Monday, October 22, 2007 | Reason : Political | print version

Downward, Christian soldier

by AC Grayling, Guardian

Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.

Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ac_grayling/2007/10/downward_christian_soldier.html

There is no reason for the head of the British army to air his religious ideas - they have no relevance to his job or our troops.

Let us first leave aside the fact that if General Sir Richard Dannatt were genuinely and fully consistent in his views as an evangelical Christian, he would not be a general or indeed any kind of soldier (except a "Christian soldier" in the meaning of the hymn). His trade is war, war involves killing, the rather thin ethics of the founder of his faith implies pacifism and explicitly demands turning the other cheek rather than shooting and bombing: and so we see what professions of faith are really worth, in the long tradition of bishops blessing tanks.

But it is no surprise to find inconsistency and hypocrisy among the bulwarks of faith, and the general might share views about the good that the profession of killing does (not least, one supposes, to those who deserve it) with the crusaders and Torquemada and other more vigorous theorisers of what faith licenses and requires. That will not make his views less inconsistent or unpalatable, but at least less hypocritical.

The point here, however, is the general's comments about the need he feels to tell his squaddies that an afterlife awaits them if they die in battle, and (here I paraphrase) that Jesus is with them amidst the explosions and whistling bullets as they fight. Well: we must suppose that he really believes this BS, because if it were a case of bolstering the courage of his troops with falsehoods (as they are) that he knew to be such, it would be as dishonest and dishonourable a thing as one could imagine. Instead of which, it is something else: as follows.

That a grown man of some intelligence and experience believes what he does is, as ever, proof (the joke owes itself to David Hume) that miracles still occur. What is unacceptable is that he does not keep the miracle to himself, that he aspires to proselytise, inculcate, enjoin or encourage people in a disciplinary hierarchy under him to think and act in line with those personal views, that he does so in a context in which people who have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way are being treated in his remarks as moral children needing to be solaced with fairy stories, and that what he is saying - clearly without recognising the irony, the bitter irony - is a version of the rubbish that impels people of a different (and from the general's point of view - were he consistent - blasphemous and false) faith to kill and die also, too many of them as suicide bombers attacking the innocent, believing in a life after death full of rewards, and enjoying spiritual strength as they seek them through murder and mayhem.

All these are indictable offences before the courts of reason, propriety and good sense, and the general at the very least merits being put on probation for them.

Imagine if any chief of the general staff said that religion is a lot of guff and the chaplains and ministers of other faiths in the armed forces should all be sacked. If that were thought inappropriate for a senior serving officer to say, then by exact parity of reasoning the remarks that the general has made are inappropriate. To repeat: his beliefs are his personal business; it is utterly unacceptable that he should use his rank in the armed services to push his personal views on those beneath him in rank. I think he should undertake to keep his religious views to himself while he serves, or he should resign and promote them, if he wishes, from private life.

Members of the armed services have volunteered for a hazardous profession. It is remarkable and admirable how much courage and dedication they display, and how much sacrifice they make - so hackneyed, these terms, yet far more true than hackneyed, which is why they always bear repeating - in the execution of the duties they have been rigorously trained to perform. Their duty, courage and sacrifice belongs to the army and through it the country; what they think about matters of value, life and death belongs to themselves. It is their own possession as individuals; it is not a matter for the sergeant major or the company commander or the chief of the general staff. Let the latter believe in pixies or the gods of Olympus, but let him shut up about it, and not bother his troops with matters other than the hard business they have in hand.

I can only guess what responses the general's remarks have met with in barracks, other than that they would probably not be repeatable in church on Sundays. If so, quite right too.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, October 22, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 36 of 36 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #80609 by nancy2001 on October 22, 2007 at 10:17 am

Excellent article. I agree with every word.

Other Comments by nancy2001

2. Comment #80615 by JemyM on October 22, 2007 at 10:36 am

Whenever I hear this stuff I cannot resist to get an image of the vikings. Battle with all your might and we will meet in valhalla afterwards. Christianity within an army is exactly the same. If I was a soldier I would never put my life beneath someone who believe in an afterlife.

Other Comments by JemyM

3. Comment #80616 by SRWB on October 22, 2007 at 10:41 am

Brilliant. Once again Grayling has hit a target dead on. As a military member, I think he has made some excellent points. The problem is that it is usually considered good form for the leadership of the military, government, etc. to spout about God, an afterlife, etc. as long as we are talking about Christianity.

