The Old Testament was both depressingly blood drenched, overly long, blandly repetitive and largely narrative free. The constant imprecations and dire oaths do become hard reading, and the long genealogy lists and compilations of dimensions of things, parts of the OT come across like an Ikea guide to building a tabernacle, are hardly gripping either.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Bible Studies
Some time ago, in fact it seems like an age ago, I thought I would have a go at reading the Bible. I am currently around three quarters of the way through, having just got started on the New Testament. Of the many things I have learned about the Bible from reading it the comparative lengths of the Old and New Testaments came as a surprise. I had always imagined that the two sections would be roughly the same length, or perhaps I just did not pay enough attention in Sunday School.
The Old Testament was both depressingly blood drenched, overly long, blandly repetitive and largely narrative free. The constant imprecations and dire oaths do become hard reading, and the long genealogy lists and compilations of dimensions of things, parts of the OT come across like an Ikea guide to building a tabernacle, are hardly gripping either.
Getting to the New Testament then with its messages of tolerance, peace and love is a breath of fresh air. The story of Jesus looks to be so short though, he is born, and only a handful of pages later he is about to die, I thought he would get more of a run. Oh well, 79% down, as we Kindlers' say, I'll keep clicking the page turn button.
The Old Testament was both depressingly blood drenched, overly long, blandly repetitive and largely narrative free. The constant imprecations and dire oaths do become hard reading, and the long genealogy lists and compilations of dimensions of things, parts of the OT come across like an Ikea guide to building a tabernacle, are hardly gripping either.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Book Review : AVSI Judaism - Norman Solomon 7*
I had a bit of an autodidactic spree before starting a degree course and read a few of Oxford University Press' A Very Short Introduction series, and generally they are very good little books, offering a necessarily brief yet reasonably academic view into the topic of each book.AVSI Judaism is the fourth of the religion introductions I have read after Linda Woodhead's Christianity, Eleanor Nesbitt's Sikhism and Islam by Malise Ruthven. Of the four, Woodhead writes clearly and distinctly and stands back from the subject in a proper academic fashion, Nesbitt and Solomon both appear slightly too close to the religion they are describing, and Ruthven's book is in parts a baffling impenetrable collage of concepts, ideology and phrases that left me little the wiser at the end.
Solomon has chosen to write in a very simple style, perhaps the accusation overly simple could be levelled at some points, his use of language does sometimes come across as a kindly old man teaching a class of six year olds. Never the less, Solomon explains the tenets, practices and history in a clear and succinct style, albeit shaded by obvious proximity to and love of his subject.
The ongoing tension and clashes between Jewish Israel and the Muslim Middle East are obviously hard to describe for anyone who has a vested interest, and I feel that Solomon did not manage to stand back far enough from this difficult part of the subject. Solomon talks about the Jewish military concept of tohar ha-nesheq with its demand that soldiers must take care to avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties, but he does not make it clear whether he thinks that Israel's armed forces embrace this concept.
In other places Solomon's love for Judaism shines through, especially in the chapter on home life. These points aside though, it is a good description of one of the world's great religions, easy to read and understand and gain a basic understanding of the subject in hand.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Book Review : The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins 6*
Perhaps the most famous famous, and amongst the most militant atheists writing today, Richard Dawkins has shifted over two million copies of his anti-religion polemic. That's an awful lot of books. Rick Warren's pro-Christian tract The Purpose Driven Life has sold about 30 million copies (source - ABC News), that's a truly massive amount of books.
Dawkins hates religion, much of The God Delusion burns with his fury at theism in all its forms. I say in all its forms but to be honest it is mostly the big faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam that Dawkins takes on, and Christianity that he seems particularly angry about.
Dawkins is obviously a hugely intelligent man, Oxford University don't choose fools to be professors, and he has an incredible pedigree in the fields of ethology and evolutionary biology. He also has quite a large ego, I don't think I have read another scholarly book in which the author mentions himself quite so often. Dawkins just loves pointing out how clever he has been in previous verbal sparring with theists and how often he himself has demolished theist arguments. It does become a little wearing after a while.
