open Democracy News Analysis - faith & ideas - Comments

jpcruz on "The end of postmodernism: the “new atheists” and democracy"

jpcruz — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:56:03 +0100

What/Which god are you talking about?

frank.van.der.valk on "The Anglican vision after Lambeth"

frank.van.der.valk — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:37:54 +0100

As a foreigner, it is quite surprising to read about the developments in the Anglican church, framed in a very limited English cultural context. Isn't the Anglican church a bit broader than that? Hence, isn't there a major issue that the church faces more cultural environments than just England? Which may be at a very different point as regards acceptance of e.g. homosexuality? I would suggest global rapport (and leadership) is the real issue here.

And, of course, the openess of debate is to be much preferred over Roman Catholic doctrinism.

ncolloff on "The Anglican vision after Lambeth"

ncolloff — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 06:42:13 +0100

The official Catholic position may be that there is nothing to be discussed but the Catholic reality is that discussion (and divergent practice) continue. It may be that a Church with 2,000 years of practice at changing its mind gradually (cunningly disguised as 'the development of doctrine') can more easily live with a pretended unanimity than a Church (the Anglican) fashioned more recently from the unpromising need for a royal divorce.

More seriously, Hobson is right to suggest that an established Church cannot successfully be counter-cultural and expect to remain established. The more it diverges from the social consensus the more it must surrender any illusion of practising power or influence. For this 'homosexuality' is a critical issue precisely because the Church of England is now seriously lagging behind the law and, thankfully, beginning to trail behind even the social consensus.

britologywatch on "The Anglican vision after Lambeth"

britologywatch — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:43:06 +0100

Theo Hobson somewhat simplifies the relationship between the Church of England and the increasingly liberal tenor of British (or should that be English?) society. He makes it seem as though the tension within the Church involves a two-way pull between Catholicism, traditionalism, conservatism, clericalism and monarchism, on the one hand, and liberalism, secularism (anti-establishmentarianism), radicalism and republicanism, on the other. This ignores the fact that it is the evangelical wing of the Church, not the Catholics, that has mainly driven the resistance to gay-friendly theology and practice - to the point of being prepared to form its own conservative Church within a Church - with its own episcopal hierarchy - from which any hint of tolerance towards active homosexuality could be banished. By contrast, the Anglo-Catholic wing is known to be particularly attractive to gay clergy and congregations, with much tacit tolerance towards what can only be described at times as an underground gay culture.

It is true that the Catholic wing of the Church of England has been in the vanguard of opposition towards women clergy and bishops - an issue that Theo Hobson does not allude to. However, the liberal wing's support for female ordination can hardly be said to be militating against a traditional, clerical form of Christianity; on the contrary, it reaffirms it by very virtue of the high value it places on women having access to that status. Similarly, the case of the gay Bishop of New Hampshire has become the liberal cause celebre that it is precisely because he is a bishop - i.e. it reaffirms the importance of the episcopate and the figure of the bishop as a symbol of Christ-like living.

Anglican Catholics, evangelicals and liberals, for very different reasons, remain profoundly attached to the traditional, clerical and establishment characteristics of the Church; and there are liberal Catholics and evangelicals, just as there are institutionally conservative, clerical liberals. Yes, very much still a valid symbol and expression of the ambiguities of English society and the conflicting polarities of the British establishment!

But I fail to see how busting all of this apart and forging a new secular, republican Britain (or England?) would engender a de-institutionalised <i>Christian</i> society. It sounds to me as though this is more a wish to break away from English muddle to the supposedly clearer, rational-liberal horizons of a British Republic, such as that favoured by Jonathan Freedland, indeed, whom Theo Hobson quotes; whereas <i>English</i> Christianity and civilisation is still wrestling with the religious-philosophical contradictions and social hierarchies of an ancient past. These cannot be so easily dismissed and swept aside in the wish to forge a rational, modern, secular Britain. And a resolution of these contradictions - and any decision about whether to retain an established religion and, if so, what form this should take - can come only from the English people themselves, not from some imposed, elitist, liberal-progressive, and Britain-centric state solution.

