Christianity

You are currently browsing articles tagged Christianity.

Move to place bibles in Edinburgh University student rooms

November 7, 2009 in atheism, religion by admin | No comments

It transpires (see for example the Not-So-Friendly-Humanist, Freethinker, and Pharyngula blogs) that a student christian union has started an attempt to have bibles placed in each student room at the Edinburgh University Pollock Halls of Residence.

Apart from the sheer arrogance of this approach, this does fill me with amusement.  Back in the late 70s and early 80s, when I was a student at Edinburgh, Pollock Halls appeared to double its occupancy on Friday and Saturday nights following the dread discos (usually closing with the rousing sing-along anthem Hi Ho Silver Lining).  Indeed such frequently carnal activity was reflected in amused comments from University accommodation officers concerning the single beds provided at Pollock Halls.

So, I suppose if passed, the distribution of bibles will be followed with a multitude of other holy books.  Will it extend to the works of L. Ron Hubbard, who’s flights of fancy came a cropper in French courts recently?  After all, Hubbard’s bonkers beliefs aren’t especially unusual in comparison to the tosh found in the bible.

I particularly liked Barry Duke’s (Freethinker blog) suggestion of a warning label that should be affixed to each copy:

I have an upcoming trip to the US – I imagine there will be Gideon bibles in each hotel room I will stay in.  The temptation to affix such labels would be severe…

On the other hand, perhaps the kindly souls at the christian union would consider Robert Crumb’s illustrated version of Genesis.  At least that would amusingly illustrate (probably in a nice earthy sort of way) several elements of the warning label.

Good luck to those who seek to prevent this absurdity.  Students don’t need extra doorstops in their tiny Pollock Halls bedrooms.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , ,

Iowa bus driver suspended over atheist bus advert

August 20, 2009 in atheism by admin | No comments

There’s been an admirable atheist bus advert campaign in DesMoines, Iowa.  Firstly, the advert is a bit more “atheist” than the British bus adverts that kicked off the international trend for atheist publicity (the text reads “Don’t believe in God? Your not alone”.  Of course the initial response of the Transit Authority responsible for the buses was to refuse to carry the ads – this decision was quite rightly overturned.

Now, however, and in a parallel to the events in the UK, a bus driver has refused to drive a bus on the grounds that it offends their religious beliefs.  Or something.  Back in January, a Hampshire bus driver was suspended for refusing to drive a bus with the original atheist advert:

A Christian bus driver has refused to drive a bus with an atheist slogan proclaiming “There’s probably no God”.

Ron Heather, from Southampton, Hampshire, responded with “shock” and “horror” at the message and walked out of his shift on Saturday in protest. (BBC – Man refuses to drive ‘No God’ bus)

Exactly the same thing has happened in Iowa.  According to a report in a local news service (DART Bus Driver Suspended Over Atheist Ad),

The Des Moines Regional Transit Authority has suspended a driver who refused to drive a bus bearing an ad for an atheist group.  Angela Shiel was suspended on Monday after she refused to drive a bus with an Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers ad on its side. The ad reads “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.”

Oh, and amusingly there’s an online poll (Vote: DART Driver’s Suspension)!  At the moment, the results are in favour of the driver’s suspension.  Perhaps the poll’s been Pharyngulated…

Share on Facebook

Tags: , ,

Atheists visit the Creation “Museum”

August 13, 2009 in creationism by admin | No comments

There has been an outpouring of blog posts about a visit to the Creation Museum by around three hundred delegates from a Secular Student conference – publicised by PZ Myers in his Pharyngula blog.  Rather than try and list them, I will point you to Pharyngula, which features a good few posts on the visit (e.g. Tales of the 300 … more accounts of the Creation “Museum”).

Platitude of the Day, which ordinarily “interprets” the usually rather vacuous Radio 4 religious slot Thought for the Day, presents their interpretation of a contribution by Mark Looy, the man who evicted a student for daring to wear a T-shirt that proclaimed there wasn’t a god.

There are several reports out there on the web, including a bunch of videos (which I’ve not yet waded through), see for example this compilation of links at Pharyngula (The whole experience).

Interestingly, the Answers in Genesis blog (Can University of Minnesota Professors’ Research Be Trusted? beware, this links to Answers In Genesis, one of the most stupid sites on the web) flails around trying to evade some of Myers’ accusations.  Doesn’t succeed in my opinion.  And it’s notable that the AIG blog doesn’t permit commenting…shame…  AIG’s very own Ken Ham appears to be doing the rounds trying to mitigate the damage caused by the exposure of the displays in the “museum”.

