Bushbasher.
The command that Christians should love their enemies presumes that they will have them aplenty. My latest article attempts to describe one particular kind of enemy, those who have accepted that the only way to truth is the empirical method, all sons of John Locke. The thing is that these people, mostly scientists with whom I work, have friends and wives and children to whom they relate in a way that does not rely on the kind of rationality that they use at work. As Pascal said “the heart has reasons that reason does not know.” We all the time trust other people, what is that but faith? We have no evidence that this is a worthwhile thing to do, but it is the only way we can be social. My target is the ultra rationalist that must see a reason for everything. This is reason gone mad. It edges out all other kinds of knowing that is the essence of humanity. To criticise this kind of rationalism is not to abandon reason and resort to magic and superstition, it is to recognise that empiricism is not the whole story, it may be useful when investigating he natural world but it will not heal a broken relationship.

You criticise me for only talking about Christianity. What else can I do? I do not think that religion in general is a good thing. As I am tired of saying, Christianity is the end of “religious man” the man who seeks to exercise religion for his own purposes. As far as I know, Christianity is the only faith that has an inbuilt criticism of religion understood as the desire to manipulate the divine. Of course religion has a bad name, who can escape that conclusion reading these pages. However, more discernment is needed here. Mere prejudice will not cut it. Nobody that I know will refuse the idea that the church is full of sin. The primary confession of Christians is that they are miserable sinners. Secular humanists seem to be not so sure.

Cont..
My other enemies are in the church, those who have settled down in the comfort of liberal democracy and believe that they can work within that system to bring about a better world. There is a timely quotation from Stanley Hauerwas: http://vox-nova.com/2008/09/03/quote-of-the-week-stanley-hauerwas/ It is increasingly obvious that secular government cannot address the most pressing social ills. Liberal democracy thinks that these ills may be addressed apart from personal virtue. It is laughable to see the Rudd government trying to ban alcopops without addressing the anomy that makes alcohol so attractive to the young. It is here that the separation between church and state has done the most damage because it isolates government from the only help available.

Liberal democracy has told us that we may choose our own stories but the stories that are available do not sustain life. We live among the stories that capitalism would tell us, and what the science gurus would tell us and what those who believe in endless progress would tell us. But none of these stories tell the truth about what it means to be a human being, they all have hidden agendas. Christianity is the truth because it tells a truthful story among all of the lies. I know this is not obvious because of the false assault on behalf of rationalism and science, it was one of the aims of this article to address that, but I do believe that Christianity is not a response to need but a response to a truth that invites us to a new way of viewing the world.

One thing that interests me is the ferocity of my detractors in these pages. If Christianity is so false why does the discussion of it raise the blood pressure so much? The reason the church has enemies is that it destroys the idolatry the we use to make sense of our lives, could that be the reason people get so angry?

Peter Sellick

Peter Sellick wrote:

"One thing that interests me is the ferocity of my detractors in these pages. If Christianity is so false why does the discussion of it raise the blood pressure so much? The reason the church has enemies is that it destroys the idolatry the we use to make sense of our lives, could that be the reason people get so angry?"

Astrology is false, but it has not inspired the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Holocaust, the replacement of the spirit of enquiry by blind faith after Rome became Christian, the plunder and slaughter of the non-Christian inhabitants of the New World, the wars of the Reformation etc. Christianity is simply bad news for humanity. The problem is not that Christianity is false but that belief in it has resulted in horrors.

Religion is only a cure for extreme insecurity.

When the roman solders marched by, the people all huddled together in the fields, (ironically next to a heard of sheep) and praying for anything to come and help them. And nothing ever did!

But back in those times, religion held the sanity of the people quite well and man-kind would not of made it without it. But as we can see, religion is no longer a useful tool for humanity and nor is it believable as for the oregon of man. If people still need a god, I think the Inca,s were right on the ball with the sun-god! at leased you can see it and you do get a productive out-come from the whole affair.

Just like a phrase from my favourite SBS show, and I will finish with saying

THIS MYTH IS BUSTED!

Sells,
I believe you’ve provided some clarity in your last post. There are some here who would identify with the idea of ‘love’ as so revealed in the anthology of John Carey’s, The Faber Book of Utopias, it says, 'Anyone who is capable of love must at some time have wanted the world to be a better place, for we all want our loved ones to live free of suffering, injustice and heartbreak'. The problem is, when we try to create utopian societies we tend to break far more than we heal. Today, this is easily identified with a type of social activism, impatient for change.

The “end of religious man” is an interesting phrase because whilst a religious sect is not quite synonymous with a religious utopia they share similar monistic type values and social framework, separating them out from the ‘rest’. The ‘polis’ of this framework promotes the singular common good whose life is ordered by a hierarchy of coherent and non-contradictory virtues (Platonic and Aristotelian concepts). When religions mimic the utopian ideal, they fail because little or no account is taken of the pluralistic character of social reality at its fundamental level. In understanding the incommensurability of values, Isaiah Berlin writes, 'to sacrifice some ultimate values to others turns out to be a permanent characteristic of the human predicament'.

From this it can be easily seen that conflict is inevitable as individuals representing different cultures, and indeed as entire societies (often made up of diverse communities), come into contact with one another. This conflict needn’t be either destructive or violent – but the act of mere toleration will only imply certain disrespect. What lies at the core of Christianity can, I believe, be held to be the truth, and if western culture in some way ignores this basic relationship, even if so as to avoid conflict, we totally disrespect something deep within our own identity. As Carl Jung puts it, “From this basic fact all ethics are derived, which without the individual’s responsibility before God can be called nothing more than conventional morality” (The Undiscovered Self).

Peter has written what I think is a great reply to his detractors (including me).
It is actually comprehensible.
Let me first say that Peter asks why his detractors get so ferocious (angry). Well we shouldn't get angry and ferocious . We should try to argue our case without anger and I take his point. I will try and behave better.
Peter thinks us non religious have no faith. This is not so, we of course have faith it many things (love, democracy, rational thought, stop lights) but not, alas, in religion.
The faith of the non religious is tempered by the realisation that we can often be disappointed. Don't let me get started on this one!
The problem with me is not Peter's belief system but how his type of belief system impacts my life, the life of my loved ones and the conduct of the government of my country.
For instance:-

I have just heard our new Governor General being sworn in on the radio and her final words were "......so help me god". Secular government?

Churches (businesses based on faith) pay no tax because they simply have a belief in spirits and god/s.

In court we have to embarrass ourselves by asking to make an affirmation instead of swearing on an ancient book.

We are continual reminded to respect other peoples religious beliefs....why? If we show no respect we are "bigoted" and possible" racist".

We are reminded by believers regularly that the unfaithful are devoid of morals. (contradicted by many studies)

We are continually accused of having no basis or framework for our lives. (could there be a greater insult?)

In our so called secular state school system we have to opt out of religious instruction and our kids are often treated like second class students for not participating in religious activities. Secular education?

Official committees considering moral issues are stacked with professional religious apologists.

Continued................