jump to navigation

Vatican Preacher: Accusing Church of Abuse Akin to Anti-Semitism April 4, 2010

Posted by pacejmiller in Religion, Social/Political Commentary.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Rev Raniero Cantalamessa, who made the comments on Good Friday

I don’t usually like to comment on religious or political things, but this latest Vatican furore has gotten me worked up — and after all, it’s Easter.

At the Good Friday service delivered by Pope Benedict XVI’s personal preacher, Rev Raniero Cantalamessa, read out a letter from a friend which likened the recent persecution of the Catholic Church over clerical sex abuse cover ups to the “more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism.”

What could have possibly possessed Cantalamessa to compare the allegations of feigned ignorance or blatant cover up over child sex abuse by the Catholic Church to the unspeakable horrors stemming from anti-Semitism?  Rather than whine about and give lame excuses over the flack the Church has copped (and justifiably so) over the child abuse and cover up claims, why not actually do something about it?  Or at least make it look like they’re doing something about it?  By all means, make the point that the Church as a whole is being unfairly blamed, and that not all priests are pedophiles.  But do it in an intelligent way that does not unnecessaily stir up the already sensitive public.

And of course, the expected public backlash/overreaction is equally frustrating.  It’s typical of the media to pick one little bit of a sermon by one person of the Church and blow it out of proportion by saying it’s an insult to all the Jews that perished in the Holocaust.  No wonder the Pope (and the Vatican) is trying to distance himself from the comments.

However, at the end of the day, it’s really just another example of the arrogance and naivete of certain members of the Catholic Church in thinking that they can play the “victim” card in the child abuse saga and expect to get away it.  And to use anti-Semitism to draw parallels is just plain stupid.

In particular, I found the comparison interesting given that the Catholic Church has played a prominent role in both the child abuse cover-up scandals and in perpetuating theological anti-Semitism throughout history.

Book Review: “God, Actually” by Roy Williams August 10, 2009

Posted by pacejmiller in Book Reviews.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
7 comments
The obvious cover design is a good indication of the type of people 'God, Actually' is targeting

The obvious cover design is a good indication of the type of people 'God, Actually' is targeting

Here’s my long overdue review of the book ‘God, Actually’ by Australian writer Roy Williams, a former lawyer who struggled for years with his faith.  It was a gift from my devout Christian friend, who has recommended many such texts to me over the years in his attempts to convert me (after I told him I read ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins!).  And I must say, out of all the things I have read, ‘God, Actually’ is the only book that has really done anything to clarify some of the fundamental issues I have about religion and Christianity in particular.

I should make it clear from the outset that you are unlikely to find any ground-breaking arguments in this book.  So if you don’t start off with an open mind, you’re likely to scoff at what Williams has to say.  However, what I did like about the Williams’ approach is how he applies (or at least tries to) reason and logic to religious issues and does not take an unreasonable, hard-line stance to the more controversial questions.  While I don’t agree with a lot of what he says, he does end up espousing a form of ‘liberal’ Christianity that I think a lot of people on the fringe can relate to, and perhaps even believe in.

Who is Roy Williams?

We’ve all seen those Christian books written by ‘former skeptics’ on the shelves; people who were once atheists that became advocates because of some life-changing experience or because they actively sought God.  Sure, it makes the book seem more compelling and the transformation more amazing, but when you actually read a couple of pages you realize that these people were probably (closet) Christians all along just using a clever marketing ploy.  They never answer the tough questions that true skeptics or unbelievers would ask.

And so I had my doubts about the author when I first started reading the book.  A former lawyer, Williams claims he was a skeptic about Christianity for most of his life, even though his great-grandfather was a Presbyterian minister.  It was not until his mid-thirties, through ‘prodigious reading’, parenthood and a bout with depression that he became a true Christian.  Is this guy a Christian in skeptics’ clothing or a genuine converted?

Well, a bit of both.  Reading ‘God, Actually’, I got the feeling that Williams was not a ‘pretend atheist’, but the seeds of Christianity were always inside him, ready to bloom.  He had a Christian upbringing and never strayed too far from the church, though his heart was not in it and was disheartened with it all.  However, he says that his journey back into Christianity occurred when he and his wife decided to send their daughter to Sunday school.  That raised alarm bells – why would someone who was truly skeptical about Christianity want to do that?

Nevertheless, I didn’t allow that to cloud my judgment when it came to the merit of Williams’ arguments.

Main issues covered

The book is divided into 3 parts.  Part 1 covers ‘Reasons to Believe in God’, in which Williams tackles evolution and the human mind, in particular the emotion of love.

Part 2 discusses ‘Reasons to Believe in Christianity’, which explains why Christianity ought to be preferred to other religions – and the reason, of course, is the ‘evidence’ of Jesus and his resurrection.

Finally, in Part 3, Williams provides answers to some common objections to Christianity, such as suffering, other religions and the concepts of Heaven and Hell.

What I liked

What I liked most about Williams is that he does not talk down to the reader – he merely offers his personal point of view on why he believes the arguments against God are unconvincing to him, and why the arguments for God are.

However, just like the way Christian apologists can find a way to break down any argument propounded by atheists, I have no doubt atheists can do the same to all of William’s arguments.  But Williams doesn’t deny this – he is putting forward his view and hopes to convince the reader.  As he says, if he can convince just one person, then his job has been a success.

From the start, Williams tells his reader that it is impossible to be 100% certain about the existence of God (think of the implications, he says!), and thus it is necessary to adopt a deductive approach.  Faith is ultimately required.  It’s a reminder that no matter how much you read about religion, at the end of the day, it’s a matter of faith – either you have it or you don’t.