Share on Facebook

Tags: ,

ICCE – Nessie, evolution and creationism in British schools

July 31, 2009 in evolution, religion by admin | 3 comments

So here’s an interesting story (Creationist exams comparable to international A-levels, says Naric).  I’ve never heard of Naric before – it’s the National Recognition Information Centre, and is tasked with advising universities and employers on the rigour of lesser-known qualifications. Unfortunately it’s pronounced on the International Certificate of Christian Education (ICCE). One might have had alarm bells ringing at the mere title of that “qualification”, and really those alarm bells would be justified.

Naric has ruled that the ICCE is comparable to courses such as international A-levels. Unfortunately, one of the ICCE textbooks says:

“Have you heard of the ‘Loch Ness Monster’ in Scotland? ‘Nessie,’ for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.

“Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all.”

To anyone with a modicum of understanding, this is just appalling, and the fact that in 2009 we have schools teaching this rubbish to children is nothing short of scandalous. Oh, and did you know that apartheid was helpful to communities in South Africa because it “made it possible for each group to maintain and pass on their culture and heritage to their children”?

Appalling. And to think that there are 50 christian schools peddling this stuff.

Naric is funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mandelson’s empire, and the Department that oversees Universities) – but a Naric spokesman is quoted in the Guardian as saying that its remit did not cover the curriculum’s content. Which makes me wonder what sort of advice regarding the rigour of qualifications they are capable of providing.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , ,

Britain no longer a Christian nation?

June 28, 2009 in atheism, religion by admin | 4 comments

The Daily Telegraph reports (Britain is no longer a Christian nation) on the declining participation in the Church of England.  Despite modest increases in church attendance for Easter and Christmas, congregations continue to decline, at around 1% a year.  The article claims this makes it unlikely that the Church will survive 30 years from now, though I don’t know on what evidence that is based.

Fortunately for the C of E, the size of donations has increased as the number declines – but this may not be able to cope with the large infrastructure they need to maintain.  More statistics in the article:

  • Church closures expected to rise from 30 to 200 a year in five years’ time
  • The church has to maintain 16,200 buildings, 4,200 of which are listed Grade I
  • Baptisms into the C of E now at a record low of 128 per 1000 births (in 1900 this was 609)

The author of the article is Rt Rev Paul Richardson, the assistant Bishop of Newcastle.  He clearly thinks the Church of England isn’t facing up to this threat in a realistic way.  He worries that the Church of England may no longer deserve to be the established church, pointing out:

The reason offered for upholding establishment is usually that it gives the church a sense of responsibility to the whole nation. In practice it often looks as if the church is really trying to keep its special privileges on false pretences.

In fact, it’s increasingly looking as though Bishops will get the heave-ho from the House of Lords.  A report, also from the Daily Telegraph – Bishops ‘could be banished from the House of Lords’ – indicated one option to be included in a paper to be published by Jack Straw will be for an entirely elected upper house:

One option under consideration is a move towards an all-elected upper house. In the new, elected House of Lords, there would be no seats reserved for Church of England bishops or any other religious leaders.

The more likely option however is a partly elected upper house, a proposition which will find more favour with the Conservatives (and anyway, I suppose the next Government might well be Conservative):

A less radical option being discussed is for an 80 per cent elected Lords, with the remaining seats reserved for appointed members and others such as the bishops.
Advocates of the 80 per cent option say it would allow the Lords to retain the expertise of some of the distinguished academics, scientists, lawyers, medics, economists and generals who now sit as life peers.

But it’s not clear how much longer the Church of England can claim the right to be the established church.  Not is it obvious to me as an atheist where bodies like the Church of Scotland fit the picture.  And above all, I worry what’s filling the vacuum left by the decline in participation in the main churches – it doesn’t seem to me that people are necessarily moving towards secularism, but rather towards fringe religions and new-age claptrap.  At least that’s the sort of impression one gets reading surveys of belief and evolution run by organisations such as Theos.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , ,

The New Creationist

May 13, 2009 in creationism by admin | 8 comments

A UK-based creationist blog crossed my radar: The New Creationist. It seems to have been active since April, and is written by Paul Garner (bio here):

Paul Garner is a researcher and lecturer with Biblical Creation Ministries and the author of The New Creationism (Evangelical Press, 2009). He has a degree in Environmental Sciences (Geology/Biology) and is a Fellow of the Geological Society. He is married with two children and resides in Cambridgeshire, England.

