Blasphemy Special - The right to free speech

Lets get the week off to a good start. One of the liveliest debates of recent times on this blog was when I covered and inadvertently misrepresented the Archbishop of Athieism Richard Dawkins. Mr Dawkins has the rather annoying habit on twitter of not posting replies to his subjects, just leaving comments, so when I saw a comment he'd posted, I took it out of context. This provoked what I found to be a rather interesting debate with a few people on the subject of belief and the belief in the lack of belief.

Anyway, this morning I noticed another rather odd tweet from Mr Dawkins

Help. I'm about to be jailed for making derogatory comments about the Flying Spaghetti Monster http://t.co/1Y2GpWJoov
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) September 9, 2013

Not being familiar with Mr Dawkins use of the term "flying spaghetti monster" for God, I was intrigued. Anyway, I followed the link and found that the story which concerned Mr Dawkins was the indictment and possible imprisonment of four bloggers who made derogatory comments about Islam.

It made me pause for thought about my views on blasphemy. Technically the four are not on blasphemy charges. Blasphemy is insulting God. The four bloggers are held on charges of insulting Islam, which as best I understand it is a wholly differenjt thing. Islam is a man made institution, which aims to preserve and propogate the teachings of the prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon him). Anyone who doubts this, should consider how many different branches of Islam there are and see how these different factions view each other (factionalism is not unique to Islam, I hasten to add). Now my own personal view is that any institution should be able to take criticism, especially one which claims to have authority from God. As a member of the Roman Catholic church, I have witnessed only too well how the inability to engage with critics has nearly destroyed the moral authority of the church to all but ardent believers. Any institution which uses its power to silence critics and hide scandals is pretty much doomed. The Catholic church has paid a heavy price for hushing up and hiding the scandal of paedophile priests. In this case, the church initially used every lever to suppress and discredit victims, the very people the church should stand up for. It entered a state of denial and behaved in the most appalling way imaginable. People who had suffered terrible abuse were treated as the guilty party and all manner of lies an innuendo were spread. The trouble is that you cannot suppress the truth.

In the case of the four bloggers in Dhaka, the state and the religious authorities are looking to impose draconian sentences to suppress expressions of free speech. If you belong to a religious congregation, theoretically every other religious or athieist viewpoint is blasphemous, sacreligious and insulting. If we followed this through to its logical conclusion, we'd all be locked up. The only way any of us can get by is to agree to differ and respect each others right to express ourselves. There are people who I know who post highly offensive comments on twitter and facebook. If it upsets me, I don't follow them. If someone else retweets them, so I see it, I ignore it. If you find this blog offensive, the stop reading it. Simple as that. Any institution that cannot take criticism, in my opinion is deeply flawed and is probably hiding something.

Let us now consider blasphemy. Blasphemy is the insulting of God, not his institutions on earth. How do I feel about this. Well I tend to think God is a big boy (excuse the genderisation). When Richard Dawkins calls God "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" it is surely blasphemy of the most henious kind. I do however believe this is and issue for Mr Dawkins to resolve with God. It is no one elses business. Mr Dawkins clearly feels that God doesn't exist, so he can say what he likes. I tend to think he has every right to do so. If any belief I had was so flimsy that I'd be insulted or hurt by Mr Dawkins, then perhaps it is me who has the problem.

In the Catholic tradition, we were brought up to believe in Judgement day, when all of the lost souls would be cast into Hell. My teachers told me that murderers, thieves, adulterers and blasphemers would be tossed into a burning furnace, tormented forever by fiery Jack. This was my incentive to be a good boy and eat my greens. Is Mr Dawkins as cupable as Adolf Hitler, because he assembled all of the information before him and decided that if there was a God, he was a winged Sphagetti Monster? I really don't know, but I suppose I'd be a tad disappointed if this was the case. I had this conversation with an acquaintance who is a fundamentalist. She informed me that Dawkins was worse than Hitler, because he was actively seeking to turn people against God by use of logic and reason. I was shocked by this proposition. I believe that anyone with faith should have good reasons to have faith and should have logically arrived at their conclusion. I have found that with ideological athieists, it is virtually impossible to explain the benefits of faith and organised religion. The benefits of community and quiet reflection, the urging to do acts of charity and the sense of mission to make the world a better place are concepts that they cannot understand in a religious context. I respect all viewpoints. I don't dislike people who have views I consider odd or strange, I wouldn't insult someone for this.