Williams is what I would call a ‘liberal’ Christian, and in some ways that may be problematic because many fundamental Christians probably won’t agree with his views, particularly those on the difficult issues of abortion, euthanasia and cloning.  But because it emphasises substance rather than form, the Christianity that Williams advocates is one that a lot of non-believers may accept.  For instance, he recognises that culture plays a crucial role in shaping a person’s religious beliefs, and that God (if he exists) will take a fair and overall approach to evaluating a person’s life when they die.  So someone who was born, lived and died in a place without access to Christianity will not be judged unfavourably.

On the issue of evolution, he puts forward a view that is not new, but is at least plausible from a logic standpoint – that evolution does not disprove God; rather, it’s just the mechanism of God’s design.  On Jesus, he puts forward a compelling case based on the Gospels, deduction and comparisons with other deities, much like Lee Strobel did in The Case for Christ, but more objectively.  It doesn’t break any new ground, but it’s well-argued and a solid discussion nonetheless.

Another thing I liked was the constant references to literature and films in his examples and analogies – like Shakespeare, Jane Austen and The Matrix.  Needless to say, I could relate!

What I didn’t like

While Williams starts off well in tackling the main arguments raised by atheists, as he moves on, he too often lapses into preach-mode, citing verses from the Bible as evidence and proceeding on the basis that God exists as fact.  He may start off on a topic objectively (or at least try), but he can’t help but make the same mistake that a lot of Christian apologists do.  For example, Williams uses the emotion of ‘love’ as justification for God’s existence – because it’s such a wonderful thing.  But that argument depends on the presupposition that God exists, not the other way around.

Another common trap that Williams falls into (and to be fair, many atheists do too) is that he sometimes argues why people SHOULD believe in God rather than whether God exists as a matter of fact.  For example, he says that we should believe in God because of his love for us, or because he ‘created’ us.  But God either exists or he does not – whether we SHOULD believe in him is irrelevant.

Williams also makes some incorrect or dubious assumptions.  For instance, he suggests that humans are wired by God to believe in a deity – but judging from the number of atheists and agnostics out there, the applicability of that statement is limited.  He also says that people must seek God to be saved – but what if someone really tried, really put in an effort, and yet still didn’t find God convincing, or believed in the wrong God, or a different God, or no God at all?  That seems awfully unfair if God punishes you for not reaching the conclusion that he wants – especially if he was the one that ‘created’ you to be this way.

There are also some inconsistencies in Williams’ arguments.  On the question of suffering, he says that God doesn’t intervene when humans suffer because of free will.  That I understand.  However, on the other hand, when things are favourable (eg we haven’t been blown up by nuclear weapons despite numerous close calls), Williams attributes this to God’s grace.  God either intervenes or he does not.  To say God does not intervene because of free will, and then to say the fact that we have not blown ourselves up (something totally within the control of humans) is evidence of God’s grace is inherently contradictory.

But perhaps Williams’ biggest problem is that he too often explains something by saying that it simply ‘rings true’ to him.  The thing is, the same argument won’t necessarily ring true to everyone, and it may actually have the opposite effect.  What if something rings true to him but rings false to someone else?  Does that mean his instincts are right and the other person’s are wrong?  I understand it’s a personal view but it doesn’t make a good argument.

Oh, and I didn’t like Williams’ explicit use of his ‘lawyer’ training to support his arguments.  For example, he applies his lawyer skills to the inconsistent records of Jesus, in particular the Gospels.  He says he would be more skeptical if all the records matched up.  Well, aren’t inconsistencies the first thing that a lawyer would look for?  Sometimes that’s all it takes to generate reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

‘God, Actually’ provides viable alternatives to atheist theories.  Whether they convince you or not is beside the point – what it does well is put holes in some atheist arguments and suggest that these arguments are not irrefutable.  In a way, this book best helps people who are ALREADY believers in the Christian faith who have doubts because of atheist theories and arguments.  Williams’ arguments may put away those lingering doubts.  But what it falls well short of is convincing atheists from switching sides or agnostics from falling towards Christianity.

That being said, it’s about as objective of a book as you can expect to find from a Christian apologist.  It would be great if one of these books could be written by a genuine agnostic and not someone who has already fallen firmly into one side or another (Christian or Atheist) and analyses the arguments objectively without providing a subjective conclusion – instead, allowing people to decide for themselves.

[PS: for those with a bit of time, check out this thread on Dawkins’ website where his loyal supporters trounce poor Roy Williams’ book and then the man himself when he joins the discussion.  It’s highly entertaining and somewhat cringeworthy at times – but what it demonstrates is that no matter how hard Christians try, some people will never be convinced.]

Does the Bible prohibit shorts in basketball? January 29, 2009

Posted by pacejmiller in Basketball, Religion.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
3 comments

And you thought your basketball shorts were long

Basketball shorts are getting ridiculously long these days.  But then again, who would want to go back to the days when you couldn’t distinguish them from your sister’s bike pants?  Don’t answer that.

basketball-pantsA friend of mine alerted me to this ESPN Page 2 Article about Christian high schools in America that play their basketball games in long pants (there’s a video of this at the site) – not because they’re trying to take long shorts to a whole new level – but because of what the Bible says.

(more…)

What would Jesus do? Basketball coach sacked for 100-0 game January 26, 2009

Posted by pacejmiller in Basketball, Religion.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
3 comments

“What would Jesus do?” has now been applied to high school basketball.

Covenant School is a private Christian high school in Texas.  Micah Grimes, coach of Covenant’s girls basketball team, was fired after his team defeated Dallas Academy 100-0 on 13 January 2009.

Following the game, Covenant posted the following statement on its website last week: “It is shameful and an embarrassment that this happened. This clearly does not reflect a Christlike and honorable approach to competition.”  Apparently, the school was ashamed that their team was allowed to run up the score against their obviously out-classed opponents.

(more…)

%d bloggers like this: