I’m writing this blog before a scheduled interview with Richard Dawkins, well known writer about, what he calls, the greatest story ever told, i.e. evolution, which won’t go to air on Triple J for a couple off weeks.
It’s a short (15 mins) interview but long enough for Dawkins to identify me, if I get a word in, as a religious lightweight. I’ll leave it to John Safran to subtly peel back a layer or two of Dawkin’s protective clothing to discover what prevents Richard from allowing God a safe place in our cosmos.
I think it’s inhospitable to deny God entry to our company. He’s clearly indicated a preference (known as Jesus) to be part of us rather than greater than us, the reputation which sabotaged divine/human relations from the beginning of humanity’s religious awakening until now.
I don’t mean to be patronising, since I’m no gazetted theologian, only a “populariser”, but I perceive Richard’s problem to be the excluded and, therefore, exclusive god, rather than our included and, therefore, inclusive god.
Might seem a flaky proposition but it’s what keeps me going. I was proud of Catholicism when it opted for that theology, way back in 1960’s.
Even by writing about this stuff may seem to be so “in house” as to be exclusive. Then again, it may help seculars to be alerted to a 2000 year old religious institution evolving before our contemporary eyes.
A leading muslim cleric in the UK has published a 60 page “fatwa” condemning suicide bombing as unfaithful to Islam. Thanks to that man for his courage. It could be a beginning of an Islamic reformation/enlightenment. Our western world needs access to the best of Islam. Just as we need Judaism at its best to educate us about matters of both heaven and earth.
I say “at its best” because like cholesterol, religion can be good or bad. Richard proposes all religion is bad. I may be wrong.
Lent is a forty day and night chance to fix up bad religion, in my case, bad Catholicism which can put good spiritual health in danger.
Doing stuff for the poor and the young, as first priority, is the antidote for the catholic vocational hazard of devotionalism and clericalism. In the words of a very old pop song: “Can’t believe what you say because I see what you do”.
“Stations of the Cross“ is a catholic devotion which needs to be proactive. There’s 14 “stations” or icons on each catholic church wall, marking 14 reference points (mythical rather than historical) on Jesus’ journey from Jerusalem to Calvary, the place of execution.
Reflect, during Lent at least, on your individual and our collective “way of the Cross”.
In Ruth Park’s poem, “The Ballad of the Shiralee”, there’s a powerful image of the swagman’s shiralee. This is the bedroll or weight he carries: “The load too heavy to be borne – he cursed it in the swelter”.
When night falls and the campfire sputters out, the swagman takes this burden, “but now he unrolls with humble hands and lies within it’s shelter”.
The Cross is changed into a blessing.
RJM
I’m writing this blog before a scheduled interview with Richard Dawkins, well known writer about, what he calls, the greatest story ever told, i.e. evolution, which won’t go to air on Triple J for a couple off weeks.
It’s a short (15 mins) interview but long enough for Dawkins to identify me, if I get a word in, as a religious lightweight. I’ll leave it to John Safran to subtly peel back a layer or two of Dawkin’s protective clothing to discover what prevents Richard from allowing God a safe place in our cosmos.
I think it’s inhospitable to deny God entry to our company. He’s clearly indicated a preference (known as Jesus) to be part of us rather than greater than us, the reputation which sabotaged divine/human relations from the beginning of humanity’s religious awakening until now.
I don’t mean to be patronising, since I’m no gazetted theologian, only a “populariser”, but I perceive Richard’s problem to be the excluded and, therefore, exclusive god, rather than our included and, therefore, inclusive god.
Might seem a flaky proposition but it’s what keeps me going. I was proud of Catholicism when it opted for that theology, way back in 1960’s.
Even by writing about this stuff may seem to be so “in house” as to be exclusive. Then again, it may help seculars to be alerted to a 2000 year old religious institution evolving before our contemporary eyes.
A leading muslim cleric in the UK has published a 60 page “fatwa” condemning suicide bombing as unfaithful to Islam. Thanks to that man for his courage. It could be a beginning of an Islamic reformation/enlightenment. Our western world needs access to the best of Islam. Just as we need Judaism at its best to educate us about matters of both heaven and earth.
I say “at its best” because like cholesterol, religion can be good or bad. Richard proposes all religion is bad. I may be wrong.