Where I do draw the line is when other people expect me to conform to their religious viewpoint. This could be  the religious right fundamentalist or the Athieist or the Judge in Dhaka who feels my blog should follow his ideology.

I stand with anyone who believes in the right to religious freedom, freedom of expression, the freedom to blaspheme and the freedom to insult if we think this is necessary and called for. If you are a religious person, then use the example of the way you live your life as the riposte to people who insult you. There are two possible outcomes for blasphemers, either Richard Dawkins is right and absolutely nothing will happen, because when they die, that is it. If that is the case, they are not blasphemers and so there is no price to pay. The other alternative is that there is a God and that God will act as they see fit towards the blasphemers, in which case it really is none of our business anyway. I am personally a highly superstitious person. I must confess that blasphemy does make me feel uneasy (a result of my upbringing), as I think that it is never wise to take risks with the unknown. I have a friend who calls such superstitions "Fire Insurance". I personally can't understand why anyone would want to insult other peoples beliefs or take a chance (however small) with such matters, but I guess that most of you will just put this down to superstition and ignorance. 

The bottom line is that I am pleased we live in a society where people have the freedom to blaspheme and insult, but I wish people would not use that right unless they think it is absolutely necessary.

Richard Dawkins - Hardline religious fundamentalist?

Richard Dawkins is probably the best known advocate of athiesm in the UK. He believes that science has disproved the existence of God and that all followers of religion are deluded and misguided. Many people agree with this view. For the record, I don't but this doesn't really have any bearing on why I find Mr Dawkins to be advocating a very harsh, cruel and divisive brand of athiesm. I believe in live and let live and I respect the right of everyone to make up their own mind about the existence or not of God. I have no objection to athiests setting out their case and having reasoned debate about it. I have no objection to them spending their money on adverts on the side of buses, if thats what they want to do. I do find people who want to convert me to athiesm after six bottles of wine a tad irritating and boring at times, especially I would never try and impose my views on them. If people want to know why I hold my beliefs, they are welcome to ask. They are welcome to outline their own views, they are welcome to debate them.

I regularly discuss religion with all manner of people, I have the belief that anyone who seeks to do good things and not harm others is on the right track, regardless of their system of belief or lack of it. I believe that anyone who seeks to use religion or athiesm to harm other people, or compel them to do things they don't wish to do to be evil. I believe we are all part of the same family and we should treat each other with  respect and dignity. People have used religion for many evil purposes throughout history, but I happen to believe that in countries where Athiesm was adopted, such as the USSR and China the same thing happened. I personally see religious disputes in the same light as football violence. I believe it to be tribal hatred, practised by idiots who have rather missed the point of it all. I would not associate myself with any view which seeks to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion. That is why I was shocked and moved to write this blog when I saw the following Tweet posted by Richard Dawkins

Would you ban yr children's grandmother for a difference in politics? Or music? Food? Sport? No only 1 thing. Yes, poisonous religion.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) August 20, 2013

In effect Mr Dawkins is saying that he encourages families to ban contact between Grandparents and Grandchildren if the Grandparents are not athiests. I cannot imagine how hard this could possibly be for a Grandparent. It is cruel and unfair. My parents were both staunch Roman Catholics. Both of my elder brothers are athiests. My parents would have preferred my brothers children to be baptised. This did cause a little heartache to my parents, but my brother was not prepared to compromise and that was that. My father loved his children as much as he loved my sisters children who were all brought up in the faith. When my father died unexpectedly in 1987, the whole family was devasted. I cannot imagine the heartache that would
have been caused had my brother adhered to Mr Dawkins directive.