Other Comments by SRWB

4. Comment #80634 by cowalker on October 22, 2007 at 12:02 pm

jemym: "Whenever I hear this stuff I cannot resist to get an image of the vikings."

LOL. Right before I read your comment I was visualizing a group of souls of Christian soldiers meeting a group of souls of Muslim fighters at the transition point where they're going to become part of the World Soul. What would they say to each other before they lost their individuality? But they could be meeting at the gate of Valhalla instead, or at the dock where Charon takes on his passengers.

In the obituaries I often see a death described as "Jane Doe has gone to walk with Jesus." I think I'll write my own obit and specify that "Cowalker has gone to feast with Odin in Valhalla."

Other Comments by cowalker

5. Comment #80645 by Godless Heathen on October 22, 2007 at 1:36 pm

To paraphrase Bill Maher:

"A general who didn't believe that his dead soldiers would go to heaven, would be less willing to send them off to war to get killed."

Other Comments by Godless Heathen

6. Comment #80650 by jeremynel on October 22, 2007 at 1:48 pm

What is unacceptable is that he does not keep the miracle to himself, that he aspires to proselytise, inculcate, enjoin or encourage people in a disciplinary hierarchy under him to think and act in line with those personal views, that he does so in a context in which people who have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way are being treated in his remarks as moral children needing to be solaced with fairy stories, and that what he is saying - clearly without recognising the irony, the bitter irony - is a version of the rubbish that impels people of a different (and from the general's point of view - were he consistent - blasphemous and false) faith to kill and die also, too many of them as suicide bombers attacking the innocent, believing in a life after death full of rewards, and enjoying spiritual strength as they seek them through murder and mayhem.

What a long sentence.

Other Comments by jeremynel

7. Comment #80659 by pwl on October 22, 2007 at 2:21 pm

I read the generals comments in the times this week
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2681695.ece) and I am glad to read an intelligent and rational response.

Other Comments by pwl

8. Comment #80691 by mjwemdee on October 22, 2007 at 4:23 pm

Comment #80650 by jeremynel

I agree. I love to hear from A C Grayling for his views, (I have all his books at home) but I do wish his editors would occasionally make him review his syntax. The clarity of his thinking is almost negated by this sort of labyrinthine prose.

Other Comments by mjwemdee

9. Comment #80706 by Theocrapcy on October 22, 2007 at 5:36 pm

I get the feeling the good General also uses his religion to forgive him the sins of sending soldiers off to their deaths. Must feel all warm and cudly knowing that Jebus fogives him anything.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

10. Comment #80716 by USA_Limey on October 22, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Ahhh... religion and the military.

Just take a look here to see where that ends:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

I also recommend these links for people who still insist Nazi Germany was secular.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

11. Comment #80737 by Vardu on October 22, 2007 at 9:41 pm

How silly it is for anyone involved in the military - a permanent organization for the destruction of life and property - to have, let alone talk, about their belief in some hypothetical omnibenevolent deity.
Surely it is the ultimate expression of hypocrisy.

Other Comments by Vardu

12. Comment #80761 by irate_atheist on October 23, 2007 at 2:12 am

When I read this of someone with the power of life and death over thousands, why am I somehow reminded of 'Brain Damage' by the Floyd?

The lunatic is on the grass.
The lunatic is on the grass.
Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs.
Got to keep the loonies on the path.

The lunatic is in the hall.
The lunatics are in my hall.
The paper holds their folded faces to the floor
And every day the paper boy brings more.

And if the dam breaks open many years too soon
And if there is no room upon the hill
And if your head explodes with dark forebodings too
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

The lunatic is in my head.
The lunatic is in my head
You raise the blade, you make the change
You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane.
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me.

And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear
You shout and no one seems to hear.
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

Are you out there somewhere General?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

13. Comment #80777 by Haymoon on October 23, 2007 at 2:47 am

From the original Telegraph article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/18/ndannatt118.xml

He has been described by those close to him as "frighteningly intelligent".

Need more be said ?

Other Comments by Haymoon

14. Comment #80778 by detox on October 23, 2007 at 2:47 am

irate_atheist

Was in a production years ago of 'Oh, What a lovely war' and this verse, from your source, always seemed disturbingly apposite:

Us and them
and after all we're only ordinary men
me and you
God only knows it's not what we would choose to do
forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died
and the General sat, and the lines on the map
moved from side to side

Other Comments by detox

15. Comment #80780 by irate_atheist on October 23, 2007 at 2:59 am

Haymoon -

That statement appears to be 50% accurate.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

16. Comment #80807 by Mercurius on October 23, 2007 at 5:05 am

Superb article from the ever eloquent A C Grayling - there are atheists and agnostics in foxholes General, whatever you may wish to think otherwise...