Lent is a forty day and night chance to fix up bad religion, in my case, bad Catholicism which can put good spiritual health in danger.
Doing stuff for the poor and the young, as first priority, is the antidote for the catholic vocational hazard of devotionalism and clericalism. In the words of a very old pop song: “Can’t believe what you say because I see what you do”.
“Stations of the Cross“ is a catholic devotion which needs to be proactive. There’s 14 “stations” or icons on each catholic church wall, marking 14 reference points (mythical rather than historical) on Jesus’ journey from Jerusalem to Calvary, the place of execution.
Reflect, during Lent at least, on your individual and our collective “way of the Cross”.
In Ruth Park’s poem, “The Ballad of the Shiralee”, there’s a powerful image of the swagman’s shiralee. This is the bedroll or weight he carries: “The load too heavy to be borne – he cursed it in the swelter”.
When night falls and the campfire sputters out, the swagman takes this burden, “but now he unrolls with humble hands and lies within it’s shelter”.
The Cross is changed into a blessing.
RJM
Vlad,
Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims. No more, no less. There are no tenants, dogmas, rituals, ceremonies, Popes, or even beliefs to be held in order to qualify as an atheist.
In any case, the accusation that “atheism is a religion” is the intellectual equivalent of “if I’m one, then you’re one too.” I fail to see how equating an opposing view as equal to your own gains any ground.
Great post Father Bob. You’re a very good writer.
a fellas, atheism is a religion against all other religion, and hence relies on our existance to excuse it’s own.
And Rev Bob, there is a time and place for everything like; solemninity on Good Friday and parteeee!!!! on Easter Sunday.
after all Christianity IS still the basis of our Aussie constitution
ABOVE ALL ELSE LOVE ALLAH & LOVE EVERYONE AS YOU LOVE YOURSELF OK.
95% of our universe is transparent it be expressed as made of 23% dark matter and 72% dark energy, it only 4.6% normal atomic matter plus 0.4% baryonic dark matter being accounted within AI whole universe. Essentially scientist know SWEET-FA about our universe, most of what they think they do know be just speculation. So who is more delusional, atheists who think it irrational to believe in GOD or those being of FAITH who are prepared to so well look past IT scientific rational thinking?
Basically my question to those who not believe in GOD is how can GOD believe in you as a individual if you yourself not belief so in GOD? Answer to this question at the end of the day shall be answered when it’s END of it present simulation.
Beware the ides of march it’s Mars OK GO direct legs eleven this too shall pass as we on Mowgli’s Road forks coming up ahead for everyone I’m told a listening to new music triple-j its Astrologically Grand Irrationality, it bullshit or not?
I am not a religious person, I AM AWARE. I dare to dream the dream, that being impossible dreams do I. FAITH in the REDEEMER HIM of many names HERS I ENLIGHTENED WISDOM I.
ALOHA FATHER BOB DO WELLS WRITES I MORLOKK IT DISCUSSION ON YOUR BLOG.
Dear Bob
I hear you’re meeting Richard Dawkins tomorrow (Monday). Perhaps you might ask him “Does atheism have a rational basis?” BECAUSE:
In 1931 Professor Haldane said “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true… and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms”.
Atheism (in the sense of strict materialism) lacks a rational basis, so far as it asserts that the observable process of reasoning (i.e. biochemical burps in the brain) exhaust “Reason” (which I hold to be transcendent, and itself above nature, or “super-natural”. Atheism denies the independent standard offered by supernatural Reason, but boils it down to SOOT; i.e. the process and organs through which reason occurs.
STRIKE HIM DOWN, SENSAI – in a loving, inclusive way.
Cheers,
t
PS – I like your show, with your sidekick Safran, but, as you can probably tell, I think that faith is rational, unlike atheism.
David, good article about athiest convention in today’s “Eureka Street”.Andy Hamilton wrote it.BobMaguire.
Spare a thought for poor Richard Dawkins; atheism is such a difficult position to maintain. Belief in ‘God’ ranges from vague undefined ideas of a creative ‘life force’ in the universe to sophisticated philosophical arguments of substance. So which God does he deny? To claim none of these exists is a hard act to convincingly carry off.