New Atheists having second thoughts?

This new video by Argon of Akkad is worth viewing.

There are several mentions of C S Lewis in the comments, including one by me that I just added. A few commenters refer to Lewis’s important essay ‘The Abolition of Man’ in which amongst other things he says that ideas have consequences that we might not have intended but in fact have made inevitable by our actions. For example, castrating horses and then expecting them to beget offspring or promoting disloyalty and then being surprised by treason.

This video by Sargon is a reflection on some words of Richard Dawkins in a recent interview in which he appeared to be saying that he had some regrets about the decline of Christianity, despite working very hard for years to accelerate this decline. Dawkins, choosing his words carefully, expressed disquiet about widespread Muslim Ramadan celebrations in London, and while still disbelieving the central claims of Christianity, saw himself as a ‘Cultural Christian.’ Sargon, while stressing that he remains an atheist, said that the idea of getting rid of actual Christian belief while still expecting to retain nice things around belief (like cathedrals and Christmas carols for example) is wishful thinking.

I think Dawkins speaks for quite a few people who never go to church or read their Bibles and make little or no attempt to revere or follow Jesus in their daily lives, but who appreciate having the trimmings of Christianity around. Christmas, Easter, christenings, weddings, old churches and cathedrals, and stuff like the idea that if you were good you might be rewarded in a life beyond this one. I remember reading in a survey that a large majority of non-religious people, including quite a few professing atheists, believe in some kind of afterlife.

I hear all sorts of whimsical stuff about ‘…wherever you are; floating in the breeze, looking down from the stars, in the summer wind and the autumn leaves…’ etc at secular funeral ‘services’ (who is being ‘served’ if there’s no God?) But if atheism is true, then the departed person being addressed is now a total non entity in the void. However difficult it is for even atheists to come to terms with and admit it, that’s what their faith teaches. Of course, it’s nice to think about a nice afterlife (at least for nice people like them-because we are all nice in our own eyes, aren’t we?). A lot of people believe stuff that makes zero sense if atheism is true. Atheism/materialism is a bleak and comfortless world view if you take it seriously, which is why so many like to keep some and fluffy Christianity Lite up their sleeve.

So what are the effects of the well documented, and unprecedented, decline in Christian belief on this country? Difficult to measure. We can’t run a trial by comparing 2 Britains, one of which didn’t reject Christ, side by side to measure the outcomes over a century or so. But life in Britain does seem to be getting worse in many ways. One of the worst things today (unless you own several homes, like most of our rulers) is unaffordable housing. Why should housing be so unaffordable? This should matter to Christians, poor people having somewhere decent to live mattered to Jesus.

When I recently visited my brother Chris in Devon we heard the pub landlord saying how some new houses were being built but selling for at least £350,000, but ‘Everyone round here is on the minimum wage-they can’t afford to buy them.’ We didn’t have a housing crisis like this when we were growing up-anyone who was willing to work and save could get a place to live, now they can’t. What has made the difference, and why can’t we fix it? There are many obvious and workable solutions, why don’t we deploy them? I think it’s because of widespread greed, selfishness, a lack of love for others and corruption (and mass immigration but I don’t want to go there is the context of this conversation). Is any of that to do with the decline of Christian faith? I can’t prove it, but I suspect it is, and it is consistent. I think that people are just greedier and more selfish than they used to be. And they have been being told for decades that they should do what they feel, not feel guilty, and above all not to worry about the Big Scary God who might send them to hell if they behave selfishly.

C S Lewis wrote somewhere that where a society is largely guided by authentic Christian belief (love God, love your neighbour, don’t take more than your fair share, be humble, tell the truth, work hard etc) you will have a more just and humane society, better laws, schools, even better art and literature, BUT we mustn’t use those utilitarian arguments to promote Christ. We should believe in Christ because He is true, even if it makes us worse off in this present world.

It is interesting to see the growing number of atheists-people like Pat Condell and Douglas Murray for example- who while still disbelieving the Gospels, are starting to see some negative effects of the decline of Christianity which they regret, for example, the transgender madness, the decline in freedom of speech and the massive and unprecedented growth of Islam in the midst of us. If our society is radically transformed in a bad way because of a general departure from Christian faith and the embracing of different ways of viewing the world, ourselves, duty, personal accountability and eternity, then that will not of itself prove that Christianity is true. But it would count as supporting evidence, just as a glowing character reference would not prove that an accused person was innocent of a crime but it would make it seem more likely.