Where Dawkins is particularly strong is the science. I enjoyed discussions on topics like Martin Rees' six constants theory, and the evolution pieces are splendid especially where Dawkins explores in detail how a pre-disposition toward religion could have been a very useful, if slightly misdirected, element of evolution itself.
Where Dawkins makes rather a fool of himself is politics. He asserts twice in TGD that without religion, there would have been no Troubles in Northern Ireland, and then claims that if children were schooled together the tensions in that community would die out in a generation. This is simply rubbish, those people in NI who consider themselves Irish and Catholic would still be opposed to a British and Protestant government if the religious element was missing. Although I have some sympathy for the view that cross-community schooling would help the community as a whole, joint education of white and black/asian children certainly has not wiped out racism in the wider community.
Dawkins really attacks religion, and tried to prop up the values of atheism by claiming that religion systematically influences people to do bad things. One of his arguments for this is that he doesn't think that there are many atheists in prison (an unverified claim as far as I can see), you could look at this claim from another point of view and say that people turn to religion when they get themselves into a bad spot. In a Louis Theroux documentary a prison guard offered a nicely cynical point of view when he said that he saw a lot of religious 'conversions' in prisoners as it certainly didn't harm their chances with the parole board.
There are numerous instances of religious people doing bad things, far too many to count. Bad Popes, the Inquisition, dozens of Kings and Queens who have made war for religious reasons, paedophile priests, the nutters from the Westboro Baptist Church, all claiming that one god or another tells them to do bad things. Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler were all largely atheist though, and that didn't stop any of them from massacring millions.
I have tried to think of a single moment when my church, its priests and followers, its teachings and public pronouncements have influenced or encouraged me to be bad. I cannot think of one. Instead I can clearly remember the things it has tried to influence me to do. To love all people equally without regard for race, nationality or religion. To have compassion and charity for those less fortunate. To know the difference between the older faith of an eye for an eye which we do not follow and the teachings of Christ that we should turn the other cheek. To strive to be the best you can be in this life, but not at the expense of others.
The God Delusion was an interesting read, but did it destroy my belief in God and throw a new kind of light into my life ? Well, it didn't. It raised some interesting questions, trod over a lot of already well trodden anti-religious rhetoric and argued mostly wisely from a scientific point of view. On the downside there are far too many assumptions and presumptions made when scientific fact and research would have safely shored up his arguments, such as in his discussion of the Montreal Police strike when he says "the majority of the population of Montreal presumably believed in God." It is no good presuming things when arguing from a scientific viewpoint, do the research, find the facts and use them, unless you have found them and they don't quite support the point you wish to make.
Dawkins hates religion, much of The God Delusion burns with his fury at theism in all its forms. I say in all its forms but to be honest it is mostly the big faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam that Dawkins takes on, and Christianity that he seems particularly angry about.
Dawkins is obviously a hugely intelligent man, Oxford University don't choose fools to be professors, and he has an incredible pedigree in the fields of ethology and evolutionary biology. He also has quite a large ego, I don't think I have read another scholarly book in which the author mentions himself quite so often. Dawkins just loves pointing out how clever he has been in previous verbal sparring with theists and how often he himself has demolished theist arguments. It does become a little wearing after a while.
Where Dawkins is particularly strong is the science. I enjoyed discussions on topics like Martin Rees' six constants theory, and the evolution pieces are splendid especially where Dawkins explores in detail how a pre-disposition toward religion could have been a very useful, if slightly misdirected, element of evolution itself.
Where Dawkins makes rather a fool of himself is politics. He asserts twice in TGD that without religion, there would have been no Troubles in Northern Ireland, and then claims that if children were schooled together the tensions in that community would die out in a generation. This is simply rubbish, those people in NI who consider themselves Irish and Catholic would still be opposed to a British and Protestant government if the religious element was missing. Although I have some sympathy for the view that cross-community schooling would help the community as a whole, joint education of white and black/asian children certainly has not wiped out racism in the wider community.
Dawkins really attacks religion, and tried to prop up the values of atheism by claiming that religion systematically influences people to do bad things. One of his arguments for this is that he doesn't think that there are many atheists in prison (an unverified claim as far as I can see), you could look at this claim from another point of view and say that people turn to religion when they get themselves into a bad spot. In a Louis Theroux documentary a prison guard offered a nicely cynical point of view when he said that he saw a lot of religious 'conversions' in prisoners as it certainly didn't harm their chances with the parole board.
