Dawkins on Faith Schools

As I began to watch "Faith School Menace?", the documentary created and presented by Professor Richard Dawkins and broadcast on More4 on Wednesday, on 4oD, I was preparing myself for an hour of vitriol, pure polemic and poor arguments.

And, as much as I hate to admit it, I was wrong.

Professor Dawkins largely made arguments with which I personally do agree. I do agree that it isn't productive to segregate children in terms of 'faith' at an age where they themselves don't truly understand it.

Equally I agree that RE lessons in faith schools should, just like such lessons in secular state schools, be assessed by standard Ofsted inspections.

I also agree that children should be encouraged to question what they are told and not believe that all adults speak truth all of the time, and indeed in the importance of evidence.

I even agree with the one-to-one advice he gave to a headmaster of a Muslim school, that rather than teaching that science teaches one theory of human origin whilst Muslims instead prefer the explanation of creation, they should instead attempt to reconcile the two. Religious faith should not be used against scientific evidence.

However, I could not agree completely with Dawkins. He made the assertion in a primary school assembly that, if someone could not give sufficient evidence for something, then it probably wasn't true.

This is where I fundamentally disagree with Dawkins. Evidence is of course important - but evidence, in Dawkins' terms, is not the be all and end all. This is the reason why he cannot bring himself to believe in God - because for him, hardcore empirical evidence is a requisite for the acceptance of something.

I would indeed agree if Christianity, or Hinduism, or Islam, professed to be a system of knowledge. But they do not. They are systems of faith, of belief. Faith is not knowledge and therefore does not require hard empirical evidence. It is based on an understanding that not all things are knowable here and now via empirical study, but that instead reason, emotion and the holy books can be used to give meaning to people's lives.

For Dawkins, people should stop seeking meaning. Things just are because they are. We just evolved because we did. The sun exploded from a star because it did. The big bang just happened.

But this is a great hole in Dawkins' worldview. He is himself effectively agreeing that science does not answer the whys; it does not allow for purpose. It is sad that he objects so vehemently to religious beliefs when they can, by his own admission (see above) be reconciled with science.

So yes, faith and faith schools are limiting when they cause people to reject strongly supported scientific theories, and they are harmful when they cause division and conflict.

But I fail to see the tragedy in an ordinary lady or gentleman who understands human evolution and the origin of the world, for instance, as having happened for a special, divinely ordained purpose; in the human species evolving as we have being God's intention. They clearly do not reject science, nor do they claim their belief to be knowledge; but what they do reject is Dawkins' rather unjustified belief that a true scientist cannot hold a personal conviction that there is purpose to life.

Religious Conscience vs The Rights of the Child

The organisation Catholic Care has lost an appeal to be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals when it comes to finding adoptive parents for children.

Ever since the introduction of the anti-discrimination laws people have been aware of the potential issues of people's legal obligations coming into conflict with their religious consciences. And this is a key example.

There will be many Catholics, particularly those involved in this organisation, who will be saddened or angered by the idea that they cannot exclusively allow heterosexual couples to adopt. Their perspective is that the Bible's passages on homosexuality are sufficient to suggest that God does not approve of it. I have a few thoughts on this.

The first is that there are still many Catholics, and Christians of other denominations, who do not feel this way. They may feel that God's love and acceptance is unconditional, and that the ambiguity of most of the Biblical passages suggests that we cannot assert adamantly that God is anti-gay.

What is also important to note is that the Bible does not mention same-sex couples, and likewise has nothing to say on gay adoption. Admittedly, it would have been unheard of in the times of Paul or the authors of the books of the law, but the fact remains that it is not mentioned.

But it is a fact that opinion is divided on this issue, and one cannot expect everyone to agree on this. For those who do disagree, it is worth remembering that Jesus himself spoke of giving to Caesar what is Caesar's; in this instance, the law demands that organisations do not discriminate, and in this case this has, legally, to be observed.

What may be of comfort to those who struggle is that, irrespective of their views on homosexuality, children from broken homes and living in care have new opportunities to go to a home and be brought up by two people who love them, and love each other.

Furthermore, giving a child to a gay couple would not be suggested by any part of the Bible to be sinful, and it is difficult to conceive of God punishing someone for obeying the law of the land in this instance.

A 'thought'

Meet Wale Babatunde...senior pastor of the World Harvest Christian Centre.

This man delivered this evening's 4thought on Channel 4, which can be viewed here:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/4thoughttv/4od#3107827

I was left disappointed by this thought. The man seemed to imply that homosexuals were equivalent to thieves. (Perfectly logical I suppose, the one takes people's possessions, destroys their trust in humankind and leaves them in despair; the other is attracted to and falls in love with people of their own gender).

