Alex’s Heresies – embracing a physical reality

According to The Age newspaper online ”Monash University Professor Gary Bouma says people without a specific faith are fuelling sectarian conflict and cause division in society.” He essentially blames atheists, treated as one homogeneous group, for saying that theists are stupid and also saying that religious discourse should be driven out of the public space. As always with these silly generalisations, some do and many do not, especially when 1.1 billion people world-wide are estimated to espouse some form of religious non-belief .

Even with espousing anti-religious comments, atheists can hardly be held responsible for different religious groups fighting amongst themselves. History shows otherwise. Over the last 1500 years, during the dominance of Abrahamic religions, faiths have claimed exclusive access to God and salvation and condemned others as heretical and deserving eradication. A compounding feature of Christianity and Islam has been their insatiable desire for new converts. The resulting religious fervour fueled conflict and violence as European history will attest. During most of this time atheist views, as total non-belief, were rarely openly expressed: very few people held them and the personal repercussions were too serious for open dissent – death, imprisonment, social isolation, and job loss.

How about church behaviour today? Many Western churches are more tolerant, reflecting broader social trends rather than changes to sacred texts, essentially unchanged over 1500 years. But despite these improvements, church intolerance still persists, unacceptable to our wider social values. Apostasy, the crime of leaving the faith, can still be punished by death, imprisonment, and forced social and family separation in different parts of the world. “But that’s not in Australia.”  Many Australian religious officials openly discriminate against fellow human beings on the basis of their sexuality. Christian theology sees unacceptable sexual practices as ’sinful’. They will reject homosexuals participating in religious services as well as leading services; women are excluded from positions of religious authority; and unmarried woman with children are barred from church administration. Our broader society in Australia is thankfully more progressive and humane than those churches. All this seems highly hypocritical when the Christian faith professes Jesus as the founder, a Jesus ascribed with progressive messages of acceptance.

So what is Bouma’s problem with atheist criticism of religions, particularly of Christian churches? There is another possibility. Churches have limited social and political privileges to protect them with external criticism, exceptional for the churches’ history. The Catholic church learnt an early valuable lesson with its appointment as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine after being treated as a marginised and despised religious sect. Church leaders realised they needed the support of the political regimes, no matter how oppressive, to ensure their on-going survival. Never again would the orthodox Christian religion – Catholic or Protestant – be an outsider of power. The plight of the poor, though important, comes second to the church’s survival to provide salvation and redemption for all. Our secular society creates an intractable barrier for religions seeking to impose their faith on others, no state sponsorship. Church apologists, like Bouma, will have to live with criticism – even strident criticism – of the veracity of their underlying beliefs as well as their practices. Unfortunately for atheists, though, special privileges still exist: tax-free statuses and exempted discriminary employment practices some to mind. We can only keep agitating no how much it irritates the faithful.

Alex McCullie

A Personal Rant

In a recent BBC Hardtalk interview with Stephen Sackur, Robert Winston, renowned British scientist and occasional Christian apologist, typecasts atheists as believing in the absolute and, therefore, unreasonable certainty of science. By implication many non-atheists take a more reasonable, nuanced view that scientific knowledge is probabilistic with some claims being more assured than others. Interestingly, Christians like Winston are quick to complain that critics generalise Christians as having a Middle Ages theology rather than acknowledge the ’new age’ Christian variants of today. Karen Armstrong has turned this claim into an industry.

Atheists typically reject beliefs in an ‘other’ (à la William James) reality extra to our physical world, especially one with ultimate influence or control. Also most atheists see science as our best shot at achieving reliable knowledge about our world rather than using the religious repertoire of personal revelations – imaginings, feelings, and guesses - and deference to traditional religious authorities. Scientists may admire Darwin or Newton but do not seriously use their data or conclusions as the basis for current research. This is typically not so in religious circles.