As you might imagine, the blog takes a rather geological view of creation.  Biblical Creation Ministries are a charitable trust that supports two speakers, one of whom is Paul Garner, and it appears to be an offshoot of The Biblical Creation Society (though financially independent).  I was intrigued to see a link to BCM’s research.  Here we find the statement:

One of our longer-term goals is to raise the level of scholarship in origins studies by developing an active research agenda in addition to the speaking ministry. Our aim is to honour the Creator and serve the wider Christian community by undertaking high-quality, cutting-edge research.

That seems to be a little contradictory to me, but hey what do I know, I’m merely a research scientist and academic!  In fact BCM’s research interests seem to be those of Garner, and these are a little off the wall from a science perspective, featuring collaborations with a number of creationist organisations.  I have to credit The New Creationist with alerting me to a new word: baraminology.  Paul Garner seems very keen on it – I’d never head of it, but a quick Google search revealed a Wikipedia page, which includes this:

Baraminology is a creationist system for classifying life into groups having no common descent, called “baramins”. Its methodology is based on a literal creationist interpretation of “kinds” in Genesis, especially a distinction between humans and other animals. Other criteria include the ability of animals to interbreed and the similarity of their observable traits. Baraminology developed as a subfield of creation science in the 1990s among a group of creationists that included Walter ReMine and Kurt Wise. Like all of creation science, baraminology is pseudoscience and is not related to science, and biological facts show that all life has common ancestry. The taxonomic system widely applied in biology is cladistics, which classifies species based on evolutionary history and emphasizes objective, quantitative analysis.

From the BCM’s web page, it’s a quick hop to the Creation Biology Study Group, which seems to spend a lot of time considering baraminology (or as we might call it, “biblical kinds”). The CBSG tries hard to come across as all “sciencey” – with references to publications, to conferences etc.  Back to The New Creationist, a recent blog article featured a discussion of a recently discovered transitional fossil in the pinniped (seal) lineage, Puijila darwini (A Walking Pinniped).

If I’m honest, I’m struggling to accept the radical idea that the whole of the Caniformia might constitute a single ark kind (c.f. Wise 2009 pp. 141, 153). But then I look at Puijila darwini and I wonder whether the pinnipeds really were descended from a more terrestrial ancestor, perhaps one that was on board the ark.

(The Wise reference is provided) Interestingly, Garner doesn’t seem to take issue with Puijilla as an intermediary form, but seems to want to shoehorn it into a biblical flood mythology (he also introduces the term “sub-baraminic”, with which I’m even less familiar with than “baraminic”!).  This is in my view a fatal flaw – if one genuinely wishes to understand the world and how it came to be, one should be looking at evidence, and that evidence (as I’ve said before in this blog) doesn’t include a dusty old tome written by some wandering bronze-age middle-eastern tribes and a group of first millennium spin-doctors.

Those of a more rational mind-set might like to peruse the following blog articles about Puijila: Pharyngula, Laelaps, Not Exactly Rocket Science.

I feel a bit like Jeffrey in Blue Velvet, being drawn into a bizarre netherworld – not in this case of depravity, but one of deluded belief systems masquerading as scientific enquiry.

Share on Facebook

Tags: ,

Jesus App banned from iPhone

May 12, 2009 in humour by admin | No comments

Apple have earned themselves a bit of a reputation for banning applications written for their (admittedly gorgeous) iPhone  and iPod Touch.  Usually these seem to be banned on the grounds of bad taste. And who could argue that the iBoobs app could be considered offensive?  Just in case my gentle readers are of sensitive disposition, I’ve placed the iBoobs video below the fold… Read the rest of this entry »

Share on Facebook

Tags: ,

Media Reaction to the BioLogos Foundation

May 9, 2009 in atheism, creationism, evolution, religion by admin | No comments

I’ve been looking through the internet media for reactions to the launch of Francis Collins’ BioLogos Foundation, which I blogged about, politely (I hope) but unflatteringly, the other day (Theistic Evolution and the BioLogos Foundation).  As would be expected, these reflect the author’s own theistic or atheistic views, and in many cases a highly accommodationist approach. My own view is that BioLogos is scientifically flawed in many ways.

What’s interesting is the spread of opinion.  I’ve not so far seen commenters from the religious side of the debate who deplore the odd theist evolutionary slant.  In fact many people seem to be quite keen to see the Foundation carry out its accommodationist mission – often these opinions derive from the elevated status that Collins has acquired through his genetics and genome sequencing work.  I think this is dangerous.  The serious criticism comes from those of us for whom atheism follows directly from a scientific and evidence-based world view.