Sargon mentions that former atheist Ayaan Ali Hurst has come out as a Christian, not least as she sees Christian faith as the only answer to the problems facing the western world (see above-I hope her faith is sincere). I don’t think Western Civilisation can now be saved (it would be great to be proved wrong) and hold out no hope for a mass revival, but the ship hasn’t quite gone down yet. But the flood is coming, I should get in The ark (who is Jesus) ASAP if I were you, dear reader, the flood is coming.

What problems does embracing atheism solve?

In last Saturday’s Telegraph supplement there was a piece about best selling novelist Ken Follet. I had been thinking about him recently because I need to get a historical novel of his that touches on the Huguenots, as I plan to write a novel about them.

Follet told us how he was raised in a Christian family, adhering to the very strict Plymouth Brethren sect, about which I know a little from direct contact. There was no television allowed etc. He said in the Telegraph article that as he grew up, he asked his father why the Bible could be relied on. Follet didn’t enlarge much on how this conversation developed or concluded, but stated that he became an atheist, which he remains to this day, and that had solved the problem. I’d have appreciated more detail, but maybe Telegraph readers wouldn’t. In any event, we weren’t informed on this occasion what evidence had or had not been forthcoming about the Bible’s reliability.

As I type, I recall listening to another story from a radio interviewee who had also grown up in but abandoned the Plymouth Brethren sect. He stated ‘There are lots of religions in the world, they don’t all agree so they can’t all be right, so probably none of them are.’

By all means, let us have the freedom to choose our beliefs, and whatever Christopher Hitchens and others say in denial, atheism IS a set of beliefs. At the very least, the professing atheist is asserting that he believes that the evidence for God is so weak that God can be dismissed from consideration, and also that he believes that our existence (cosmos, time, space, matter, energy, fine-tuned laws of nature, biosphere, humans and consciousness) can be satisfactorily explained without God. I would (and do) argue that both of these beliefs are wholly inadequate given what we know. I don’t know what evidence Follet thought was on his side in the conversation with his father.

C S Lewis wrote that he was against compulsory religion and theocracy. But given the claims made by and about Jesus of Nazareth, and given that Pascal’s Wager is still on and we all must and do wager whether we have thought it through or not, I can’t help feeling that (based on the little I know) both of the above gentlemen may have dismissed the case for Christianity being true too lightly.

Lewis wrote that an atheist can no more abolish God by saying ‘I don’t believe.’ than a lunatic can abolish the Sun by scribbling the word ‘darkness’ on the wall of a room in the asylum. And as to the argument that because religions make competing truth claims therefore all can be considered false, is a wholesale denial of truth. All truth claims compete with others, it is possible as any mathematician knows (Pascal was a mathematician as well as a philosopher and Christian) that out of 1,000 answers only one is correct. The fact that the other 999 are wrong doesn’t mean that the 1,000th is wrong too.

In a conversation between two men, a chemist and a sociologist (both atheists as it happens) in Lewis’s novel That Hideous Strength, they are arguing about a particular matter about which the chemist (Bill Hingest) has reached a firm conclusion. The sociologist (Mark Studdock) says that he supposes that there are many different answers to any given problem. ‘Maybe’ replies the scientist, ‘Until you know the answer. after that, there’s only ever one.’

We may choose a piece of music, a holiday or a painting based on our preference, and nobody can say we have made a bad choice even if they would have made a different one. But when we are talking about our very existence, our origin, our destiny, and the possibility (let’s assume for the sake of argument it is only a theoretical possibility) of our being accountable to a Creator, Lawgiver, Judge who has absolute authority over our eternal destiny-shouldn’t we make a very careful evaluation of the evidence? For all I know, Follet has done so, but from his reported words he gives the impression that he abandoned Christianity in favour of atheism as a matter of personal preference and because he didn’t enjoy churchgoing. You can’t establish that atheism and all that goes with it is true by simply stating that you are an atheist.

Pascal’s Wager is a philosophical construct which sets up an either/or situation in which there either is, or is not, a God who will judge us in eternity and send our undying spirit to heaven or hell based on how we conducted ourselves during our Earthly lives. We must wager for or against there being such a God. The atheist is wagering the pleasures of atheism for a limited number of years of his life if he wins the wager (there being no God) versus eternal damnation if he loses the wager. The Christian (for the sake of the wager we assume that Christianity is true and that the believer is sincere and authentic and therefore gains the promises of Christ) is wagering whatever temporary discomforts that might result from the outworking of his faith during the years of his life, against everlasting joy in the presence of God, his Redeemer, if he wins the wager. If he loses (there is no God) then he passes into everlasting non-existence and knows nothing about it.