Other Comments by Mercurius

17. Comment #80813 by Johnny O on October 23, 2007 at 5:16 am

a permanent organization for the destruction of life and property

As an ex-member of this permanent organization, I'd like to point out that it spends far more of it's time protecting life and property. In 9 years of service I raised my weapon, at another human being once and thankfully didn't have to fire it. (Though I would have, to protect the lives of my colleagues, if he hadn't dropped his weapon). I did however do a lot of peace keeping and construction In Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leon and Somalia.

Maybe you should think more clearly before making glib remarks to try and score points...

Other Comments by Johnny O

18. Comment #80815 by Johnny O on October 23, 2007 at 5:22 am

there are atheists and agnostics in foxholes General, whatever you may wish to think otherwise...

This is so true though you'll never find the statistics to prove it.

When I joined up we were told NOT to say we were Atheist as we would be given extra duties if our troop or squadron was ever on church parade, for things like Rememberence Day. (Which I still attend every year). So all the Military records will show about 99% of serving personel as belonging to a faith.

My own dog tags still show me as being church of Scotland as at the time I joined, (I was only 18), I wasn't particularly bothered about standing up for my lack of belief, I was just more interested in not cleaning toilets or peeling spuds.

I recently attended my first Humanist Service for an old Army mate who had just returned from Afghanistan. (He died 4 days after returning from a 6 month tour, how shit is that?)

It was the most personal funeral service I have ever attended and several of the other soldiers made comment about the fact that they had requested the same thing on their Next Of Kin forms.

Other Comments by Johnny O

19. Comment #80860 by Vendetta on October 23, 2007 at 8:21 am

Johnny O, I live in Montana and about a month ago there was a returning soldier that was hit by a truck while stopped at a red light (he was on a motorcycle). I can't imagine how hard that would have been for his fiancee and child to take, especially after returning home safely from such a hell hole, and being killed while doing nothing wrong. It's just so sad and horrible.

Of course people used this as an opportunity to turn to their faith. It makes me nauseous. How can they believe in, much less worship, a God that would do such a thing, and just chalk it up to him working in mysterious ways?

Other Comments by Vendetta

20. Comment #80874 by Mr DArcy on October 23, 2007 at 9:34 am

Oh for a world without soldiers, priests, and politicians.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

21. Comment #80883 by adamhaar on October 23, 2007 at 10:25 am

Re: 16. Comment #80807 by Mercurius

there are atheists and agnostics in foxholes General

I think that's what the General would like to change . . . .

Other Comments by adamhaar

22. Comment #80995 by BT Murtagh on October 23, 2007 at 9:37 pm

Grayling's long sentences are a style which few writers could pull off well (which no doubt is why English teachers keep pushing brevity as a primary virtue in sentences), but that is largely because most writers don't start off a sentence with any clear idea of how it will end, while with Grayling's prose each sentence, however prolix, contains a single albeit often complex and nuanced idea.

I like that.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

23. Comment #81060 by brother john on October 24, 2007 at 1:52 am

A nasty piece of work is AC Grayling - as far as his manner of talking about believers.

The main point escapes him - as usual with such diatribes of vitriolic personal unfounded opinion. The main point is that Richard Dannart has been the only one to speak up with courage and force on behalf of the military personnel under his command - and care.
His has been the strong condemnation of the Government's betrayal of their duty to care for them. Men and women who lay down their lives for country and its policies.

For your interest the Gospel is not synonyumous with pacifism.
Inconsistency and hypoocriusy are not the bulwarks of faith.
What is asserted without evidence can be disregarded.

Atheists like him give atheists a bad name. Even atheists are bound by reason and honesty to portray the beliefs of those they despise fairly. Setting up straw men is the gambit of the devious and those unconcerned for truth.

I disagree with him - therefore I can say anything I like about him - that is one of the statements of the atheist creed - as amply proved over and over again in this forum.

He has the self-serving cheek to write about "indictable offence before the court of reason propriety and honesty". Grayling breaks all those three criteria.
I usually take a more conciliatory line, looking for the points of agreement. In this flagrant case of rampant rabid prejudice, I believe that reason demands |I speak out clearly.