However being atheist does not mean being blind to the limitations of scientific endeavours: they are conducted by humans within social contexts and, therefore, subject to the same limitations as other human endeavours. However good science embraces attitudes of exploration; reproducible evidence and reasoning independent of personal faith; and welcomed public criticism and comment. Most importantly, unlike religious history, heretical namecalling should have no place in genuine search for knowledge. This does not mean accepting every new idea with substantial independent support from evidence and reasoning – not so open to new ideas that the brain drops out!

As a contrary example, most world-wide Christians, even today, accept the historicity of the physical resurrection of Jesus – reanimation of a dead body – and even apply that hope to the physical resurrection of all believers when God’s kingdom arrives in the future. All this is described in some clarity in the Christian bible. Remove the Christian faith – personal feelings and authority appeals - and its basis looks very shaky. In fact to non-Christians – religious believers or not – these claims, so fundamental to much Christian theology, look very fanciful and somewhat naive. Many Christians in western nations quietly walk away from these biblical claims though unwilling to publicly criticise these beliefs for fear of hurting fellow brethren.

So how do the claims of modern science look compared to religious claims of bodily resurrections?

Alex McCullie

I spend a lot of time travelling and, so, reading articles and books and listening to recorded lectures are my constant companions. My latest are interesting, a book – Jesus: Neither God nor Man by Earl Doherty and a talking book – Christianity, A Very Short Introduction (OUP) by Linda Woodhead.

Before discussing those, or at least my first reactions, here are two recommendations. I have traditionally bought books from Amazon and still do. However a serious alternative for Australians is http://bookdepository.co.uk (in UK) with its policy of free international postage. I typically check the prices between Book Depository and Amazon with postage costs to make the choice. One trap is the ease of ordering a single book from the UK booksellers while I would accumulate books at Amazon before commiting to purchase! For audio lectures and talking books check out the Amazon company, http://audible.com. I started with a gold membership with one download per month for $14.95 after a three month special. Their UK operation, http://audible.co.uk , has different pricing.

The reconstructions of the historical Jesus vary as widely as there are Jesus scholars. Conservatives see the gospel portrayals as essentially accurate. They often argue with mainstream historians about the inclusion of miracle stories in any historiography. I see N.T. (Tom) Wright, prolific author and Bishop of Durham, in this category. The vast majority of scholars take a middle position: the gospels give us clues as to the nature of Jesus. Now the similarity of these scholars end with vastly differing profiles: cynic philosopher, apocalyptic prophet, wise sage, and so. Then towards of the sceptical end of the spectrum we have Earl Doherty, one of a smaller number of scholars who dismiss the very existence of any recognisable Jesus as the founding figure of Christianity.

Jesus: Neither God nor Man is Doherty’s latest book, an expansion of his earlier The Jesus Puzzle. To give some sense of his arguments he argues that we read Paul’s letters, the earliest canonical writings, in light of the later gospels with their biographies of Jesus. Without the gospels, Paul’s writings talk nothing of a historical Jesus but a mystical God-like Christ Jesus who appeared to Paul as an incarnation of God. Doherty argues, quite cogently, that Paul refuted bad behaviour of ‘his’ fledgling Christian communities in the eastern Mediterranean with arguments from Jewish scripture and God’s revelations. Even though Jesus was later quoted in the gospels as saying something very relevant according to Christian traditions, Paul never used these sayings. This absence of a physical Jesus in Paul’s earlier writings is part of the Jesus puzzle.

Linda Woodhead’s Christianity is an excellent non-sectarian introduction to Christianity – faiths, history, and many forms – accessible to non-Christians and non-believers alike. She is Professor of Sociology of Religion at Lancaster University. The Very Short Introduction series from Oxford University Press is a great series of short introductory texts of academic subjects for the enquiring non-specialist reader. Also check out Atheism by Julian Baggini, a very engaging British philosopher.