M McGregor on "The Anglican vision after Lambeth"

M McGregor — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:26:01 +0100

I do not get the impression of there being something either "admirable" or particularly "honest" about Rowan Williams' championing "abiding uncertainty" as his Church's approach to homosexuality, permissiveness, the spread of Islam, and virtually everything else. "Reprehensible" seems to cover both aspects, whether the reason is a complete lack of faith or belief in established Christian principles, or a constitutional inability born of weakness to stand up for right against wrong.

Presumably the Catholic position that there is no issue to discuss is because there is no doubt of the orthodox Christian position on homosexuality. The requirement to practice love and compassion towards individual sinners does not extend to approval of their behaviour, particularly when they are shameless; and, indeed, aggressively campaigning for their predilection to be promoted as a fully acceptable alternative lifestyle, encompassing even the sacrament of marriage and the adoption of children.

Not logged in on "The end of postmodernism: the “new atheists” and democracy"

Not logged in — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:56:04 +0100

Many people think that the act "belief" is personal. At the same time it is easy to forget or underestimate the fact that people are socialized in various ways through various channels into what to them is belief of no-belief.

That atheism from the vantage point of view of one's own conception of [Christian or any other] religion could be made a discourse theme, is to me nothing alarming, even if based on selected sources as the writer of the article commented on has done!

"Discourse" is of-course, in this case, not a perfect or the dry method most of those who comment on Ms Tina Beattie's paper would perhaps have wished to see, more-so when thinking about broad scopes of the "sociology" of science and religion, which the issues argued find their explanatory frames. I see her discourse in the two senses as follows: "set-ups", "metaphors", "configurations" and indeed elements of "narratives" also. Collectively, in my view these have made her interpret the world in the way she thinks is 'relative and special'. In that case, if readers find senses of incompleteness, it is partly, because discourses as a method also operate by 'exclusion and silence'. Whether weaknesses in commentators' attitudes above are motivated by the disproportions in subjectivity in relation to objectivity is a matter for those casting the first stones to seek to know a little more about what "discourses" could mean as a method of explanation [even in science]!

In contemporary world, it makes much sense when she writes, and I quote "Unless we are attentive to these subtexts, our discussions about religion risks being vehicles for unacknowledged prejudices and historical animosities which can only serve to fuel conflict in these 'uncertain' times". It is indeed very "pacifist" if we take a little pain and shut our egos to reason and understand! This is no less a discourse portion from an observer of world events, seeing our world system itself groaning! There is no doubt that, when emotions are taxed directly some observers get frightened to the point that other realities have to be invented to counter-balance, which boils down to the point that many occupants of our planet are either directly or indirectly frightened - the result of which is value inventions and counter-inventions! There is an element of the "scientific" in the process, but how do we eliminate what seems to be chaos - and arm of the "paradoxes she refers to] in it?

I am a Finnish citizen, but originally a Nigerian and an African. Although I said belief is personal, it would seem that it is relatively more personal for many Africans, no less shown, for example, by the ongoing debates in the Anglican Church, in which a Nigerian Bishop proposes a 'responsible' stand! Ms Beattie might have reasoned the interrelated worries in other ways, but let me once again quote her "Our modern understanding of religion is informed by a post-enlightenment approach in which science, reason and progress have replaced religion as the organizing focus of western life...." It is not unusual for people to 'think' antique! Is the idea of chaos above distorting to or not to make observers of world events skeptical? By right people react and perceive them as consequences differently getting out of proportions - people fear run-away-inflation in the economy. In politics and the management of world events many are asking where secularism and moral values are: how distant or near they are - even though human society is basically imperfect? Is it a fair or unfair question -expression of emotion?

Fortunately or unfortunately, philosophical issues on which discourses of the kind border on, do not always find easy consensus, especially in a scattered forum like the one we are operating. Still letting loose the discourse is a class-room access to the scattered public. Our world has produced so many technically-minded people, which could make it hard for Ms Beattie meanings to sink in properly. None-the-less, it is fine of her to agitate for "more amicable and creative dialogue between scientists and theologians" - that science and religion are reconcilable and sufficiently pluralistic! One needs to go a little more through Einstein's moral concerns to eventually have reasonable degrees of respect for the fear about what science, if poorly managed can do in war. The institutionalization of science, as a process by which science becomes a democratic policy object of the modern states, can alley some fears if the society and world environment are 'active' enough in the Amitai Etzioni's sense of that world. Open democracy and world public opinion are both sine-qua-non, it certainly does seem.

