Those annoying fundamentalist religious zealots

Check out the photo on the left. This is an ad from the London Atheists. A current ad campaign is currently being run in New York. Do you find this offensive?

Many will criticize Christianity and other mono-theistic religions because of the invasive means in which their adherents seek to convert others. They don't like the way in which those from established religions try to "impose" their faith on others. The greatest outcry tends to come from atheists themselves. Perhaps you are turned off to those "fundamentalist" religious zealots whom seek to "proselytize"?

Which made me think, what do these terms in quotes actually mean? A search to the dictionary revealed the following definitions:

Proselytize: To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.
Fundamentalist: Strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.

This begs the question - are these atheist organizations guilty of “fundamentalism” and “proselytizing” in these advertisements? The answer, unequivocally, is yes, and in answer to the question I posed in the opening paragraph, this is not offensive. Whatever our beliefs, we all have the right to share our views on whichever platform we deem necessary and try to influence society based on these inherent views (so long as they are legal).

We all are fundamentalist and seek to proselytize. And we should all be willing to confront different views in order to determine truth.

Cakes, atheism and having it both ways

by Dr. Martin Slack

So the latest psychological research from Bristol University confirms what many of us knew intuitively: that children grow up with an innate belief in God and the supernatural. It is hardwired into our brains. It is not that we learn to believe in God, it is that we learn to disbelieve.

And that presents the New Atheists with a problem. They have to come up with an evolutionary reason for this innate belief. What survival advantage did religious belief convey on those who
held it?

But their problem runs deeper than that, because (in their opinion) this religious belief is false. So they not only have to reason why religious belief conveyed such an advantage, but why believing something that is false (because, of course, there is no God) would do so. Why would a false perception of the world, a faulty and erroneous interpretation of our surroundings, cause these individuals to survive (and pass on their genes) in preference to those without this belief?
And here lies the New Atheists’ problem. If we cannot trust our rational mind’s interpretation of the physical world - that there is a God - why should we believe it with regard to their atheistic thinking - that there is no God?

If our hardwired belief in God is some sort of evolutionary side effect, that never-the-less results in an erroneous, false perception of the world, why should we pay any more regard to their atheistic views? Why is evolutionary atheistic thinking not just as much an erroneous and false perception that we cannot trust as belief in God?

Which takes me back to childhood and growing up and birthday cakes. Because, as any mother will tell you, you can’t have your cake and eat it.

So you think you are important?

By Kevin Anselmo

Do you think the world revolves around you? Now of course none of us would admit to that, but we often think and behave as though it does, or should. Do you think you are important as a result of your professional and personal accomplishments? Newsflash - fast forward to 2160, some 150 years from now, and nobody on this earth will remember you.

Your job - it probably won’t even exist in 2160. Your company - it may not be around. Your family - they will all be dead and in all likelihood your lineage won’t even know your name, let alone your character traits, accomplishments or abilities.

To prove my point, let’s look at the year 1850, approximately 150 years ago. Was your job and company even in existence? How many of you know the names of your great, great grandparents off the top of your head?

Let’s look at the stars and world-class high-flyers. In 2009, Bill Gates was once again named the richest man in the world. Who was the richest man in the world in 1850? Roger Federer established a Grand Slam record after winning Wimbledon this past July. Who was the greatest athlete in 1850? Heck - even most of the sports we watch weren’t played in 1850. The world mourned the death of Michael Jackson earlier this year. How many of you can name the greatest entertainer in 1850? I am just talking about 150 years, but in comparison to the history of the world, 150 years is like, well, yesterday.

What’s my point in all this? Surely it is not to say that this life isn’t important, so let’s just take it easy while abusing the earth’s natural resources. Nor am I trying to say let’s just all go out and fulfill all our hedonistic pleasures in this short time we have an earth. Au contraire.

We should do everything possible to have an impact in this life, because there is more to our current lives than what is here in this world. As we all rightfully go about trying to fulfill our dreams and make an impact in whatever small or big way, we must also keep in mind the big picture. We must think about why we are here and where we are going after this life. In fact, we are all so very important - just not by the world’s metrics for success. Bill Gates’ money won’t be of much use to him personally when he is on his death bed one day. Put Roger Federer in the same situation and all his trophies will be of little personal value as well.

I would actually argue that in looking over the course of the last 2000 years, the most influential people were individuals who led religious movements.

"But wait," some you may say. "We are living in enlightened times. Religion is passé." Perhaps you think because we speak on Skype, send emails and surf the internet that we are so dignified, sophisticated and intelligent. People probably also felt the same way in the 18th and 19th centuries when major changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining and transportation drastically impacted society in the midst of the Industrial Revolution. These people were so proud of their spinning jenny and the steam engine - surely they thought they were so much more dignified than preceding generations. And future generations will chuckle in thinking about how we showed off our iPhones while they use some unthinkable technology that makes the iPhone look like the Commodore 64. (Oh, that was some amazing computer from the 1980s which took like 15 minutes to boot up …..)