Alex McCullie

In US and Australia governments fund Christian charities to help the disadvantaged. The question is whether or not government-funded activities should be free of Christian proselytising. This area has always been problematic for supporters of a secular society: is it state-sponsored religion through the back door?

The Washington Post, drawing from a New York Civil Liberties Union article, has an interesting article outlining the problem for US legislators. US government agencies will monitor the charitable activities of the Salvation Army to ensure that the recipients are not subjected to Christian proselytising, perhaps a welcome change under President Obama.

According to the Post article though discriminatory recruitment practices are still acceptable – Christians to work for Christian organisations, syphoning off social tax dollars for religious conversions are not.

Alex McCullie

Without tackling the “atheism as a religion” argument here are some interesting statistics on religion from Adherents.com

1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
2. Islam: 1.5 billion
3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
4. Hinduism: 900 million
5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6. Buddhism: 376 million
7. primal-indigenous: 300 million
8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
9. Sikhism: 23 million
10. Juche: 19 million
11. Spiritism: 15 million
12. Judaism: 14 million
13. Baha’i: 7 million
14. Jainism: 4.2 million
15. Shinto: 4 million
16. Cao Dai: 4 million
17. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
18. Tenrikyo: 2 million
19. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
20. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
21. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
22. Scientology: 500 thousand

 P.S. The scientology figure of adherents is greatly debated. See SolitaryTrees for one such debate.

Alex McCullie

Great AC Grayling article at Richard Dawkins site about the ‘morality’ of Cherie Blair’s decision to be lenient on a religious (Muslim) assaulter of another. Would we treat the surviving 9/11 perpetrators with some leniency for also being religious, which they certainly were?

Alex McCullie

Around 110 CE Emperor Trajan appointed Pliny the Younger, Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, as Governor of Bithynia-Pontus, on the southern coast of the Black Sea in modern-day Turkey. He was to investigate financial and administrative problems and deal with political unrest. Pliny was a successful middle-ranking bureaucrat from the Equestrian order, the lower of the two aristocratic classes, below that of Patricians. Remarkably, Pliny collected many of his letters and responses, made over his lifetime to friends, superiors, and juniors whom he encouraged. His letters were organised as a series of books in which number ten contained official correspondence with Trajan, where Pliny sought administrative advice during his time in Bithynia-Pontus.

One such problem was dealing with Christians. Pliny told Trajan that Christians, who were recognised as a problem elsewhere in the empire, prayed to a Christ as a form of divinity. Some had been worshipping so for some twenty years. He discussed their religious practices of praying in morning followed by a later common meal on fixed days. Pliny noted that they were otherwise law-abiding. Though Christians were disliked and distrusted by Roman authorities and the society in general, Trajan rejected systematic persecution, especially based on unsubstantiated claims.

What do these letters provide us? Mostly they offer a wonderful look at the administrative concerns and processes of early second century Roman empire. However the two letters, reproduced below, showed there were groups, identified as Christians, who worshipped Christ as a form of a god. The letters was written around 111CE with Pliny dating some of their worshipping up to twenty years previous. We need to remember that Paul, according to orthodox Christian traditions, evangelised throughout this area some 50 to 60 years before. He had a similar message of Christ as god. However these letters say nothing of the historical Jesus; only people believed in his divinity 80 years after his death.

A more interesting question is why Christians beliefs and practices were considered illegal by the Roman authorities? Unlike Christian and Jewish beliefs, the dominant pagan religions of the empire were polytheistic, usually accepting and modifying gods with different origins, like Greek, Roman, and Egyptian. Unlike today, religions emphasised ritual practices towards the gods rather the acceptance of correct beliefs. Life was precariousness 2000 years ago with common-place occurrences, like tooth absences, being death sentences and, so, protection of the gods was of prime importance.