Many a time, especially for some sensitive social scientists or analysts, the pressure mounts making it easy to forget the power of what the habituation of democracy means. On this ground, I fail to agree with Ms Beattie on the theme of the "death" of democracy. There could be moments of fluctuations (ups and downs similar to trade circles"), even so I believe that its mechanism is sufficiently flexible to weather the storms albeit out of and in balance from time to time. The type of balance we hope democracy operates on is not 'static' but flexible. Again my rebut to our dear Martin Luther King on the theme of "what to die for" I would rather counter-balance it with his writings about "the strength to love", not at all different from 'God is love and hope'.But we have to remember that 'belief' is personal to judge less that we are not judged.

Lawrence Efana [Finland]

Stephen West on "Sharia: practice of faith, politics of modernity "

Stephen West — Thu, 29 May 2008 09:35:18 +0100

An interesting article, but it misses the key point in this debate,
which no amount of 'understanding' of Sharia will change. The British
state is run using British law, which has a long and distinguished
history and holds together one of the oldest democracies in the world.
Britain has many ethnic minorities who chose to live within it. The
British state has no burden on it to legitimise or endorse any of the
foreign legal codes or practices of these peoples. Tolerance is a
virtue, but not to the extent that you subvert your own laws.

If you
wish to live under Sharia then live in such a country. French citizens
are not subject to French law in the the UK, the same for Indians,
Chinese, Russians, Mexicans, Iranians. It is the same for every
nationality and other religious group in the country (and despite what
you say regarding Jewish law, no other code has any legal standing in
the UK courts, period); it would open a Pandora's box if any movement in
this direction was taken.

Furthermore, whilst it is all very well
to say that Islam is a religion of peace that can help humanity, you
need to be wearing heavily rose tinted glasses to sustain that notion
after a cursory glance at world affairs. Whilst I appreciate the desire
for a moderate debate ( a laudable aim), that debate must include the
realities of what political Islam has brought into the world - suicide
bombings and a global wave of terrorism. I certainly don't see this
humanity saving version of Islam in the Middle East - I see Hezbollah
and the Taliban. Also note the murder of Dutch citizens opposed to
Islam, the global Islamic outrage regarding satire of Islam that
resulted in flag burning and threats of murder, 911, 7/7, Madrid- the
list goes on.

I'm afraid that followers of Islam need to get their own
house in order. To refer back to the poster, that 'constructive debate'
must be had within Islam first.

I am also disgusted at Mr
Sala's response to a secular critique of his religious viewpoint. I
have very little time for people who accuse their detractors of being
racist, it is a crude and slanderous snub that says more about the
accuser than the accused.

Sadiq wrote:

May I bring to the notice of Jim and those who contribute to his line of thinking:

1) Should we reject religion (any religion) because religions are
being used as a tool for manipulation and not as a source of guidance?

2) If we cannot prove religion to be a scientic entity, and science
does not approve of dogma etc, does science provide basis for various
human phenomon such a 'homosexuals' to be as per nature's scheme and
bonafide for humanity?

Religions are rejected in Britain for many reasons, the key one I think being a rejection of the very idea of a god, heaven or hell. The fact that they are used to legitimate terrorism is a horrific by-product of religion, but only one of the reasons the UK is and will remain a secular country.

With regards to the use of science to
comment on morality. Science does not offer
moral guidance, you are correct. But as above posters have alluded to,
using 7th century texts doesn't seem like such a great idea either to
secular Britain. If you are not religious, please understand that these
texts have no validity as a moral code either!

deteodoru on "The end of postmodernism: the “new atheists” and democracy"

deteodoru — Mon, 12 May 2008 19:49:09 +0100

WHY BERLINSKY'S FUNDAMENTALIST ANTI-SCIENCE SOPHISTRY PISSED ME OFF

I read Berlinski's article in COMMENTARY, "The God of the Gaps"...

