him and what you think he has revealed? If so I urge you to look again and see not only our grot but also our glory. For there must clearly be something of value in a Catholic church that has lasted two thousand years, which comprises 1.4 billion members and which has outlived every regime that ever sought to destroy it. [Read more <here>]

Another response from Justin Brierley:

Do you think Stephen Fry has put forward a rational and balanced argument? Do you agree with Russell Brand that Stephen Fry has 'missed something'? How about Fr Ed Tomlinson's response, is Fry closer to theism than he realises? Did David Hume get it right several hundred years ago or is there a theodicy that allows suffering AND God to exist? 

Atheism - A Mental Illness?

Image courtesy of BBC

The BBC have reported upon a Nigerian man who has been sent to a mental institution after he declared that he did not believe in God.

The humanist charity, The International Humanist and Ethical Union, claims he has been "forcibly medicated by his Muslim relatives, despite being given a clean bill of health by a doctor."

The IHEU have said that Mr Bala told Muslim relatives he did not believe in God, they asked a doctor if he was mentally ill. He was given a clear bill of health, yet his family then took him to a second doctor who declared that his atheism was a side-effect of suffering a personality change.

The chemical engineering graduate, while forcibly committed to a mental institution without access to a lawyer, was able to contact activists using a smuggled phone.

Read more from BBC: <here>

Read more from IHEU: <here>

Who do you think is to blame here? Why do you think his family and local community have acted in this way? Do you think the Nigerian government should intervene? How does this portray religious people? 

Your Parent's Faith?

"My wife, who’s a pretty vehement atheist, said that she could cope with just about any life decision our children may make - apart from them wanting to join the military or the clergy."

Often parents are accused indoctrinating their children, forcing them into their own faith at a young age. However the counter argument is that when something is so important to you, surely you want to pass it on to your children? Most parents would encourage their children in their beliefs until the point that they can make up their own mind.

One family have spoken in The Guardian about how, while living in France, their daughter has decided to become Catholic. She has attended a Catholic school and now wants to fully join the faith.

The author of the article talks about how "our world view isn't enough for her" and that she has decided she wants to be baptised and receive the other sacraments. Her mother in particular, struggles with her decision.

The article ends with the author (the father) saying: "I just hope that, the next time she faces a life-defining decision, she remembers this time when she told us she had faith in something we don't. And we believed in her."

Do you think parents are right to impose their world view on their children? At what age can you make up your own mind? Is it better when people choose a faith for themselves? Do you think their belief will be stronger?

Read more here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/14/daughter-of-atheist-wants-to-be-catholic 

Atheist Babies?

Many people define atheists as people who believe "there is no God". But what if that definition was people who do not believe "there is a God."?

This second definition is becoming more common. However it raises certain problems, one such being babies. Are babies born atheists?

Atheists have used this to claim that the 'natural state' is therefore one of atheism.

Yet it creates problems as babies don't believe there is no God, in the same way they don't believe there is a God, thefore is this not a form of non-atheism?

Jimmy Akin explores this in more detail <here>. It is also one of themes of the book, Knowledge of Angels (buy it <here>).

Do you think babies make a good 'test case'? What do you think our 'natural state' is? How do we best define atheism? Should we just leave babies alone to dribble and pull silly faces?

Arguements for Atheism

This video has been circulating the internet for years. Many atheists went mad when they saw it... equally some Christians agreed with it. However there has been much reported about how actually man has played a big part in adapting bananas. Is this good evidence for God as designer? Do people like this damage Christians' arguements for design in the world?

On a similar topic, a blog post on Patheos, outlined 3 arguments that athesits can no longer use for the non-existence of God:

1) Babies Are Atheists
2) Priests Abuse Boys
3) Light Before Sun

Read these in more detail: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/05/3-arguments-atheists-arent-allowed-to-use-anymore.html

Do you think that the evidence put forward is convincing? What arguments can athesists still use?