I believe that anything which drives wedges into families is evil and corrosive. We may not agree with the religious views of our siblings/parents/children etc, but we have to respect them and love them anyway. My brothers both disagree with my views on faith, but we would defend each other to the death and we respect each others right to hold those views. One would assume that most athiests subscribe to the view because they have a sound intellectual argument to support their views. They should also have an understanding of why their parents subscribe to a different view. Surely the correct way to deal with this situation is to say "Grandma believes this for these reasons, but we have a different view because...." using this approach will allow the child to think about the issue and decide on which road is right for them. I have always encouraged my children to think for themselves about such issues. I have suggested that whatever decision they make is informed and rational. I have no idea whether they will grow up to follow my faith. To be honest, it is their decision and whatever one they make, it will be the correct one for them and I will respect it.

I happen to believe that the existence of God is and always be impossible to scientifically prove or disprove. Belief is a matter of faith and for the individual to decide upon. As such I believe athiesm is simply another form of religion, albiet one with no deity. It is a system of belief. Whilst most athiests I know would recoil at Mr Dawkins suggestion, it does trouble me that in his role of as the Archbishop of Canterbury for athiests, he is spreading a message of hate and division. I support free speech and the right of anyone to hold whatever view they choose. I do however think that in light of his comment, I have formed the opinion that in some ways Mr Dawkins is a dangerous religious fundamentalist. In my book anyone who preaches division in families is someone who has gone too far.

********** Updated 12:43 ***********
Many thanks to Aaron Shaw who suggested I look at the full twitter exchange preceding this. When I see a tweet which I use in a blog, I will check it for a chain, but the one above had none. Mr Shaw rightly observed that there were two preceding tweets, which when read as an entirity change the meaning.

@RichardDawkins My daughter will not let me see my grandchildren strictly because I voice my non-belief. This is discrimination!
— Kathy Massey (@KathyMassey07) August 20, 2013

"My daughter will not let me see my grandchildren [because of my non-belief]". "@KathyMassey07 Obscene to allow her stupid god to interfere.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) August 20, 2013

It seems that the whole situation is a little more complex than I originally assumed. What I hadn't realised was perhaps how accurate my description of Mr Dawkins as the Archbishop of Canterbury of Athiesm actually was. I find it truly bizarre that someone would tweet him about a family row. Whilst I can understand his initial response, does it really help? It strikes me that the mother and daughter are both similar characters, who have issues backing down. If I had a row with my daughter, I most certainly wouldn't email the Pope. Mr Dawkins response is extremely hard line. As none of us know the background and what caused the fallout, as it is unlikely to be a single issue, it is a bit difficult to draw too many conclusions, but Mr Dawkins clearly does not feel at all constrained.

In his comments, he mentions things that families don't fall out over. I know families who have fallen out over all of the things he mentions. Politics, food and sport have caused all manner of issues. Even music, I know loads of families where musical difference have caused punch ups. Look at the Davies brothers in the Kinks.

Aaron Shaw is right that I misinterpreted Mr Dawkins tweet, but I am not sure that his response is any less fundamentalist. Surely he has merely given reinforcement to a family feud over religion. If it was between a Catholic Mum and a Protestant daughter,  he would surely have reacted different. As one of the protagonists belonged to his faith, he took sides, without any knowledge of the full background. I'd say that is a fairly fundamentalist world view.

My view. Girls, get over yourselves and start thinking about the daughter/grand daughter rather than this silly grandstanding. 

I wish I'd been smoking what Richard Dawkins has been smoking !

Every so often, someone makes a stupid comment that completely destroys years of hard work building a reputation. An example of this was Ex Prime Minister Jim Callaghan, who responded to a question about the winter of discontent with the comment "Crisis, what crisis?". With that one comment, his whole career was redifined. No discussion of Callaghan ever happens without some reference to the comment.