(for full text)
http://dakowski.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=494&Itemid=48

...on , ironically, the very night of my Easter-- the most important day of my religion, for it is then that Jesus is believed by us to have proven that HE indeed is the Son of God; and so we utter in greeting each other: "Christ has arisen"; to which we respond: "He truly has arisen." Unfortunately, our theologians could neither get together on the date of Easter, except once every few years, for our fellow Christians, nor on the date of Passover for our fellow Jews. Thus, it is here, in what is the key method of science, MEASUREMENT, that there is a Biblical flaw in our faith-- MEASUREMENT...the stuff Berlinski's bank account is made of.

Berlinski is not only arguing for doubt in Darwinian evolution, but he is also INSISTING on the certainty of GOD in man's image (the true logical sequence, for we all have seen man but few if any saw God). In doing so-- to this believer-- he reads and sounds like an adolescent sophist on a Baptist high school debating team (or is it Regents University?) as he bases his case on snip and cut quotes from defensive and angry scientists and singles out for his rage fellow adolescent sophist Christopher [what a nice Christian name] Hitchens. The latter has been the darling of the neocons and their ideological "World War IV" in the Middle East, but I guess not for Berlinski, the man of God in man's image ideology...or is he also a neocon?

Alas, at his best, Berlinski only reiterates the need for philosophical supervision of science....and, presumably of mathematics, applied or contrived, to which I say AMEN, bravo! Here, here-- yes indeed, evolution NEEDS very much philosophical supervision-- alas, here Berlinski can quote no contrarians for none exist among scientists. And most certainly, as a neurobiologist myself, ALL BRAIN SCIENCE DATA needs severe philosophical scrutiny. For that God gave us Gerald Edelman and many, many other older sages of science who no longer litter the libraries with data but philosophically extract ideas from that of others.
Yet, I urge Berlinski to heed the caution of neurophilosopher William Calvin and be weary of the "janitor's dream" of fundamentals ridden particle physicists in the basement trying to conjure up what goes on in the penthouse of the brain where love, hate and ejaculation are enrapturing. No, Mr. Berlinski, nerves do not "twitch," but they depolarize and conduct current. And what they do in assemblies we can barely mathematically model as theory rather than fact. Right now, evolution of the mind, like the Big Bang, is all models in search of falsification tests, much like the theory of eleven universes by a very attractive Harvard theoretical physicist, Lisa Randall. She may be a lot cuter than Darwin ever was, but offers no less a theory in search of falsification tests. Though science is really the inverse of a cancer test: you can't be sure about cancer until a test comes out positive and about science except when an experiment comes out negative, these are not dreamed up, as Berlinski would have us believe in ignorance. Since all these branches of science are incomplete works in progress, should we settle for "God" as a totem blocking their path to adventurous scientific investigation?

Berlinski's vague amorphous God cloud substituting for science is the Old and New Testaments as FACT. That may be fine for the neocon materialists in their quest to "re-establish" Israel (meaning: "defier of God") in Jerusalem as Zionist kings of the Middle East (what else could they ask for in their waining years now that Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin-- the Three Who Made A Revolution of their youth are all dead?) but it fails to define a moral compass for mankind, given that the Bible makes us all look like nothing but circumcised apes vs. the uncircumcised apes.

Neurobiology is a young and maturing experimental science, a term Berlinski failed to consider in his epiphany against it. Evolution is actually history helped with clues from genetics, another young experimental science. Decades from now genetics may be able to tell us what are the chances that Berlinski may go mad; but certainly now it cannot tell us if he is mad...Does that mean we should stop research into the neurobiology of madness and just leave him to clergy instead? We tried that for centuries and all we got were exorcises, Freud and Lewis!

Berlinski's COMMENTARY article is a fraud because it slanders as anti-God the very science that makes no pretensions of knowing anything about God. Yet Berlinski asserts God's divine dominion and that we are made in His image as if he knows best because his revelation came to him upon eating mushrooms or something (he gives us no clue).