Jerry Coyne’s blog (Why Evolution is True) has featured several related articles which are highly critical of Collins and his bedfellows in BioLogos (for example the Templeton Foundation, who provided funding to help establish the BioLogos Foundation).  PZ Myers (Pharyngula) was where I noticed  reports of the launch of the BioLogos website, and has continued to blog on related issues, and of particular note is his argument against the Templeton Foundation (The Templeton conundrum).

The New Scientist magazine (which I confess I don’t pay much attention to, particularly since the “Darwin was Wrong” cover fracas) has weighed in with an article highly critical of the “god of quantum physics” stance evident at the BioLogos Website (Quantum arguments for God veer into mumbo-jumbo by Andy Coghlan). Quantum mechanics has the sort of buzz-words beloved of pseudosciences such as quack medicines like homeopathy.

To me, and to other scientists and commentators, Collins is straying into pseudo-scientific speculation simply to keep God in the earthly frame. Believing in God in the first place is by definition a leap of faith, and one that many scientists and many non-scientists are, after careful and reasonable thought, unwilling to take. For those who have trouble accepting that we’re a product of pure chance, there is the option of believing that God set everything in motion.

Larry Moran in his Sandwalk blog also touches on aspects of BioLogos (Theistic Evolution:How does God do it?), including the role of god in evolution – well worth reading, as are many of the comments there.

On the more pro-Collins side, we have Time magazine, which weighs in with an approving article, Helping Christians Reconcile God with Science, which I suppose reflects establishment belief that an eminent scientist is going to have seriosu views on subjects other than their own discipline.  Interestingly it seems to me to reinfoce a deep problem with theistic views and the BioLogos accommodationist stance: if there is a god, why are these guys so sure it’s the god of the christian bible?  As I noted in my blog article, there’s a deep christian odour through the theistic nonsense that pervades the BioLogos site.  What’s notable in this brief article is the lack of any counter-opinion.  The article finishes with a quotation from Collins:

“Science can’t be put together with a literalist interpretation of Genesis,” he continues. “For one thing, there are two different versions of the creation story” — in Genesis 1 and 2 — “so right from the start, you’re already in trouble.” Christians should think of Genesis “not as a book about science but about the nature of God and the nature of humans,” Collins believes. “Evolution gives us the ‘how,’ but we need the Bible to understand the ‘why’ of our creation.”

I do think Collins, with all his christian belief, is missing an important point here – that there may well be no “why” at all.

The Salvo Magazine (which I’d never heard of before) blog says (Francis Collins and The BioLogos Foundation):

He is attempting to answer very sincere and obvious questions that aren’t even being asked by much of the scientific community. I’m sure he is going to draw heavy fire from those whose very definition of science rules out even the possibility of God.

Salvo’s agenda is clear from their “about” link, and they do seem to publish material by individuals rather sympathetic to a creationist worldview. I suppose being backed by The Fellowship of St James (for Christ, Creed and Culture) somwhat gives their game away.  But they are correct, Collins’ site is drawing heavy fire, but from those who aren’t driven by a bizarre belief system to need to question the scientific evidence.

The GeoChristian blog (The BioLogos Foundation) has an interesting slant, in which the author says:

I’m excited about this because of the stature of Collins in the scientific community and because I see the need for both good science and good theology to counteract young-Earth creationism in the church on the one hand, and irrational atheism among scientists on the other hand.

Here’s an accommodationist view in which “good science” and “good theology” should combine to counteract YEC, possibly the most ridiculous form of creationism.  The problem with BioLogos is that it’s bad science and, I suspect, also bad theology (though, not being a theologist, I would bow to correction!).  The blogger talks of “irrational atheism” – which is quite some non-sequitur really.  The rational approach is to require evidence before belief.

The KHdN – Kenneth Hynek (dot Net) blog says (“Faith and science both lead us to truth about God and creation.”)

And it’s especially nice to see that quite a lot of thought has been put into their Questions section; I’ll have to go through it more thoroughly, but I like what I’ve been seeing thus far in my cursory forays into it.

I’m not sure a great deal of thought has been put into the Questions (or more accurately the answers to the questions).  Many seem to me to be pretty vacuous.  Of course Kenneth is approving of Collins’ stance regarding the validity of the bible, so accommodationism is going sit well with him.

A final note:  it’s quite evident from the BioLogos Foundation web page that they are resolutely christian in outlook.  This, of course, presents a logical flaw, as I don’t see how one Invisible Magic Friend is in any way better supported than any other.  This is reflected in the Google search I carried out: I’ve not seen any blog responses that offer an islamic or jewish opinion.


Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , ,

The Telegraph, the Christian Institute and misrepresenting the AHS

April 27, 2009 in atheism, religion by admin | No comments

The Atheist Blogger complains (Telegraph Caught Lying For Jesus) that The Telegraph has been somewhat lax with the truth in an article about the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies (AHS). The Telegraph article (Atheists target UK schools) appears to be suggesting that:

The federation aims to encourage students to lobby their schools and local authorities over what is taught in RE lessons and to call for daily acts of collective worship to be scrapped. It wants the societies to hold talks and educational events to persuade students not to believe in God.

While I’d actually support such activities, it would appear that this isn’t what the AHS are up to.  In actual fact, the AHS are working to encourage open thinking among students – as The Atheist Blogger writes:

What the AHS actually wants to do is encourage interfaith discussion through a variety of events, focusing on both scientific and religious education, as well as supporting charity work. The aims of the current initiative are outlined in brief here:

  • To teach students how to debate and create dialogue between school faith groups.
  • Provide the school with fun and educational events and activities, including two student-led courses: ‘Perspectives’ in which a speaker from a faith group gives a talk followed by Q&A, and our ‘One Life’ course, which considers moral and ethical issues without god. Many events will also support the scientific curriculum.
  • Encourage charity volunteering.
  • Give students the experience of running a group and managing events.
  • Show students that it’s ok not to believe in god and encourage critical thinking.
  • Bring out issues concerning religious privilege in schools such as collective worship and incomplete or biased religious education.

Of course, the Telegraph isn’t the most liberal of newspapers, and it appears to have been on the receiving end of a communique from The Christian Institute. who’s Mission is presented on their web page:

The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom” and “the advancement of education”.

The Christian Institute is a nondenominational Christian charity committed to upholding the truths of the Bible. We are supported by individuals and churches throughout the UK.

We believe that the Bible is the supreme authority for all of life and we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. We are committed to upholding the sanctity of life from conception.

So that’s OK then.  Well, perhaps not.  The Christian Institute sounds like it’s at the forefront of the “Christians as Victims” school of thought.  As they say in a news report about the Equality Bill:

Christian groups are concerned that the Bill will reopen many of the discrimination issues which have left Christians bottom of the pile when it comes to ‘equality and diversity’.

Actually, one might argue that the AHS are actually seeking equality for all, including those of no faith.  According to the AHS website,

The AHS will be seeking corrections from the Sunday Telegraph after the paper misrepresented the AHS’ new schools initiative, which encompasses fostering interfaith events, scientific and religious educational activities and charity work.

Bet they don’t get a correction.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , ,

Coronation Street’s not real you know!

April 15, 2009 in humour, religion by admin | 1 comment

My regular perusal of Google News has hit numerous stories of outrage from Christians over a character in the venerable British TV soap show Coronation Street (for eaxmple see BBC News – Corrie comments spark complaints.  Now, I’m no soap fan, but I always thought the characters in these things were fictional characters.  In this case, I believe the character who has so offended the religious is called Ken Barlow.  Barlow, played by William Roache, supposedly delivered lines which intimated he disapproved of Christianity being taught in schools, and in particular he disapproved of creationism:

In the soap, while the Barlow family were preparing to go to church, Ken – played by William Roache – questioned his son Peter on why he was allowing his grandson, Simon, to be “indoctrinated” by the church.

He then went on to criticise Simon’s school for teaching creationism.

After the family returned from church, Ken began to tell his grandson that Jesus rising from the dead “may not necessarily be true” and that scientists think the Big Bang created the universe.

He argued it was important to teach his grandson humanism and give him another viewpoint to balance the teachings from the church.

The character was later seen in the pub saying he believed “children should be told the truth” and that Christianity was comforting because “that’s how they get their hooks into you, when you’re vulnerable”.

Well, nothing unusual there, one might have thought – if that’s the character, those are the lines.  But Ofcom and ITV received 23 and 100 complaints about it respectively!  Apparently one viewer wrote “To choose this script on the most holy day in the Christian calendar is insulting and greatly offensive.”

It’s a bit disturbing to find out that religious viewers are unable to realise that this is fiction, not fact, and to understand that others, even fictional characters may hold different views.

Update (16/4/09)  Hahahahaha!  Turns out Stephen Green’s one of the complainants (see New Humanist blog)

Share on Facebook

Tags: ,

« Older entries

Content recommendations from Evri