Before the court of reason propriety and honesty Grayling is an utter fraud. Or incapable of consistent, accurate, honest evidence based thinking. As is anyone who agres with all he says.

He is the first atheist ranter who has made me feel really angry. Some achievement on his part.

I won't even bother with him to check again whether there is anything in his piece that deserves agreement. The BS is far too smelly for considerate approaches.

Other Comments by brother john

24. Comment #81097 by Johnny O on October 24, 2007 at 4:38 am

Brother John

What is asserted without evidence can be disregarded.

Like Religion?

Couldn't have put it better myself...

Other Comments by Johnny O

25. Comment #81100 by irate_atheist on October 24, 2007 at 5:31 am

Brother John -

1) General Dannatt is not "speaking up for his troops" in this instance. He is trying to force his own personal delusion upon them. The fact that we can both agree that he has stood up to the government's shameful neglect of our soldiers is neither here nor there in this context. Soldiers join up to serve their country -not to be preached at by those who have the power of life and death over them.

2) The Gospels are not synonymous with internal consistency either. Hardly helps your side of the theist/atheist debate does it? I offer no apology for stating this.

3) In my experience, inconsistency and hipocrisy have to be bulwarks of faith - faith itself is so inconsistent and its claims so hipocritical that it cannot avoid the charge.

4) "What is asserted without evidence can be disregarded." Absolutely - I couldn't agree more Brother. The phrase "Hoisted by your own petard" springs somewhat uncharitably to mind.

5) In my experience many of the faithful profess different beliefs - quite often, in my experience, to different people in different contexts depending on how they don't want to be pinned down. You appear to be an exception to this rule, for which I salute you. Others are far more slippery.

6) I for one do not 'despise' the good general. He is a man who seems to care deeply about his men, is a good leader and tactician. He is, however wrong and is trying to spread his own brand of wrongness (see point 1 above). His behaviour is deplorable, even if, as an individual, he is not. (Hate the sin but love the sinner, anyone? Even some of us atheists find it's a better way to get on with people...)

7) There is no such thing as "atheist creed". A classic strawman and I'll say no more about that assertion.

8) To quote:

Before the court of reason propriety and honesty Grayling is an utter fraud. Or incapable of consistent, accurate, honest evidence based thinking. As is anyone who agrees with all he says.

Sorry Brother, once again we differ in our viewpoint. His views are consistent and are based on both logic and reasoning. No religion can honestly claim the same. As a rider to this, may I add that I sincerely doubt (though I may be proven wrong) that no one actually agrees with everything AC Grayling says May we assume you are purely referring to everything he says in this article?

9) And as for

The BS is far too smelly for considerate approaches.

Well, perhaps you are starting to understand how some people think about religious texts and how they should be treated.

You may still be wondering why many of us are so pissed off with religion, theism, deism (take your pick, many believers do). Please let me enlighten you further.

Many of us have been discriminated against, from an early age, by its adherants and our opinions made to feel 'wrong' and 'socially unacceptable'.

Many of us have friends or relatives who are recovering from the breath-taking inanities and falsehoods that 'faith' has inculcated into them.

Many of us are sick of 'religion' having a priveliged placed in society - one that it does not deserve.

Many of us are sick to the back teeth of bronze-age myths being peddled as the 'most important truths' in the world.

To be blunt, many of us have had enough of this legitimised insanity and we're simply not going to stand for it anymore.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

26. Comment #81102 by BAEOZ on October 24, 2007 at 5:39 am

Brother John: Prove it. Don't embarrass yourself by referring to the gospel. Just prove it. If god exists, wants all to know this and intervenes in the world (how else could a saint be a saint without the polytheistic act of praying to a saint to intervene and get god to save or help one person? All the time whilst god gleefully punishes us because he made us bad? or do you think original sin is a lie?)
Just prove it. I can prove I exist. You prove god exists.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

27. Comment #81103 by BAEOZ on October 24, 2007 at 5:41 am

If you can't prove god exists, or can only prove you exists in a cartesian way. Then if you are honest you'll stop believing in god.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

28. Comment #81262 by Mr DArcy on October 24, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Whilst awaiting brother john's proof of the existence of God, I must compliment him on his more frank style. brother john obviously knows more about A.C. Grayling than he is letting on, at least for the moment.

