Rationalism

Yes, we should be questioning those who identify as Christian

If you missed it yesterday morning, Richard Dawkins appeared on the Today Programme on BBC Radio 4, alongside Giles Fraser. I want to start by saying that I like and respect Giles Fraser, although I disagree with his religious beliefs. In the same way, I like and respect my religious friends — but this doesn’t change my evaluation that their beliefs are categorically wrong. I try not to deliberately offend anyone when taking about religion, but conversely, I’m not prepared to hold back on what I consider to be the truth.

The debate today concerned a survey, carried out by an independent agency in the week following the 2011 UK census. The results suggested that the percentage of people who identify as Christian in the UK has fallen significantly since the previous census, down to just 54% — barely a majority, and certainly not enough to make any claims about this being a “Christian country”, never mind justify the inclusion of religious practices into public practices and governance. (more…)

New court rulings expose Christians unaware of their privilege

If you’ve been following the news lately you might have seen the eagerly-awaited results of two court cases, both involving the role of religion in business and government. Although small cases, it’s important to remember that the precedents set by cases like this can affect other cases in the future. While both cases were a success for the secularist movement in the UK, the reaction by the Church, media and even politicians has been both enlightening and concerning.

The first case was one of two male partners who were turned away from a bed and breakfast, because the owners considered their homosexuality — and intent to share a bed — to be a sin. Now, while the owners have every right to believe that, what they don’t have the right to do is apply that discrimination to their business. In January 2011, a court found that they were liable and awarded damages appropriately. They appealed and yesterday, the appeals court upheld the original ruling. What was ultimately disappointing however was the näive and ignorant attitude expressed by the Christian Institute in its comments about the case: (more…)

What is God?

I recently came across an article, linked to by my friend Jason, that piqued my interest. The whole article, Why I am an atheist, is well worth a read, but it was a statement at the end that drew my attention:

I could be converted to theism if… God, or a god, showed himself or performed an act that unambiguously proved both his existence and his attributes as an immortal, omnipotent being. As to what that proof would constitute: that god himself, if omnipotent, would be the perfect arbiter of what would conclusively prove to six billion people that he existed.

There’s several important points to consider here. Firstly, just because human beings are not perfect beings does not mean they cannot evaluate some questions or problems perfectly. Take tic-tac-toe (noughts and crosses) for example. We know how to play the perfect game of tic-tac-toe. I’m not talking about very good or even excellent, I’m talking about mathematically perfect. It is possible to play a perfect game of tic-tac-toe so that one cannot lose — only draw, at the worst, if the opponent also plays the perfect game. That doesn’t mean that every person on this planet knows the method to do so, but the potential is there. What this illustrates is that in a game, or scenario, with finite parameters, one does not have to be perfect — only good enough. Once that “good enough” is reached, being any better doesn’t help, right through expert to omnipotent. (more…)