Berlinski fails-- nay, AVOIDS-- answering the question: is there ONTOLOGY without ONTOGENY? No, Mr. Berlinski, no Amazonian Indian has, as far as I know, lived a full life in the jungle AND THEN moved on to Cambridge to write a learned and literate PhD thesis on civilization from bottom up and from top down. And, no closer has Berlinski come to a chimp than I to Jesus, so there's little he can say with authority-- other than Chomsky's hypothesis based on "think experiments"-- about the chimp's non-verbal vs. Berlinski verbal type cognition. Again, BEING IS ACQUIRED through a neotony of prolonged maturation-- there is no ontology without ontogeny-- not necessarily a capriciously God given one for the circumcised but rather one acquired by nature-nurture interactions developing into intelligence.

I can't admire Blinks's faith, given that it is a payed-per-word assault on Hitch en's attempts to make a living selling books. Both come off looking like a not too interesting boxing match between two blind fighters. But I do resent the game the noons played ALLEGEDLY (???) on behalf of Israel, exploiting the so-called "Christian Zionists" whom the noons laugh at privately as "dumb gym." The dumb noons don't realize that the domestic agenda of these gos is a Christian-- of their kind only-- America that would eventually deny Blinks and his Nikon fellows citizenship unless they suddenly find Christ. In my old age I was planning to be a philosopher too like my beloved Edeline and Calvin, not to put myself at risk hiding Jews in my armories from the Hagee-ilk Inquisition. That's why I find Berlinski and the neocons and their World War IV ideology so outrageous-- as a scientist, as a Christian and as an American by choice, not chance.

I hope Berlinski's faith in God eventually saves him from the high probability scourge of Alzheimer's better than can our neuroscience to date. As for me, I still think God would rather I research the damned disease rather than just pray wishing that He not inflict it on me but on my pesky neighbor instead.

Daniel E. Teodoru

live_life on "Islam and ideology: the Pakistani connection"

live_life — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:06:20 +0100

I think that the the Islam is often mixed with the culture of arabic or eastern countries. Many things what the western civilisation is against is rooted in the tradition of these countries, not in the religion itself.

http://www.thefaithdebate.com

issuess on "Sharia: practice of faith, politics of modernity "

issuess — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:26:11 +0100

"How hypocritical when people of faith (all faiths, not just Islam) constantly condemn infidels, western modernity, secularism, evolution, homosexuality, feminism, etc., then cry intolerance when their beliefs are criticized, followed by the painting of their critics with the hateful brushstrokes that Mr. Sala uses so easily."

No doubt faith and religious issues are still sensitive topics in a world where people are free to express their opinions and views. The life of people are meant for improvement and as we are are undergoing such a process, we should as well be more open to criticism and learn to adapt to such modernization and go with the flow. Mr Sala shouldnt be all too defensive as it is merely views and comments.

Leon

jim willmot on "Sharia: practice of faith, politics of modernity "

jim willmot — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:20:12 +0000

Mr. Sala also called me a racist and an Islamaphobe. Both accusations could not be any further from the truth. I consider myself a member of the human race (not a particular race) and I have never considered myself superior to anyone based on my genetics. And to say I am afraid of Islam is not true either...that's why I am willing to put my name to my criticism of Islam, as I do to my criticism of the magical thinking of all religion. Faith (and Sharia Law is faith-based) is the problem, not the solution. How hypocritical when people of faith (all faiths, not just Islam) constantly condemn infidels, western modernity, secularism, evolution, homosexuality, feminism, etc., then cry intolerance when their beliefs are criticized, followed by the painting of their critics with the hateful brushstrokes that Mr. Sala uses so easily.

rudisafari on "Turkey’s “Islamic reform”: roots and reality "

rudisafari — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:30:31 +0000

Quite a few scolars are astonished of the new attempt of the turkish official school to add new aspects, got from a new understanding of the the Holy Kuran. New is also giving e advises to the Holy Father in Rom what he should consider. The most surprising thing how ever is that in the quite a few centuries in which the Sultans of the Ottoman empire held also the position of the Khalifs, they did not find power to comment on the Koran. Even at times when quite a few mainly christians, known as the raya in the Ottoman Empire, were forcefully converted to Islam. The Yanitschars corps showed, beeing one of the most inhuman institution created ever by the Ottoman Opressors.
Well whatever ways and means are sought by distinguished scholars, the tremendous contribution of Mustafa Kemal Pascha, Ataturk, for the creation of a modern Turkish state, can not and will not be circumvented, since his deeds, and contribution for creating a secular Turkish state, will never be forgotten.
Buddy

gorleo on "Australia’s apology: the shadow on the sun "

gorleo — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:35:22 +0000

I am sure the journey to healing in Australia will be fraught with trials and tears, but every journey begins with the first step. Forward movement is now possible.

There is small mention about the Tasmanian Aborigines (almost as a second thought on many of the published articles). I realize this is an Australian apology; however, the Tasmanian man genocide parallels Australian colonization.

See: http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/tasmania.html

- gord -

Bob Philbin on "Sharia: practice of faith, politics of modernity "

Bob Philbin — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 02:53:09 +0000

Sorry to report: Mr. Sala offended me with a racial slur. He accused me of racism. My response to his offensive comment has disappeared from this page without any communication to me. So I will no longer comment on this website. I don't consider it a legitimate forum for intelligent debate.

Thank you,

Bob Philbin

aeionline_1 on "Sharia: practice of faith, politics of modernity "

aeionline_1 — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:48:24 +0000

I appreciate Bob's objection the line:

"The theological logic of the sharia is that God had revealed his commandments for a pious life, . .."

It is not just 'pious life' but the Divine Scriptures provide guidance which tend to regulate the life as a whole, without giving a 'quick-fix' solution just to become pious. Had been so, Prophet Mohammad (MPBUH) would not repent seventy times daily, though he was absolutely sinless. Only God knows who is a pious or not! And only law, just any law, cannot make anyone pious.

May I bring to the notice of Jim and those who contribute to his line of thinking:

1) Should we reject religion (any religion) because religions are being used as a tool for manipulation and not as a source of guidance?

2) If we cannot prove religion to be a scientic entity, and science does not approve of dogma etc, does science provide basis for various human phenomon such a 'homosexuals' to be as per nature's scheme and bonafide for humanity?

May I sugges them to read, at least the introduction of (28 pages) "The Spirirt of Islam", written in 1898 by Justice Ameer Ali, the first Indian to sit as a Law Lord of the Privy Council . The introduction covers, more or less, the following:

The continuity of religious development
Dispersion of the races - Fetishism and pantheism
The Eastern and Western Aryans
The assyrians - Babylon and the Jews
Hinduism
Zoroastrianism
Jodaism
Christianity
Gnosticism
Manichaeism - degradation of earlier creeds
Thribes of Aabia
.....
A necessity of religious develoment
-----

The following chapters of the book give most authentic information:

The Ideals of Islam
The religious Spirit of Islam
The Idea of Future life in Islam
The Church Military of Islam
The Status of Women in Islam
Bondage in Islam
Political Spirit of Islam
The Political Divisions and schism of Islam
The Literary and Scientific Spirit of Islam
The Rationalistic and Philosophical Spirit of Islam
Idealistic and Mystical Spirit of Islam

May I add here that most of the 'Shariah Law', evovled in post 661 period during the rule of Muslim rulers who are also called Caliphs but almost of of them remain in hot pursuit of finding legitimacy for their usurped power through hereditary success which has NO provision in Islam. Thereforefore, whatever ills are attributed to Islam are not that of Islam itself but because of those usurpers of power and this practice contrinues.

I am personally not qualified and competent to preach Islam, it cannot be preached to others unless rightly understood in the first place. However, I do beseech that Islam must be studied in the right earnest becasue it is only the Islam, not only a religion but a complete code of life, which can rescue us humans - an egalitarian humanity society on earth.

My Salute to Reverend Dr. Rowan Williams - The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Tutu and all those who seem willing to appreciate what good Islam has in store for the humanity.

Kindest regards. Sadiq