To say that that Dannatt's views are much on a par with Bin Laden's would be repeating what others have said. "Don't worry boys, even if you are blown to bits by a landmine, you will continue to live forever, (somewhere else that no-one knows about)", seems to me to be Dannatt's message. Okay so 72 virgins are not the incentive, but instead, the british soldiers can be happy in knowing that "right" is on their side. Talk about cannon fodder, that's one thing the religios are good at.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

29. Comment #81685 by brother john on October 25, 2007 at 3:18 am

dear baeoz,
May I say one thing: my experience with this forum is that most of you dear folk (and I mean the "dear" sincerely) for some reason are not open to reasonablediscussion.
That may be because I have not yet understood you properly - or maybe because I have not yet understood the FULL EXTENT OF THE enormous harm that fraudulent, insincere Christianity - of which there has been much since Christ "took off".

Which leads me to reply to you Irate Atheist: thank you for your list of reasons why you are sick to the back teeth with religion.

I am too with much of the "Christianity" I see around.

To both of you I say this: give me a chance to show you both that(1) I hate (probably most of) the things you hate and, secondly, what true Christianity should be.
The criticisms I make along the way of Christianity in my responses to Richard's book (www.theheartofgod)should indicate the main lines of this "true face".

It will take time - but you will not find a more sympathetic approach.

Other Comments by brother john

30. Comment #81711 by irate_atheist on October 25, 2007 at 4:28 am

29. Comment #81685 by brother john -

Aha!!! I see you play your trump card. Your interpretation of Christianity is the 'true' one and most of the others are wrong!!!

I regret to say that, whilst I am bound to agree with you on many matters of morality and suchlike, I am not swayed but this particular assertion.

You interpret Chrisitianity as you want to interpret it. Others do the same. My dearly beloved father in law, for example, neatly sidesteps the filth in the Old Testament by saying "We're New Testament Christians here - we ignore all of that nastiness". And there's no hell, gays should be allowed to marry, etc etc etc.

He does this - as you do - because he is the very essence of a decent man. Not because of what is written in a mish-mash of a book of dubious provenance.

Yes - he may well quote The Bible to his flock to support his viewpoint. But that which does not do so, is not spouted from his pulpit. The man on the spot, is it were, decides his own 'true' interpretation that his flock should believe and follow.

If all that Christanity, its priests and adherants preached were love, tolerance and goodness to one's fellow human, I would support them (as I support Amnesty Internationl, The British Red Cross et al) but they do not. They have to adhere to - or at least pretend to adhere to - a false set of premises and convince others of their truth. Not particulary moral behaviour, either way you look at it.

Below, I will outline an example of where a certain indivdual and I stand on some matters:

-----

1) I wholeheartedly support Rown Williams recent statements about how children are being hot-housed and treated by their parents and that, where possible, parents should make sacrifices (usually financial) to spend time with and actually care for, their offspring.

2) However, when the Archbishop of Canterbury says -

"Christianity teaches that each person is created by God with a distinct calling and capacity."

(Ref: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/070512.htm)

- I call this assertion, for that is all that it is, absurd. If the assertion were true, He quite clearly wants 30,000 children a day to die in Africa from preventable causes.

-----

No doubt you will assert, in the second case, - as would the Archbishop - of course He doesn't, He wants us to help them. (But he cannot/will not? Answer that within the framework of a perfect, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God if you possibly can.)

My reasonable response to this can only be, "What makes you so special he has a plan for your life whilst thousands of children are, literally, dying from poverty. How arrogant. How ignorant. How deluded.

My dear Brother, it's over to you. I sincerely hope that your reply to the above is not what I expect it to be. (It's a real shame that I know of no way to create a 'hidden panel' on this thread that you could reveal immediately after posting your answer)