There are numerous instances of religious people doing bad things, far too many to count. Bad Popes, the Inquisition, dozens of Kings and Queens who have made war for religious reasons, paedophile priests, the nutters from the Westboro Baptist Church, all claiming that one god or another tells them to do bad things. Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler were all largely atheist though, and that didn't stop any of them from massacring millions.
I have tried to think of a single moment when my church, its priests and followers, its teachings and public pronouncements have influenced or encouraged me to be bad. I cannot think of one. Instead I can clearly remember the things it has tried to influence me to do. To love all people equally without regard for race, nationality or religion. To have compassion and charity for those less fortunate. To know the difference between the older faith of an eye for an eye which we do not follow and the teachings of Christ that we should turn the other cheek. To strive to be the best you can be in this life, but not at the expense of others.
The God Delusion was an interesting read, but did it destroy my belief in God and throw a new kind of light into my life ? Well, it didn't. It raised some interesting questions, trod over a lot of already well trodden anti-religious rhetoric and argued mostly wisely from a scientific point of view. On the downside there are far too many assumptions and presumptions made when scientific fact and research would have safely shored up his arguments, such as in his discussion of the Montreal Police strike when he says "the majority of the population of Montreal presumably believed in God." It is no good presuming things when arguing from a scientific viewpoint, do the research, find the facts and use them, unless you have found them and they don't quite support the point you wish to make.
Friday, April 27, 2012
A Poverty Of Contemplative Thought ?
"Over the last 100 years or so the loss of the religious as a reputable discourse in common life has led to a poverty of language, and thus to a poverty of contemplative thought and feeling about what we are, and what we need. We need some inner stuff, scaffolding to help us get around our inner space, something to help us map, explore and even settle those places where we are still primitive." - Jane Davis in the essay The Reading Revolutiuon in Vintage Books' Stop What You're Doing And Read This, London, 2011.
The Reader Organisation
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Defining Islam
"Defining Islam is far from a simple matter. Using Western categories that may be alien to Muslim perceptions, we may state from the start that Islam may be both a religious faith and a political ideology; it is also, in some contexts, a mark of personal and group identity. These three definitions neither exclude nor include each other." - Malise Ruthwen, A Very Short Introduction To Islam, Oxford University Press, 1997.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
The God Delusion
I was going to attempt some 'witty' corruption of the title such as The Dawkins Delusion before realising that has probably been done a thousand times before.
I thought I would read The God Delusion before embarking on the World Religions module in September. Acquaint yourself with the opposing view and all that. I was, and still am, quite prepared to approach Dawkins' work with an open and fair mind and to see what the man has to say about belief and religion.
This later edition of the book opens with a series of reasons for why you cannot argue with Dawkins' conclusions. This does strike me as a little defensive, but it is handy for getting your point across to the sort of reader who picks up a famous book but then finds they cannot actually read it al the way through. This way they can pick up a handful of easy quotes and spurious conclusions from the introduction and then enter into pub and dinner debate as if they had read and considered the book in its entirety.
Dawkins' does write some appalling rubbish very early on. Included in his list of things that only occurred because of religion he mentions the Troubles in NI/Ireland, well I would tend to the argument that the IRA (and other) campaigns were largely carried out because the IRA saw themselves as freedom fighters seeking to oust an invading army from their homeland and that as such religion played a very minor role. He also claims that the Gunpowder Plot could not have happened without religion, yet there have been numerous coups and assassinations (including the murder of Prime Minister Spencer Perceval) which have as their prime motivators politics, power, revenge or money.
"Atheism nearly always indicates...a healthy mind."
"Atheists tend to think independently and will not conform to authority." Both quotes from The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
I presume Dawkins' will provide well substantiated research results later in the book to support these statements. Taken as they are though, I can see no reason why either atheism or theism should create either a healthy mind or an unhealthy one. The authority statement is similarly woolly and requires substantiating evidence. In comments posted on the blog in response to earlier articles I have posted on religion writers have made the point that concerns of morality, welfare, honesty, politics and life goals are common to atheists and are not the sole province of theists. This would seem to indicate some commonality of thinking and it does rather seem as if Dawkins' is trying to apply his own traits to a larger section of the community.