It can be seen that the Christian who wagers will, at worst, deny himself certain questionable pleasures (intoxication, adultery, theft, gambling, lying, cheating, addiction to junk TV and porn, cursing??? and of course he doesn’t have to bother with going to church or obeying any of the commandments of Jesus). But in fact the Christian way of life (if you aren’t living under persecution, which sadly many are) can often be very pleasurable compared to that of the unbeliever. Mine is anyway. Jesus said that His yoke was easy and His burden light. And if the Christian believer loses his wager, he will simply fall asleep forever and never know anything about it. This is the worst he has to fear, and the best the atheist can hope for. On the other hand, if the atheist loses Pascal’s Wager, he will have all eternity to curse his culpable folly. Pascal argues therefore that the odds are stacked so heavily that we all ought to wager on Christ.

Of course, there are weaknesses in Pascal’s Wager, for example what if Islam of Buddhism are better representations of reality than Christianity, what forms of Christianity do you mean, and the idea that we should believe in and follow Jesus just because of the threat of damnation are all issues that could be discussed, but nevertheless I would argue that the overall construct is at the very least a reasoned theorem to make us think very hard before we dismiss Jesus of Nazareth with out doing some pretty serious due diligence.

Free Speech Alert

Hello again. This isn’t pure C S Lewis, but everything is connected and our friend Jack certainly couldn’t have written and said what he did (and nor can we study, interpret and pass on his work today) without the assumption of free speech.

It may surprise American readers (and some British ones) that we in Britain do not have a codified right to freedom of thought, belief and expression, as the US Constitution guarantees. It is sometimes said that -our famously unwritten Constitution with it’s complicated checks and balances is ASSUMED to permit everything that is not explicitly outlawed, while Continental European constitutions are more inclined towards outlawing everything that is not explicitly permitted.

The above statements are contestable and many bags of worms would be opened if I tried to explain exactly what I mean, but generally there has been a widely held assumption that Britain explicitly allows free speech, going back to The Bill of Rights and Magna Carta. But this is not so. And the situation has become much more complicated in recent times, and looks likely to become even more complicated in the near future. Specifically, moves to outlaw ‘Conversion Therapy’, ‘Misogyny’ and ‘Islamophobia’ are afoot and could become law WITHIN MONTHS. Each of these three issues is important, but the big one at present is ‘Islamophobia’ and I will discuss this a bit. As ever, take my word for nothing but do your own research.

So why shouldn’t Parliament stop people saying things that upset people? For lots of reasons, but above all because of power. As the saying goes, ‘Find out who you aren’t allowed to criticise, and you find out who is ruling over you.’

As a Christian believer, thinker, writer and sometime activist, this couldn’t be more important to me. Those who don’t think it will affect them are much misinformed. My autistic daughter Sarah (*) when asked a question more complicated that what bus she took yesterday, will often stammer ‘I haven’t thought about it.’ If you are British and you aren’t very concerned about the threat to freedom of expression (particularly as concerns the Sexual Revolutionary agenda and Islam) then you haven’t thought about it. But, unless you are a sexual revolutionary or Muslim activist, or the sort of person who has no fixed opinions about anything and is happy to comply (even when asked to believe absurdities and contradictions, or to dig your own grave) then I respectfully suggest that YOU haven’t thought about it, and you ought to-because IT is thinking about YOU.

Below is a briefing from the Free Speech Union (which was formed only quite recently in response to the growing threat of ‘cancel culture’ where people with ‘unacceptable’ opinions are being bullied and threatened for holding legitimate opinions). It is worth of note that the bulk of the item is written by Tim Dieppe of the organisation Christian Concern, a campaigning organisation which takes a very traditional Biblical world view, and has a foreword by Richard Dawkins, arguably the world’s most forthright atheist activist. A colleague of his is quoted as saying that when The National Secular Society agrees with Christian Concern about something, which is a very rare thing, people ought to sit up and take notice.

banning-islamophobia_3Download

The late Christopher Hitchens (**), who was a close friend and fellow atheist campaigner with Dawkins, has a famous quote about the weasel term ‘Islamophobia’ which I post below.