Other Comments by irate_atheist

31. Comment #82268 by brother john on October 26, 2007 at 1:19 am

Dear Baeoz –
"Prove it. Prove it." You say, and the emphasis in your repetition seems to show that it IS a matter of grave concern.
I say one thing. THINK FOR YOURSELF WITH ALL THE COURAGE AND HONESTY/ INTEGRITY YOU CAN MUSTER. That is the only way to prove God exists.
I have repeatedly said, Gods existence cannot be proved by one individual to another. There are plenty of powerful INDICATORS, but no such thing as a proof you can write down. That is too simple. Equivalent to religion on the cheap.
Second key point. Coming to a belief in the God is like falling in love. It is something YOU do. You don't ask someone else to do it. "YOU tell me who I should fall in love with. YOU go out and find the person I should share my life with for me." Ridiculous isn't it to ask that. Well, dear Baeoz. You are saying just that when you ask me to prove that God exists.
If you want to prove whether God exists – SEARCH WITH ALL YOUR HEART. Don't follow the herd.
I repeat that; DON'T FOLLOW THE HERD. You dear atheists are as capable as the rest of humanity, believers included, of FOLLOWING THE HERD And YOU DO. And every herd has leaders. Richard is the chief herd leader in atheism at present.
I listen to every person. Because I have learnt by personal experience that everyone can teach me something.
I am married to an atheist. Which has been a great blessing. Because she is a great woman. So i know a bit about two committed people of opposing viewpoints on belief getting on in LOVE.
I repeat: if you want to get on that search – the most significant question for any human being.
=============

Dear Irate atheist..
"Aha!" my trump card as you call it. You have got it wrong. It may seem like that. But so much of life is NOT what it seems. The mature person gets underneath all the "seeming" or , at least, does his best to.
No. Christianity is not up for grabs for anyone to interpret as they will. It is down in black and white in the pages of the New Testament, supremely in those of the four gospels. And in those parts of the Old Testament that are in agreement with all that Christ taught – in both words and actions.
We Christians are called to discuss IN LOVE (joke, that, isn't it so often?) how we understand and live the Gospel of Christ. And to give a good reasons for our different understanding.
Please don't ponttifficate at me about what I believe and why. That IS arrogance.
I say again, If you are sincere in searching for the truth, reading my blog will be useful to you.
Somewhere along its course I will write about the problem of evil which you mention. One which deserves respect, I hasten to add – for we are talking about enormous suffering. A problem I hold first of all in my HEART, secondly in my head. You may understand the import of that statement – or not.

Let me, in ending give you what I have garnered of the atheist credo from the pages of this forum. Not all of it. Just two of your basic dogmas.
1st. Where religion is concerned thou shalt see all things in terms of black or whit. Preferably all black – for that is the truth. Greys are non-existent.
2nd Thou shalt not take what they (the believers) say as valid for they are all either fools, or
irrem ediably conditioned,self-deluded or downright evil, certainly incapable of rational thought.
As the Irish comedian used to say, "Go with your god"
You remain in my heart. Your brother John.

Other Comments by brother john

32. Comment #82292 by Fathom on October 26, 2007 at 2:28 am

Hello Brother John,

You said:

Let me, in ending give you what I have garnered of the atheist credo from the pages of this forum. Not all of it. Just two of your basic dogmas.
1st. Where religion is concerned thou shalt see all things in terms of black or whit. Preferably all black – for that is the truth. Greys are non-existent.
2nd Thou shalt not take what they (the believers) say as valid for they are all either fools, or
irrem ediably conditioned,self-deluded or downright evil, certainly incapable of rational thought.
As the Irish comedian used to say, "Go with your god"

To some extent I'm inclined to agree. Where religion is concerned, to an atheist there is only black or white. There is no god - any god - so no matter how you describe your own particular god or your holy scriptures, teachings tenets or dogma it's all just unsupported ramblings. For this reason we don't take what believers say as valid when it is based on the centuries old opinions of unknown authors of questionable motives. Quote from your holy book and our response will always be the same; we don't accept that as an authority any more than we would the teachings of Sherlock Holmes.

On the other hand we may agree with many of your moralistic views, no matter what your particular religion, usually because we arrived at ours the way you arrived at yours; by relying on our simple humanity. You may think your morality comes from your holy book but do you really rely on holy law? When did you last stone an adulterer?

If we believed you were irredemiably conditioned we would not even bother to discuss this with you. Although we do think you are deluded we realise that - because this is mostly due to indoctrination at a young and vulnerable age - we would not say you are self-deluded. It is clear that some of you are downright evil (pick your own example) sometimes despite your religion but, sadly, often because of it. Rational thought is (as Forrest Gump's mother would say) as rational thought does. I'm sure you are all capable of it.

I think the Irish comedian you meant was Dave Allen but the quote is "may your god go with you". Odd that you should quote a popular atheist comedian.

Please pass on my kind regards to your wife. She is welcome to converse with us here at any time. I can only imagine the fascination conversations you must have at home...