I suspect Professor Richard Dawkins has just made a similarly damaging statement. In an interview with Al-Jazeera, Dawkins claimed that being raised as a Roman Catholic was worse than being abused as a child. There are many levels on which Dawkins has got it wrong (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2251963/Being-raised-Catholic-worse-child-abuse-Latest-incendiary-claim-atheist-professor-Richard-Dawkins.html). As someone who was born and raised in the Catholic faith, who has many friends who were also raised as Catholics, some of whom still are and some who aren't, it is clear to me that such talk is offensive nonsense. Sadly the paedophile priest scandal colours our perception of the church, and this has been handled appallingly. If Dawkins had attacked the church for his handling of the scandal, I would have agreed with him. This wasn't his point. His point was that raising children within the faith was worse than child abuse. He specifically seperated the two issues. I have friends of many religions and no religion at all. If you were to analyse any of the beliefs and traditions, they all have good points and bad points. Some faiths and creeds do have some traditions that  I find repulsive, such as female circumcision. Some faiths have practices I find incompehensible and dangerous, such as cults who commit suicide in anticipation of the end of the world. All of these things should be highlighted and criticised. Efforts should be made to argue the case for ending such things, however the arguments must be made with honesty, integrity and logic.To persuade someone that a deeply held belief or tradition is wrong can only be done respectfully and with calm logic. If you want to persuade a family that they shouldn't circumcise their daughter, which approach do you think would be more likely to succeed, one where you engage in a calm debate and explain that the practice should be avoid because it is not a religious requirement, but a tradition and one which will immeasurably damage a woman. If instead of taking a calm, reasoned approach you say "you belong to a barbaric religion and you are a savage", all you will do is alienate and damage your own argument.

Mr Dawkins uses as an example, the fact that a woman was told that a childhood friend who died aged seven, would go to hell because she was a Protestant. Dawkins said the woman found this more traumatic than sexual abuse received at the hands of a Priest. A casual reader, unfamiliar with the Roman Catholic religion may well conclude that children at Catholic Schools or attending mass would be told the same thing.  Whilst individuals involved in the Church may say stupid things such as this, it is not in any way a reflection of the view Roman Catholics have of other faiths.  I would have assumed that Dawkins would have done his homework. Following the Vatican II conference in the early 1960's, the teaching of the Church is that anyone can go to heaven, regardless of which faith they belong to. None of us know who will go and why. The position of the Church is that if you follow the teachings and do good things, then that will make your case, but we shouldn't judge those who follow different paths. That is between them and God. If anyone ever uses the argument that "you should become a Roman Catholic because the only alternative is Hell when you die" they are being dishonest and ignorant.

I generally welcome the interventions of commentators such as Richard Dawkins. Anyone who has genuine criticisms of any religion or creed, should be listened to and if there is weight in their arguments, then it is up to the faith to adapt. We are seeing such a process with the Gay marriage debate. Where Dawkins has gone wrong on this case is a) he's belittled the damage caused by sexual abuse and b) he's not been honest about how the teachings of a faith deals with other religions. I worry that his comments may upset and inflame tensions between Protestants and Catholics in places such as Norther Ireland. In Mill Hill and Barnet generally, there are excellent relationships between all of the faiths. One of my friends, Romal Miah, who runs the Day of the Raj restaurant in Mill Hill is a Muslim who attended a Roman Catholic secondary school. We have discussed this and he tells me it was a positive experience. His religious beliefs were respected and he gained from an insight into another faith.

I have a friend who is a Church of England vicar. She has an unusual story because she was raised in a militant communist home and went to secular schools. She initially started "hanging around" churches as she enjoyed the peace and tranquility. She decided to become a vicar as she saw this as a way where she could dedicate her life to helping people in a practical and gentle way. She has a calm and dignified manner and is a classic example of why the Roman Catholic faith should ordain women. A few years ago we discussed the views of Dawkins and she explained that what attracted her to the ministry was the fact that a vicar helps people who need it and brings communities together. She took the view that Dawkins had some good arguments but was divisive in how he presented his arguments, which was not in her opinion good for anyone.