I broadly agree with the sentiment in the post, but would argue that it’s meaning would be more to the point if it stated that the term ‘Islamophobia’ was used by, not only cowards but bullies and tyrants.

The word is an abomination. For a start, a ‘phobia’ means an IRRATIONAL fear for something that is quite harmless. Richard Dawkins makes this rather simple and incontestable point in his foreword (click above). However, to give a crude example, if you lived in South East Asia where tens of thousands of deaths from snake bite occur each year, and where deadly venomous reptiles like saw scaled vipers, Russell’s viper, Kraits and cobras abounded-you would not be ‘phobic’ if you were anxious about snakes. Rather, you would be an ignorant fool if you did not take reasonable precautions when walking in areas frequented by deadly serpents. The term herpetophobia exists, but could you reasonably criticise anyone who insisted on wearing high boots and carrying a long stick and when appropriate?

Islam, sadly (or certainly elements of it) can kills people as effectively as a cobra or mamba bite. It is not hard to find examples. I support a charity Open Doors which provides care and advocacy for Christians who are robbed, defrauded, threatened and murdered for their faith-usually by Muslims. The Religion of Peace web site (which is not explicitly Christian) documents violent acts perpetrated by Muslims, against other Muslims or members of other faith traditions. This site would undoubtedly be classed as ‘Islamophobic’ under the definition of the word adopted by our politicians and likely to become law under a Labour government, but when armed jihadis come to your village to rape, rob, burn and kill in the name of their god and prophet-it is not ‘phobic’ to be very anxious.

If anyone, perhaps a secularist, reading this far is tempted to say ‘They’re all as bad as one another!’, I beg you to get some facts rather than rely on slogans and anecdotes. Of course you can produce examples of peaceful Muslims and violent Christians, but the NUMBERS and the AUTHORITY matter. I appeal to people to do the scientific/sceptical investigation thing and look at (A) how typical is violent behaviour coming from Christian and Muslim angles, and (B) what of the teaching and example of the respective religions’ founders? As a Christian, I have often been on the receiving end of insults, slanders, sneers and misrepresentation. Jesus, founder of Christianity, specifically told his followers to return a blessing for a curse and patiently endure insults. For example in Matthew 5:11-12. If a professing Christian kills in the name of Christ, he is disobeying the actual teaching of Christ and disregarding his example. With the founder of Islam and his followers, it’s a different story. Searching on the term ‘does Islam command killing those who insult Muhammed’, I quickly found the advice below on a Muslim web site

And this is what we find, for example the Danish cartoonists, the Charlie Hebdo murders, the Batley school teacher and Salman Rushdie. These cases (many more could be found with ease) all demonstrate that Muslims consider it normal, appropriate and quite within their rights to KILL anyone who upsets them by saying something critical about their faith, their holy book, the founder of their religion. The government of Pakistan, a nuclear armed country that Britain provided with hundreds of millions of pounds of aid annually and from whom we have accepted millions of immigrants, has a statutory death penalty for anyone who ‘insults the prophet.’ As the linked article states, so far although many have been arrested, charged and imprisoned for ‘blasphemy’ against Muhammed, the Pakistani State has not yet executed anyone (I would like to think that the British Consul has said that British aid would be stopped immediately if this happened) at least 89 people have been publicly lynched. It’s not all Muslims, OK, but a significant number believe it’s OK to kill infidels if they say what Muslims think they shouldn’t say.

To say that I am disappointed that British politicians are in bed with people who want to make ‘Islamophobia’ a crime, is something of an understatement. The Muslim Council of Britain has been demanding that any criticism of Islam be criminalised-in effect, a Blasphemy Law, but one that only protects Islam. Years ago, when the late Mary Whitehouse was campaigning against perceived anti-Christian blasphemy and sexual obscenity in public broadcasting, most main stream churches saw her as something of an embarrassment, and the Left leaning establishment ridiculed and cursed her-all in the name of individual liberty and freedom of speech. And yet, decades later when she is all but forgotten, the BBC, the Guardian and the Labour Party now seem to be poised to introduce the most draconian restrictions on free speech and the promotion of religious tyranny that we have known in this country since the days of Mary Tudor.

(*) I am not breaking confidences here, she wears autism T shirts and will tell you about her mental health problems if you meet her at a bus stop.

(**) Not to be confused with his brother Peter Hitchens, who is very much still alive and abandoned his atheism for Christianity.