Religion & Media: Edexcel RE Unit 3

Worksheet: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/69889330/Media%20Questions.docx

Model Answers: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/69889330/Believing_in_God_media_answers.doc

Time slot: Sundays between 4 – 6 pm, 30 mins

About: Christian, inter-denominational (=ECUMENICAL) programme, though very occasionally, inter-faith issues are explored. It takes place at a church or cathedral in the community from which the interviews are taken.

A different theme is taken each week: it may be liturgical – eg about a feast or season- eg Christmas or Lent, or it may be a religious or moral idea – eg marriage, forgiveness.

A presenter interviews experts in the theme, or ordinary Christians about their faith experiences or faith journey

Programme structure: HYMN / INTERVIEW / HYMN / INTERVIEW etc ending in a PRAYER by a religious leader in the community. Hymns have words on screen.

Target audience:1. Having watched a programme yourself, what do you think? Who would normally be at home, indoors at tea-time on a Sunday? Why do you think the hymn words on screen are helpful?
2. Do you think that people with no religious faith at all might watch occasionally? What might they make of it? Which parts of the programme might they find the most interesting?
3. Does the programme show religious people and religious ideas in a good light?
4. Might this programme have an effect on people who already have religious faith? What sort of people might find it helpful/useful? What sort of people might not watch it? Why?
5. If you were giving advice to the programmes producers about improving it, what would you say?

Exam Question: 
C) Choose one programme about religion and explain how it might affect someone’s belief about God. 8marks
The programme ‘Songs of Praise’ could affect people’s belief in God I a number of ways.

Some people watching the programme, seeing hundreds of people talking about God and praying to him might make them wonder how that many could be wrong. As such they might begin to believe in God.

Other people might be inspired to believe in God through listening to the interviews that appear on the show. The interview I watched was about somebody who had prayed for something and I came true. Some people watching his might think that if it has happened to that person then God could be real.

The programme features Bible readings and hymns. People may never have heard these before and might really enjoy them or find a great deal of meaning in them. For example the book of Job says that sometimes humans suffer for no particular reason but that faith gets you through. Someone who is having a hard time e.g. in lots of debt might take hope from this story and begin to believe in God.

On the other hand Christians who have watched an interview with someone who has had a prayer answered might believe that God does not exist if their prayer has gone unanswered. A Christian hearing this who has recently lost someone to cancer might be angry that God did not answer their prayers and so become angry that God did not answer their prayers and so become an atheist.

Exam Question #2:
C) Choose an issue from religion and community cohesion presented in one form of the media and explain whether it was fair to religious people. 8marks
Starting sentence: In September 2011, the programme ‘Songs of Praise’ presented an episode commemorating the tenth anniversary since the terrorist attacks in the USA on 9/11.

1. Name the issue(s) which were presented during the interviews- ie what did the programme- makers want the audience to reflect on? 

2. Write an outline of how the issue was presented, listing the main events and the way the events explored the issue.(eg did it show any bias? did it manipulate your feelings?)

3. Were religious beliefs included in the presentation? Why do you think this approach was taken?

4. Use this information to decide whether the programme’s presentation was fair to religious belief &/or religious people? Use evidence to support ideas. 

5. Explain why it is important to religious people that the issue is presented fairly. Use evidence to support ideas.

Exam Question #3:
B) Do you think that the media present religious people fairly?  4marks

Clips from YouTube:"10 Yrs Since 9/11"

These short clips from BBC Songs of Praise with an adaptation of model answer above is enough for pupils to be able to answer if the media questions comes up on Community Cohesion.

Beauty helps prove God's existence?

Some people would find this video very convincing evidence for God's existence.

Is The Aesthetic Principle sound? Is it logical to argue for God's existence from the beauty we experience in the world? Or can it only play a part in the Teleological Argument, further backing up its reasoning?

Take an Atheist to Church?

So suggests Karl Giberson:

He argues that many atheists simply don't understand what they are arguing against and miss many of the good things which go on inside the church.

He invites atheists to, "spend a year doing research into what real life religious people are like -- the people who are not in the headlines" instead of the abortion clinic bombings and anti-gay rhetoric which is sometimes the only things published (in parts of the US).