Communities had to be particularly careful to appease the local city gods to ensure the city’s well-being. Regular public festivals were for precisely that purpose and everyone was expected to attend. Not doing so would be like Americans today refusing to take the pledge of allegiance. Ironically Christians were, in some respects, similar to followers of other eastern mystery religions: they typically believed in salvation through special knowledge and cultic practices Even though these mystery religions were of great fascination to Romans, the Christians were different. Their religious practices were exclusive and, more importantly, they would not participate in the public religious festivals. Local communities resented Christians and feared the consequences of insulting the city gods and, not surprisingly, most persecutions came from broader communities than from official actions.

Alex McCullie

Free download – letters of Pliny the Younger (Project Gutenberg)

(Letters below – I separated sentences for easier reading.)

XCVII

To the Emperor Trajan

It is my invariable rule, Sir, to refer to you in all matters where I feel doubtful; for who is more capable of removing my scruples, or informing my ignorance?

Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them.

Whether, therefore, any difference is usually made with respect to ages, or no distinction is to be observed between the young and the adult; whether repentance entitles them to a pardon; or if a man has been once a Christian, it avails nothing to desist from his error; whether the very profession of Christianity, unattended with any criminal act, or only the crimes themselves inherent in the profession are punishable; on all these points I am in great doubt.

In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have been brought before me as Christians is this: I asked them whether they were Christians; if they admitted it, I repeated the question twice, and threatened them with punishment; if they persisted, I ordered them to be at once punished: for I was persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction.

There were others also brought before me possessed with the same infatuation, but being Roman citizens, I directed them to be sent to Rome. But this crime spreading (as is usually the case) while it was actually under prosecution, several instances of the same nature occurred.

An anonymous information was laid before me containing a charge against several persons, who upon examination denied they were Christians, or had ever been so.

They repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered religious rites with wine and incense before your statue (which for that purpose I had ordered to be brought, together with those of the gods), and even reviled the name of Christ: whereas there is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians into any of these compliances: I thought it proper, therefore, to discharge them.

Some among those who were accused by a witness in person at first confessed themselves Christians, but immediately after denied it; the rest owned indeed that they had been of that number formerly, but had now (some above three, others more, and a few above twenty years ago) renounced that error.

They all worshipped your statue and the images of the gods, uttering imprecations at the same time against the name of Christ.

They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble, to eat in common a harmless meal.

From this custom, however, they desisted after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your commands, I forbade the meeting of any assemblies. After receiving this account, I judged it so much the more necessary to endeavor to extort the real truth, by putting two female slaves to the torture, who were said to officiate’ in their religious rites: but all I could discover was evidence of an absurd and extravagant superstition.

I deemed it expedient, therefore, to adjourn all further proceedings, in order to consult you.

For it appears to be a matter highly deserving your consideration, more especially as great numbers must be involved in the danger of these prosecutions, which have already extended, and are still likely to extend, to persons of all ranks and ages, and even of both sexes.

In fact, this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread its infection among the neighbouring villages and country. Nevertheless, it still seems possible to restrain its progress.

The temples, at least, which were once almost deserted, begin now to be frequented; and the sacred rites, after a long intermission, are again revived; while there is a general demand for the victims, which till lately found very few purchasers.

From all this it is easy to conjecture what numbers might be reclaimed if a general pardon were granted to those who shall repent of their error.

XCVIII

Trajan to Pliny

You have adopted the right course, my dearest Secundus, in investigating the charges against the Christians who were brought before you.

It is not possible to lay down any general rule for all such cases. Do not go out of your way to look for them.

If indeed they should be brought before you, and the crime is proved, they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that where the party denies he is a Christian, and shall make it evident that he is not, by invoking our gods, let him (notwithstanding any former suspicion) be pardoned upon his repentance. Anonymous informations ought not to he received in any sort of prosecution.

It is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and is quite foreign to the spirit of our age.

I shall be running a six night course, late May 2010, at the Council of Adult Education in Melbourne, Australia, on searching for the historical jesus, looking at the historical figure behind the religion – what do we know?

Link to CAE details and bookings

Alex McCullie