I was reminded of this conversation by Dawkins comments today.  I really don't think he's done anyone a service by putting his arguments in such a manner, least of all himself and his credibility. If I was Mr Dawkins, I'd announce that I'd had a heavy session on the skunk weed before I made the statement and what I really meant was ....

Athiesm - The worlds dullest religion

"The world is full of crashing bores" - So wrote Morrissey. Cards on table, I'm a rather bad Roman Catholic, so yup, I'm probably biased. Am I full of doubts? Yep, riddled with them. Why did I decide that this was the religion for me? Three  reasons - firstly because it is the tradition I was brought up in, secondly because after years of soul searching, it seems to be the one which suits me best and thirdly, because it is full of cynics and other like minded people who don't perpetually seek you validition in their own beliefs.

Now there was a time in my mid twenties, when I'd probably have described myself as an athiest or an agnostic. Why? Because at the time, I guess it seemed as if common sense dictated that Athiesm was probably a rather sensible approach to faith. God is unprovable, so he can't possibly exist can he? So what made me change my mind? I woke up one day, thought about it and realised that of all the possible religious beliefs (which  Athiesm surely is, as it cannot be proven) Athiesm is the least logical and dullest. Wheras aa group of Roman Catholics on a night out will hit the bar and have a fantastic time (not mentioning religion at all), an Atheist shindig will always end in hours of ernest discussion as to "why we are so right".

I've searched the planet looking at the way people venerate what Athiests call "The big imaginary friend in the sky". I've marvelled at the sun setting behind the Blue Mosque in Istambul. I've gloried at the art in the Sistine Chapel. I've soaked up the beauty of Buddist Palaces in China and Shambala. I've been overawed at the beauty of the churches of the Kremlin, so beautiful that the Architects eyes were pulled out so he couldn't design a more lovely church for anyone else. I've enjoyed the stark serenity of Glastonbury Tor. I've marvelled at the sheer immensity of Stonehenge.

Take away our belief in God and none of these would exist. The divine inspires us. Where are the great buildings inspired by Athiesm? If God inspires us to build beautiful structures, what does Athiesm inspire? Of course there is the old chestnut about religious wars, but to my mind this is human nature. If we don't have a reason to have a fight, we'll invent one. I can remember a couple of mates in 1977 having a punch up over who was the first one to wear bondage trousers in Mill Hill.  If we look at the most murderous regimes in history, did they need religion? Pol Pot did fairly well on a communist/athiest ethos as did Mao and Stalin. Now of course I don't think the vast majority of middle class Hampstead trendies who are Athiests intend mass murder and genocide. In fact I suspect that most Athiests are, well rather like the rest of us. I just think that subscribing to a religion with no stories, no miracles, no wonder and no hope is rather dull. Every now and then at this time of year, I make my way to the Mill Field in Mill Hill at sunset. As the sun sets over St Josephs college, you get treated to one of the seven wonders of the world. I love to sit there on my own and soak up the moment. One time I was spotted by a mate, who happens to be an athiest who saw me sitting on my own watching the beauty of a brilliant sunset. I said "Have you ever seen a more beautiful sight in the world?". His response was "It's just the defraction of light over a few geological features".

Each to his or her own, I just wish we could all accept each others viewpoint and not feel threatened by it. We've all got the right to our own views, however odd they may seem. For me, I happen to think that it is no accident that if you take a piece of wood, put a couple of coils with magnets in the middle, stretch six thin pieces of wire over it and give it to Jimi Hendrix, you get the most beautiful sound in the world. I can accept some things are cosmic accidents, but whoever wrote the laws of physics to include that as part of the rules must be pretty divine. I guess that I personally can't live in a world with no place for beauty, wonder and mystery, but if we were all the same what a dull place it would be. I'm sure my beliefs seem completely bonkers to many people reading this. I'm sure a few people will tell me why. That's the great thing about a free society and freedom of speech.