I am only a short way into the book though, so perhaps all will be made clearer later on.
I thought I would read The God Delusion before embarking on the World Religions module in September. Acquaint yourself with the opposing view and all that. I was, and still am, quite prepared to approach Dawkins' work with an open and fair mind and to see what the man has to say about belief and religion.
This later edition of the book opens with a series of reasons for why you cannot argue with Dawkins' conclusions. This does strike me as a little defensive, but it is handy for getting your point across to the sort of reader who picks up a famous book but then finds they cannot actually read it al the way through. This way they can pick up a handful of easy quotes and spurious conclusions from the introduction and then enter into pub and dinner debate as if they had read and considered the book in its entirety.
Dawkins' does write some appalling rubbish very early on. Included in his list of things that only occurred because of religion he mentions the Troubles in NI/Ireland, well I would tend to the argument that the IRA (and other) campaigns were largely carried out because the IRA saw themselves as freedom fighters seeking to oust an invading army from their homeland and that as such religion played a very minor role. He also claims that the Gunpowder Plot could not have happened without religion, yet there have been numerous coups and assassinations (including the murder of Prime Minister Spencer Perceval) which have as their prime motivators politics, power, revenge or money.
"Atheism nearly always indicates...a healthy mind."
"Atheists tend to think independently and will not conform to authority." Both quotes from The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
I presume Dawkins' will provide well substantiated research results later in the book to support these statements. Taken as they are though, I can see no reason why either atheism or theism should create either a healthy mind or an unhealthy one. The authority statement is similarly woolly and requires substantiating evidence. In comments posted on the blog in response to earlier articles I have posted on religion writers have made the point that concerns of morality, welfare, honesty, politics and life goals are common to atheists and are not the sole province of theists. This would seem to indicate some commonality of thinking and it does rather seem as if Dawkins' is trying to apply his own traits to a larger section of the community.
I am only a short way into the book though, so perhaps all will be made clearer later on.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Trouble No One About Their Religion
"Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view, and demand that they respect yours." - Tecumseh, Shawnee Chief who tried to unite the tribes to counter the growing threat of the USA.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
Friday, January 6, 2012
"I have had the feeling of being crushed under a rock till I could only see one crack of light - and that was the love of God: the absolute certainty, when everything else had been taken from me, that God loved me." - Gerald Priestland, author and broadcaster, speaking about his faith and suffering a stroke, in his final R4 broadcast.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
"To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had commited and impossible sin and violated the Mother of God - this is madness." Martin Luther, 95 Theses
The picture shows the doors where Luther is supposed to have nailed his 95 Theses.
| Wittenburg All Saints Church doors |
The picture shows the doors where Luther is supposed to have nailed his 95 Theses.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Pugin's Rules of Architecture
"The two great rules for design are these:
1st, that there should be no features about a building which are not necessary for convenience, construction, or propriety;
2nd, that all ornament should consist of enrichment of the essential construction of the building." - Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin (1812-52)
| Image via Wikipedia |
1st, that there should be no features about a building which are not necessary for convenience, construction, or propriety;
2nd, that all ornament should consist of enrichment of the essential construction of the building." - Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin (1812-52)
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Library Raid
| Cover of Wolfwatching |
Cathedrals in Britain and Ireland - William Anderson & Clive Hicks
The History of Christianity - Jonathan Hill
Wolfwatching - Ted Hughes
Churches and Cathedrals - Helen and Richard Leacroft
A Hundred Doors - Michael Longley
English Parish Churches - Edwin Smith, Olive Cook, Graham Hutton
Catholicism - Peter Stanford
A Practical View of Christianity - William Wilberforce
Sorry to anyone else in Ilkley wishing to study Christianity or church architecture, I think I grabbed the lot.
Education Ups and Downs and Ups
| St. Chad's Cathedral, designed by Pugin |
In the run up to Christmas and New Year I was doing 80 hour weeks and so the little time I had for studying was fractured and at the wrong ends of the day. Getting your head into your course books after a 15 hour shift is never going to garner any great results.