So why are we here and where are we going after this life? The Industrial Revolution couldn’t directly in itself answer that question. Neither can our current technological advances.

Maybe we should be enlightened enough to learn from history and realize that we are not as smart as we think. There is more to this current life than meets the earthly eye.

Breaking Bad News and the Problem of Suffering

by Dr. Martin Slack

It was late one night when one of my senior nurses found me. My fourth daughter was just a few weeks old, a beautiful, healthy, baby girl. Now I was standing in the corridor of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit where I was a consultant, with my back against the wall, feeling wretched with tears in my eyes.

I had just come out of the counselling room where I had explained to a young mother and father that their baby - as longed for and as loved as mine - was going to die. I had sat with them, explaining why this was happening, and watching as their lives crumpled in front of me.

Leaving them, I couldn’t face going back into the Unit. The contrast between my joy and their tragedy was immense. Thoughts of the injustice of it all filled my brain. The anger of not being able to do more. The wrong of a life snuffed out so soon. The pain of a young couple now inconsolable. Why God, why?

That young couple, tragically, were just one of many: Parents to be told their baby would, in all likelihood, be profoundly brain damaged, or blind, or both. Parents to whom I would carry the now lifeless body of their extremely preterm infant who had just died. Parents, who having just given birth, I had to tell that their baby had been born dead.

How could a good God allow such suffering? That is a question that prompts many to doubt the existence of God at all, good or not.

But should it? What are we saying when we ask that question? We are saying that things aren’t as they should be, that it is wrong for babies to die, it is wrong for young parents to be bereaved, it is wrong for an innocent life to be so profoundly damaged as to require constant, life-long care. But why is it wrong? Who says it is wrong? What tells us it is wrong?

We all know, instinctively, that it is desperately wrong. The innocent should not suffer.

But who says so? Evolutionary biologists, or the new atheists? No. They have no answer other than that suffering is to be expected in a world that is the product of chance and the fight for survival. But they have no answer for the cry of pain from hurting hearts.

We know it is wrong because something deep inside us tells us that the world should not be like this. And there, the God of the Christian Bible, a good God, agrees with us.

Jesus Christ Smorgasbord

By Kevin Anselmo

You have probably heard of the film Jesus Christ Superstar, produced back in 1973. Now I think we need a new film entitled “Jesus Christ Smorgasbord”. Such a title succinctly would sum up the way people in general perceive Jesus Christ.

Of course a smorgasbord is a type of meal, originally derived from Sweden, in which an array of dishes are spread out across the table. Guests pick and choose the dishes which are most appealing, leaving the undesirable on the table for others. In the 21st century, I think this image best describes how people approach Jesus Christ’s teachings. Pick and choose and leave the less desirable on the side.

I recently heard a talk from Scotty McLennan based on his book “Jesus was a liberal”. McLennan, who heads Stanford University’s religious affairs, eloquently points out some of Jesus’ more “liberal” viewpoints (the word liberal itself is of course subjective to our cultural viewpoints. McLennan is referring to liberal from the US political point of view).

Jesus Christ, based on the gospel writers portrayal of him, was indeed radical. He completely revamped the societal norms of the time. From teachings that emphasized concern for the marginalized - women, foreigners, children, the poor, tax collectors - to the way he viewed “working” on the Sabbath - Jesus Christ based on the gospel writers’ depiction was truly revolutionary. McLennan, and many others (including myself for that matter) are keen to point out these teachings of Jesus.

Less appealing are teachings such as when Jesus says that he is the way the truth, and the life. “Nobody comes to the father, but by me,” Christ states in gospel of John. Similarly, the thought of “taking up our crosses” and following Christ doesn't on the surface seem so glamorous. McLennan, and surely many others, while praising the “liberal” teachings and words of Christ, tend to downplay some of Christ’s claims to divinity. In some cases, such teachings of Christ are utterly rejected in exchange for a more universal acceptance of all religions as being equally adequate ways to salvation and God.

Belief in only Christ as the means to salvation may indeed sound unappealing. But could it be true? Believer or not, most would agree that in the last 2,000 years, few have changed the course of history as dramatically as Christ. Jesus Christ Smorgasbord may be the masses most desirable approach in coming to an understanding of this influential figure. But is it the most effective and true way of approaching and understanding Christ? A child may go to a smorgasbord and select only the deserts. Sweets are the most appealing for many of all ages, especially children. But is choosing only the desirable deserts most healthy for a human being? In the same way, is choosing only the “desirable” claims of Christ the most effective way to understanding God? As a child reluctantly eats his/her veggies, is it possible that acceptance of all of Christ’s teachings - even the unappetizing- are really better and healthier for us in the long run?