If you've read all the way down to here, you'll probably be rather surprised at the point I'm trying to make, which is actually not about religion at all (the preamble was just to get you thinking). In Egypt today, a despot and dictator has gone. A new dawn emerges. I sincerely hope that whoever or whatever replaces Mubarak, a blog such as this is tolerated. One of the key moments of the revolution was the moment when a blogger was murdered by the police. I've written all manner of things about religion, politics and life. I've never once worried about the police killing me for what I wrote. In many countries, I'd have been toast long ago. I specifically wrote about something fairly random and off the wall, to illustrate the point that in some places even this would be a criminal activity. Whatever you think of me, my views and my blog, please join me in expressing your solidarity with the people of Egypt today and lets hope (and pray if that's your thing) that whoever replaces Mubarak allows a Society to flourish where writing a blog is not a dangerous activity.

Whatever your religion (or lack of it) have a great Saturday night.

Is there a God?

As it's a Bank Holiday and it ain't too sunny, I thought I'd post something nice and thought provoking. Here's a question for you. If you were offered the chance of a flip of the coin to win £100 million pounds if you won and get immediately executed by a firing squad if you lost, would you take it?

Just think - what a choice - an end to all your problems? Either way you'd never have any financial worries ever again. So who would go for it? I guess anyone who is feeling suicidal due to financial woes would jump at the chance. Problem solved. Who else might go for it. I wondered whether a believer or an athiest might be more prone to try their luck? A believer may think that a few well placed prayers might tip the balance in their favour. If they survived it would be proof of divine intervention. As to an athiest? Would they be less or more likely to go for it? Would a person's faith make any difference to the decision? I suppose that a Muslim is forbidden from gambling, so may decline as a matter of principle.

How many people would go for the chance just to feel the buzz of such high stakes? Just suppose you got 50 atheists and 50 believers who were prepared to give it a go? Statistically 25 of each should become very rich and 25 of each should get their brains blown out. Just suppose all 50 atheists lost and all 50 believers won? Would that persuade you that God exists. What about if all 50 atheists survived and all 50 believers got the bullet? Would that persuade you that God exists and has a sense of humour? So what has all of this got to do with whether there is a God?

Well what is the first question people ask when tragedy befalls them? "Why me?" they ask. "What did I do to deserve this?". I pondered all of this and it occurred to me that it is strange that despite the billions of believers in God, no one seems to have the slightest idea of the true nature of God. Does God really intervene in the events on Planet Earth. Being of the Roman Catholic tradition, there are many logged "miracles" that people take as evidence. The problem with such miracles is they are extremely random and extremely rare, in a planet of billions of people. Any statistician will tell you that such oddities can prove nothing. What about the other side of the coin? The assumption of athiests is that there is nothing before/after/beyond this existence. All we experience is as dust. Life started as a result of random chemical reactions (which as yet are even more elusive than the search for God). Athiests strike out the religious argument as "unscientific", without being able to provide a provable scientific answer as to how life actually started. If it was as simple as passing a lightning strike through a soup of mud and water, it would have been recreated in a laboratory years ago.

The big problem for athiests is that there is a great big chunk of the jigsaw missing and you can't legitimately claim that others are basing their arguments on superstition and stupidity when you don't actually have scientific proof yourself. It got me thinking to what is the nature of God. I suppose there are two theories :-

1) A superbig megageezer in who's image and likeness we are all made

or

2) Somerthing else completely, which we are unable to fully comprehend and understand


I personally subscribe to 2). Look at how scientific knowledge and progress has changed us. Take the cleverest person alive 2,000 years ago (if we exclude people who may or may not be the son of God, based on your personal beliefs). If you gave that person a couple of hours in todays world, how would they rationalise TV, The Internet, air travel, electricity, X-rays, nuclear weapons, Taser guns?