But the main reason I was left so disappointed with this 4thought was that, ironically and unfortunately, there simply wasn't any thought involved in it. Pastor Babatunde made the hideously fallacious statement that:

"The issue...should not be a matter of personal interpretation; the most important think is to look at what the Bible says"

How compelling Pastor Babatunde...how easily one would be inclined to agree with you. After all, who are Christians to consider themselves above the Bible?

Except...looking at what the Bible says is a matter of personal interpretation. Of course it is. Everything one reads, to some extent, one interprets. And there are a plethora of interpretations of scriptural passages: literal, allegorical, historical, purely contextual, universal.

No prizes for guessing how Pastor Babatunde thinks scripture should always be interpreted.

He then goes on to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9, which in his translation says:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites...

So, the uninformed listener may assume from this that the Apostle Paul said homosexuals cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and therefore homosexuality is wrong.

What a depressingly narrow interpretation.

The Apostle Paul, factually speaking, did not say that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Why not? Because the word homosexual, a Greek and Latin hybrid, was first used in 1869. And, unless I am very much mistaken, St Paul was writing in the first, rather than the nineteenth, century of the Common Era.

So, what words did he use? The words, in Greek, were: malakoi and arsenokoitai.

The first, malakoi, is the plural of the adjective 'soft'. (In Greek, as in many other classical languages, adjectives could be used as nouns). So, the literal translation is 'soft ones'. It may seem that Paul is obviously talking about homosexuals, but this is by no means clear. In fact, the term had in the past been used to refer to some heterosexuals. Early church fathers had used the term against masturbation.

The rendering of the term as 'effeminate', as some translations suggest, is closer, but is still very much based on assumptions. There were in fact other terms that were used instead for effeminacy, such as androgune (from man and woman) and thelubrios.

The meaning of the second term is equally by no means clear. It is highly problematic, for the term was first found to be used by Paul, and was not frequently used after him. Some translations render the term to refer to child molesters. If this is the case, it shows that there are grave problems with generalising the term to refer to all who practise sodomy.

So, it seems, that 1 Corinthians 6:9 does not obviously condemn homosexuals at all.

I do not doubt that Mr Babatunde believes he is preaching a message which God wishes him to preach. But I do not for a second believe that he has that message correct. And it's this sort of careless talk that leads to all sorts of assumptions being made and thousands of people being outcast by the church and made to feel dirty, evil and in many cases suicidal.

And those were exactly the sorts of people whom Jesus reached, and reaches, out to in love.

Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time

The title words of today's entry are to be attributed to Marcus J. Borg, a theological Professor and member of the historical Jesus movement, The Jesus Seminar. These words were the title of a book of his which I have just read and felt moved and challenged by.

The book is one I would recommend to anyone who, like me, may have grown up with an image of Jesus as God's Son sent to earth to bear the punishment for my sins, to be sacrificed for my sake. If you are, or have the suspicion you may soon be, at the stage where the notions of sin and hell and judgement and Jesus bearing God's wrath become either stale, or tasteless, or no longer concepts to which you can relate, this book is most definitely for you.

Far from being what many conservative Christians would consider liberal theology to be - watering down scripture, removing what is significant from the heart of the Christian faith and leaving you with nothing of any meaning - in Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time Marcus Borg focuses on truths about who Jesus was which are so often neglected by the church and modern Christians in favour of one specific strand of theology which is actually based on a very small amount of the comparatively large New Testament Gospels, and upon only one of the three most significant stories of the Old Testament (which, for Borg, are the Exodus from Egypt, the exile to Babylon and the Priestly Story; the dominant doctrines of salvation, atonement, etc. are purely based on the latter of the three, and pay no attention whatsoever to the former two).

As I have probably made quite clear by now (!) I thoroughly recommend this book. You may not agree with everything Borg thinks (I myself don't, either), but there is compelling truth in this book that presents Jesus in a way which is far removed from the almost cringeworthy picture which is proclaimed ad nauseam by evangelical Christianity.

I conclude with some words from Marcus Borg himself:
For those of us who grew up in the church, believing in Jesus was important. For me...that phrase used to mean...'believing things about Jesus'. To believe in Jesus meant to believe what the gospels and the church said about Jesus. That was easy when I was a child, and became more and more difficult as I grew older...
Believe did not originally mean believing a set of doctrines or teachings; in both Greek and Latin its roots mean 'to give one's heart to'. The 'heart' is the self at its deepest level...Believing in Jesus does not mean believing doctrines about him. Rather, it means to...give one's self at its deepest level, to the post-Easter Jesus who is the living Lord, the side of God turned toward us, the face of God, the Lord who is also the Spirit'.

As a friend of mine frequently says, 'amen to that, brother!'.