Just some “food for thought” for the next time you reluctantly eat some healthy dish that may not necessarily taste as scrumptious as your favourite dessert …. : )

The Age of Intolerance

by Martin Slack

‘May you live in interesting times’: so goes the Chinese Curse. Curse or not, we sure live in interesting times.

Over the last few weeks my attention has been caught by the number of cases in the UK (still relatively few, thankfully, but to my mind still concerning) where an employee has either been disciplined or had their employment terminated because of issues to do with their Christian faith.

Now, it is impossible for us at a distance to weigh the facts of these cases, but, nevertheless, there does appear to be something of a trend.

And that is bizarre, because at a time when so much political effort and energy is being turned to issues of tolerance, why do some Christians find themselves on the receiving end of perceived intolerance?

What is it about the Christian faith that makes it, apparently, the growing target for those who argue the loudest for the tolerance agenda? What prompts the ‘tolerant’ to be ‘intolerant’ of Christianity, or at least of some Christians?

I suspect there are (at least) two reasons. The first is the claims of Christianity to uniqueness. The Bible is unambiguous that there is only one God and only one way to God: Jesus Christ. Such claims are difficult to swallow, to be sure. The second is the willingness of Christians to express such views.

So we find ourselves in the interesting situation of the ‘tolerant’ being intolerant of a claim to unique truth. Which raises the interesting question of how tolerance relates to a claim of absolute truth. Should such a claim be tolerated?

That depends on whether it is true or not. If it is, it would be unwise to be intolerant of it.

Is it all Religion's Fault?

By Kevin Anselmo

Did you ever notice that every time there is a global altercation in which the countries evoke religious justification for military action, calls emerge that advocate for an elimination of religion?

The US invasion of Iraq, Israel and Palestine, the rise of Islamic jihad, Buddhist monks in Tibet and Darfur are just some of the global conflicts in the world in which traditional religion seems to be at the forefront of the confrontation. The argument can be taken even to unarmed conflicts such as the tensions that exist between neighbors of different faiths living in free, democratic western societies.

Richard Dawkins, author of the God Delusion, points out some of divisiveness of religion in his documentary "Root of All Evil."Here are among his comments:
- “The Afghan Taliban and the American Taliban [Christian fundamentalism in the United States] are good examples of what happens when people take their scriptures literally and seriously.”
- "Militant faith is back on the market."
- "Religious faith is divisive and dangerous."
- "Religions irrational roots nourish intolerance to the point of murder."

It is true that religion does play a role in political strife. Religion informs theirs followers that they have the truth. Therefore, those that do have the truth have a sense of superiority vis-à-vis those that don't adhere to their views. However, Dawkins and others who point to religion as the reasoning for the world gone bad miss one key point. There premise does not answer the question about conflicts that occur in which traditional religion is not at the forefront of the debate.

In the conflict last year between Russia and Georgia, there is no known or obvious "traditional religious agenda" for the violent actions of either party. Consequently, the chorus that normally sings of religion's destructiveness has been rightfully silent. Dawkins also don't account for the bloodiest century on record - the 20th - in which traditional "non religious" leaders / groups ravaged legions of people. Dawkins argument doesn't hold when examining the barbaric actions of atheist Joseph Stalin or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

In addition, Dawkins fails to mention that religious men / groups have been agents for peace in the world. Let's not forget that Martin Luther King and Desmond Tutu both brought about reconciliation among oppressed African-Americans and South Africans respectively thanks to their Christian worldviews. Mahatma Gandhi, inspired by Hinduism, helped take down the greatest empire at that time through peaceful, non-violent means. Elie Wiesel, a Jewish concentration camp survivor, has been a voice for peace despite his people's suffering at the hands of Nazi violence.All that said, I still do agree in principle with Dawkins, however just with a twist. While Stalin did not kill in the name of the Jesus of Nazareth or Allah, he still was motivated by his own worldview: an intellectual perspective on the world or universe.

Every person, even agnostics and atheists such as Richard Dawkins, hold a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, also known as a religion.Religion has become the scapegoat for all the world problems, when in actuality the onus should be put on the individuals who carry out heinous acts. All mankind use their set of beliefs (AKA - religion) as a basis for their actions. Rather than bashing religion, it would be far more productive for people to define their reason for existence, understand their ultimate destiny and have a fundamental knowledge as to what determines right and wrong behaviour.

I hope that the time will come when people realise how the attack on all religions is simply a crutch to avoid answering the most important question we all have to face: which worldview/religion is able to bring all people together, serve as a means for peace in the world and is most true and accurate?