I sat down yesterday morning to get to grips with my current pair of essays, comparing the reputation of Michael Faraday from two different sources, and comparing and examining two poems ostensibly about cats. An hour after starting I was almost sat with my head in my hands, my notes from the last month were hugely disorganised, written here and there on bits of paper with underscores and crossings out in abandon. This then was my lowest ebb for the course so far.
I had a quick flick around the Facebook groups, saw lots of other folk mentioning the same time problems and even worse, another course colleague had bitten the dust. Left. Quit. Dropped out.
Can't do that, I'm too Yorkshire. I've paid for this course out of my own pocket so I'm determined to wring value from it. A couple of hours yesterday and then a solid four hour stint today and I had dragged my copious but random notes into some sort of coherent form and produced two essays complete with references and bibliography.
That's me back in the groove then. I don't think these are the best essays I have done, I have a slight concern I haven't balanced the dual question in one quite enough, but they are done and with that I can press on with Pugin and the revival of Gothic architecture in English churches.
I have had a look to see what the next essay is, a choice between examining tradition and dissent in either the Roman Catholic church in England, or the music of Dmitri Shostakovich, and the word count is doubled to 1,200. I have not yet done the work on Shostakovich, but I'm taking an early decision and have been to the library to raid it for background material on Catholicism.
Now then, another hour or two studying before I cook dinner, I'm a happy little student again.
Related articles
- The Blog Isn't Dead... (yorkshiresoul.blogspot.com)
Monday, October 31, 2011
Religion vs. Spirituality
- the Dalai Lama, Ethics for the New Millenium, Riverhead Books, 1999, p22, quoted in Clive Erricker, Teach Yourself Buddhism, Hodder Education, London, 2008.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The Rudeness Of Atheists
| Pope Benedictus XVI |
I do consider myself a Christian, I believe in God and Jesus, I am not a fervent follower and won't be proselytizing in order to try and convince you to accept my set of beliefs. I really don't mind if you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, a white witch or actively bow down and worship Accrington Stanley FC. I do find though that a fair number of people who profess to be atheist have to attack you for not sharing their life view.
The discussion was one of those rambling after dinner chats when one of the diners said to me "You believe in God don't you ?", I replied that I did. The follow up comment is sadly fairly typical "I find it hard to believe that any so called intelligent person can believe in religion." My response to this rather rude outburst was to say that there are many far more intelligent people than me who also believe in God, but the attack had to carry on and try to poke holes in my belief and to 'prove' that I was foolish for so believing.
If this situation was turned around and I was fairly rude to people on other topics, for example let's say I verbally attacked fellow diners for having children, thereby increasing the already almost insupportable world population, draining our resources faster, damaging the ecosystem and bringing the world perilously close to an ecological tipping point. If I said this, and added that I was astonished that any so called intelligent person could have children, I feel fairly sure that people would be rather offended and the likelihood of me being invited round for dinner again would be somewhat diminished. In modern British society though it has become acceptable to attack religion, in almost any terms you wish to employ, and for that to be accepted as a reasonable way to behave.
| Jonathan Sacks |
On his visit to the UK last the Pope warned of the threat of the "more aggressive forms of secularism" that he perceived in British society. Lord Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, warned in July this year of the growing, and state sponsored, religious intolerance in the UK. In Wakefield a housing worker of 15 years good standing was sacked for displaying a palm cross on his van, what sort of intolerant buffoon is offended because the electrician who comes to fix his faulty fuse box wears a cross, a star of David, a turban or nips out for a prayer break instead of a tea break ?
I would like to reiterate that if you are an atheist, I am quite happy with that, I don't see the need to bother you about it. I don't profess to have all the answers to life and the universe, I cannot explain to you the mysteries of cancer, Alzheimer's or any other illness you bring up in the "If this disease exists then there can be no God" argument, I am not a professor of theology. I'm just a cook who also happens to believe in God, why does that offend you so ?
Friday, September 2, 2011
The Light Of A Single Candle
— St. Francis of Assisi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