He concludes by saying, "I don't think a year in our church will transform your atheism into belief in God. You may leave even more convinced that Christians believe odd things. But I think your experience would help you see that our faith -- like our affection for our beloved Red Sox or our love for our glorious fall foliage -- is not an epidemic or a plague. The beliefs we pass on to our children are not harmful and abusive."

However, perhaps slightly controversially ends, "And the world is a better place because we are here."

Read more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-giberson-phd/take-an-atheist-to-church_b_1327250.html

Do you agree with this idea? Do atheists really argue their case without full investigation into what exactly does go on in churches? Some atheists seem very well read (for example Dawkins), do others simply follow blindly?

Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus

This video caused a lot of controversy a few weeks ago as it went 'viral'.

The author of the poem wrote this:

"A poem I wrote to highlight the difference between Jesus and false religion. In the scriptures Jesus received the most opposition from the most religious people of his day. At it's core Jesus' gospel and the good news of the Cross is in pure opposition to self-righteousness/self-justification. Religion is man centered, Jesus is God-centered. This poem highlights my journey to discover this truth. Religion either ends in pride or despair. Pride because you make a list and can do it and act better than everyone, or despair because you can't do your own list of rules and feel "not good enough" for God. With Jesus though you have humble confident joy because He represents you, you don't represent yourself and His sacrifice is perfect putting us in perfect standing with God the Father."

It has links to the post I made the other day: http://talkingdonkeyre.blogspot.com/2012/02/letter-from-god-to-man.html

Is it actually possible to detach Christianity and Jesus?

It does also remind me of a quote from Gandhi:

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. Mohandas Gandhi

Why should religions be exempt from advertising rules?

"My colleague Brendan O'Neill writes that "If Christians are not free to say 'God heals', then there is no religious freedom in this country". He berates "authoritarian literalists" at the Advertising Standards Authority for banning a Christian group from claiming in a leaflet that God can heal (and I quote) "Back Pain, Arthritis, MS, Addiction … Ulcers, Depression, Allergies, Fibromyalgia, Asthma, Paralysis, Crippling Disease, Phobias, Sleeping disorders or any other sickness".

Brendan describes the ASA's decision as an "outrageous attack on freedom of religion", saying "policing the expression of an inner conviction, of a profound belief in the healing qualities of God, is ludicrous and authoritarian." It'd be different, he says, if it was Pepsi or a homeopath claiming to cure disease, but since it's a religious thing, it's an expression of faith and thus should be allowed."

Read full article here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100135398/why-should-religions-be-exempt-from-advertising-rules/
Is it right that religious groups should come under the same category as companies and service providers? Should religions be able to make healing claims? Do people only dismiss them anyway? Are some people more vulnerable or susceptible to these claims?

Alain de Botton: I want to build a "Temple to Atheism"

"The atheist 'philosopher' Alain de Botton has undertaken a (literally) monumental project: he wants to create in the City a 150-foot-high temple to 'new atheism'. This is to distinguish it from old, aggressive atheism, as preached by Richard Dawkins. The two chaps seem to disagree on tactics, for one struggles to find any difference of substance.

'Why should religious people have the most beautiful buildings in the land?' Botton asks. 'It's time atheists had their own version of the great churches and cathedrals'."

Is an atheist philosopher an oxymoron? Alexander Boot seems to think so. Read his analysis of Botton's bizare scheme here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2093778/We-temples-atheism-Mr-Botton.html#ixzz1l7dCJV4d

What are your concluesions on this story?

'There Might Be A God', says Sir David Attenborough

"Sir David Attenborough does not believe that an understanding of evolution is incompatible with faith in God, he will tell Radio 4 listeners on Sunday.

Attenborough, who was invited back to Desert Island Discs to mark the 70th anniversary of the radio programme, explains that, while he is still agnostic, he does not rule out the possibility of the existence of a deity.

"I don't think an understanding and an acceptance of the 4 billion-year-long history of life is any way inconsistent with a belief in a supreme being," the 85-year-old broadcaster and writer will tell presenter Kirsty Young. "And I am not so confident as to say that I am an atheist.""

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/jan/29/david-attenborough-desert-island-discs
Listen on iPlayer (as of 30/1/12): http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b01b8yy0