My guess is they'd struggle to explain any of it. If we can develop so much knowledge in 2,000 years (most of it in the last 200), how far will we progress mentally in the next 2,000 years. I have a little theory that 95% of what we understand to be God is just enlightenment. I don't think religious belief changes bad things or alters bad things. I think it just gives us the enlightenment to deal with the consequences. I believe that this world is mans realm and as such we are left to get on with it. Does God have a personal relationship with us? Yes in as much as we can experience enlightenment. Does God perform miracles? I see these as opening the window to somewhere else and a little light shining in. When we draw the curtains and we see the sun, the sun warms us and lights up the room. It changes the way we see things, but the sun is 93 million miles away. Sunliht makes plants grow and our skin change colour, but we can't really get anywhere near the sun. We need the sun to survive but we need the sun to be 93 million miles away otherwise it will burn us up.

For this world to work and life to exist, you need a planet this size to be 93 million miles from a star the size of the sun (too small not enough gravity for an atmosphere, too large and the gravity would squash us). To have life on dry land, you need a moon the size of the moon to exert tidal pressures and have a marginal area between land and sea. You need the right mixture of C02, Oxygen and Nitrogen. Now I've no idea if it's true, but I was told we only have the proportion of Oxygen in the atmosphere because we have plant life. Plants can't survive in the dark in a pure C02 environment, so the earth has the atmosphere because of the plant life on it. If you want to know what sort of a planet you have without life, a moon, the wrong size and the wrong place, look at Venus or Mars.

So back to the question. Is there a God. Well if you say no, then you believe in a massive load of enormous coincidences, a massively complex chain of chemical reactions to initiate the process of life, with hugely complex bio-chemical chains being built that cannot be replicated under any conditions in any laboratory and which then have to completely change the planet  to get us where we are today.

I have my views and beliefs. I'm quite happy to discuss it and to have the flaws in my logic pointed out, but what really disturbs me is that many atheists use science and reason as a weapon against religion, when there just isn't the evidence there to support their hypothesis. I'd be perfectly happy for an atheist to say "I don't believe in God, because God doesn't fit my view of how the Universe operates" That is a perfectly vaild viewpoint. I have a problem when they say "Science, reason and logic supports the hypothesis that God doesn't exist", because as far as I can see it doesn't.

In short, theories such as evolution are not a problem for me. It is fairly easy to demonstrate evolution. The AIDS virus has evolved to be drug resistant in a very short period of time. Flu viruses mutate and kill millions of us, but to extrapolate this rock solid evidence of Darwinian evolution into an explanation for every form of life on earth (and possibly beyond) is to me pushing it. Given the distinctive genetic differences between men and dogs, how long would that process have to take. If a dog had a puppy that was a cat, the cat would not survive as it would need another cat to procreate with, to establish genus Felix. The chances of two dogs having two cats at the same time are beyond the statistical probability that is possible of feasable. To apply the same logic to every genus is, even more tenuous. You can completely change the temperament and appearance of a dog in 50 generations of selective breeding, from a wolf to a pug. You can't change the genome of a dog to a cat in a hundred times that.

Now I'm not seeking to convert you to my beliefs or my way of thinking. I'm just asking you to think about these things as if you come up with some better arguments than mine, we'll both end up a little more enlightened and that will bring us both a little closer to God, regardless of whether you believe or not. For my God, the only enemies are lies and ignorance. Hope you've enjoyed your bank holiday weekend as much as I have.

Are you scared by the truth?

"Jesus died for somebodies sins but not mine" This is how Patti Smith starts "Gloria" on her fantastic rendition of Van Morrison's Gloria. The clip above is taken from a gig in Germany in 1979. This is one of my favourite tracks. Now given that I'm a practising Roman Catholic, this may surprise you. How can I like a track which seems to contradict a basic tenent of faith? It's easy. It doesn't. Signing up to follow Jesus is a matter of choice. If Patti Smith decides that Jesus didn't die for her sins and she wants to keep them, thats her free will and her choice. It doesn't stop the song being a great track. What it does do is it challenges my own relationship with my behaviour. As such it can only be a positive thing. You see, I'm not scared of the truth.

One of the things which I can't get my head around as someone who believes in something after this life is "how interventionist is God". Does prayer actually work? Do only believers get miracles? When I was a kid, one of our teachers told me that the reason certain football teams were more successful than others, was because they had more Catholic supporters praying for them to win. He also explained that was why Brzil won the World cup and USSR hadn't. If you look at the list of World Cup winners, there is definately a tendency for teams from strongly Roman Catholic countries to do well. Sadly I can't buy into the theory that it's devine intervention (hand of God or not). Another teacher told me you should never pray for a football team to win, as you'd use up your allocation of miracles. That would seem extraordinarily cruel. Can you imagine having just prayed for Arsenal to score the winning penalty in the FA Cup final, and getting home to find your wife has cancer and you've used up your supply of miracles.

One of the blogs I follow is Blurred Clarity, by Daniel Hoffman-Gill. Daniel is an Athiest who regularly writes believer bashing blogs. I suspect that Daniels distate for religion is driven by the neocon fundamentalist Christian Right. I suspect that if most Christians were left wing proponents of Liberation Theology, who sought to right the worlds wrongs and used their faith as the driving force, he'd probably have less "bash the Christian" blogs and more gardening tips or whatever. I suspect he'd still be an athiest, but his well written pieces, which generally highlight the stupidity of the religious right, wouldn't find the fuel they need. I doubt that he'd have much inspiration if he had to write blogs about why William Wilberforce christian morality was a bad thing. I enjoy Daniels blogs because they are challenging, funny and well written.  He says many things I actually 100% agree with as well as a few things I disagree with. If I had the choice of having to change Daniel's view of the world or a "God hates Fags" American bible basher, I'd change the bible basher every time. You see I think they are revolting and obnoxious and do more damage than just about anything. I'm quite happy to indulge in rational debate. You can have that with Daniel, but sadly you can't with the neocon right.

Ultimately it all comes down to this question. Are you scared by the truth? The Catholic Church has had many problems and alienated many people because it has sought to hide the truth. A few examples - paedophile priests, The earth going around the sun, to name a few. I strongly believe in the power of the truth. I believe that my faith makes me a better person. I go to church to be reminded how lucky I am and to do my bit to fight injustice. Yes I do need reminding. It has made me a better person, thats why I persist with the institution for all it's faults. All I really want is a "better church". One that spends more time fighting injustice in the world and a bit less time indulging stupid neocons.

We started this blog with Patti Smith singing "Gloria". We'll end it with a clip of "Liars Beware" by Richard Hell and the Voidoids. Whenever I wonder about whether I should tell a few porkies to get on I listen to this track. Here's the lyrics to help you understand.


LIARS BEWARE
by Richard Hell and the Voidoids

Look out liars and you highlife scum
who gotta keep your victims poor and dumb--
Your motives and your methods are not disguised
by your silk, soap, sex, or your smiling lies.

Look out here
you pompous jerk
Look out here
I go berserk

Well I guess you put me in my place
but I won't forget your stupid face

They gave you power cuz they knew your needs--
soprano boys get talent when you shoot your seeds.
Well you laugh to hear what your best friends say--
Old man they laugh when you walk away.

Look out chief
ridiculous creep
Look out thief
you'll lose your teeth

Well you got power, now there's competition
and your blind side's turned to the boys with a mission.

You were sixty-five when you wiggled out--
your mind all twisted and your mom all shout.
I'm a man with his share of excess nice
but it can't be spared for drooling lice.

Look out jerk
you ancient slut
I can't endure
Your smirking smut

Well life is short so don't even try
to bother waving as we pass you by.