F

Other Comments by Fathom

33. Comment #82665 by brother john on October 27, 2007 at 7:02 am

I have been looking for the full text of
Sir Richard Dannatt's Swanwick Conference address that caused Grayling to be so upset. Have not been able to find it.
But I did find another address of his
that may interest some of you, if you are interested in the Armed Forces both as a whole and as a large grouping of individual people who are brother sister father mother or relative of someone or other; and in the politico-military scene that our threatened Planet finds itself in.

The man is pretty smart. His analysis makes interesting reading...but becomes heavy going for a non-military person in the "Physical Component" section. complex language and technical military jargon.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/CgsSpeaksOntomorrowsArmyTodaysChallenges.htm

Other Comments by brother john

34. Comment #83350 by brother john on October 29, 2007 at 6:51 pm

dearfathom

Thanks for your calm non-sarcastic reply to my post.
(I explain below why I have added words to your text in []s.)
"[We believe]There is no god - any god - so no matter how you describe your own [beliefs about your]particular god or your holy scriptures, teachings tenets or dogma it's all just unsupported ramblings [as far as we are concerned]. For this reason we don't take what believers say as valid when [ie because we believe] it is based on the centuries old [and therefore unacceptable/invalid]opinions of unknown authors of [whose motives we, as atheists, assume to be] questionable motives. Quote from your holy book and our response will always be the same; we don't accept that as an authority any more than we would the teachings of Sherlock Holmes.[We realise that the parallel works to our advange and prejudges the issue by clearly implying that your holy book was written by fictional characters.]"

it's all just unsupported ramblings. Fathom? Who told you this? Come on, you believe in rational discussion, what is your evidence for saying its "unsupported" and, further, that it's "ramblings"?

.You're proud of your rationality and logicality. As I am proud of mine. Well. If my beliefs and opinions are "ramblings" or "unsupported" just because they are contrary to your beliefs and opinions - then, it follows reasonably and rationally and logically - that your opinions and beliefs are unsupported and ramblings because they are contrary to mine.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

"centuries old opinions of unknown authors of questionable motives."

centuries old opinions - this forum quotes Seneca for example, with approval. But your comment implies that centuries old opinions are equivalent to "of no value for a rational man" - which you and I are - unless you happen to be a woman!

My "authors" you refer to, they are not all unknown - and the chief one is very well known.

And as for "questionable motives".
While I admit that there are, I'm sure, a fair number of Christians living or well dead whose motives are or were questionable - by the law of averages this must be true - nonetheless

first I ask you why you assume/believe that these authors' motives were "questionable"? This needs proof.
If you have no proof other than the fact of their believing x y or z - then YOUR motives are questionable because you believe a b or c.

It may surprise you to know that even Christians (I don't speak for other religions) value reason and logic and rationality.

I have added words to your text in []s to bring out what you are ACTUALLY asserting. Tell me if my additions falsify our meaning.

Other Comments by brother john

35. Comment #83437 by irate_atheist on October 30, 2007 at 3:24 am

34. Comment #83350 by brother john -

I very much doubt that fathom is actually saying the people who wrote these books did not exist. In the same way that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle existed and Sherlock Holmes' adventures were fiction.

The writings in the bible, however, are a mixture of fact, allegory and myth. Part of the division between us is where we draw the line on this matter. Can we agree on this?

On another note - I did draft and send a long response to your last post to me. Unfortunately (and not for the first or last time I suspect) the damn post disappeared into the ether never to be seen again. But, to precis very briefly:

1) Science, empirical study and reason allow us to see behind the 'seeming'.

2) Well, OK, if you only take the parts that agree with New Testament, then you agree the rest is 'false' religion. Was it a different God in the wrong parts? Were these 'prophets' mistaken? What is your interpretation?

3) Fine - discuss all you like - it is your right to do so. I'm perfectly happy to take some of his examples - story of the good samaritan, for example - as good examples of caring for others. Cutting off your own hand if you do something bad with it, however, is lunacy.

4) I do not intend pontificating to you as to what you believe and I hope I do not give that impression. The you in my posting was directed at Dr Williams in the third person. I am, however, curious to know your take on his statement.

5) I don't feel I was discussing evil, more discussing the rationale behind holding an obviously absurd belief that is claimed to be universally true. Yes - I do understand your statement as regards head/heart.

6) Black & white views - as regards gods, absolutely. No real evidence for, or need of, any. As regards people and their actions, of course not. I used one example in my posting where I am in strong agreement with a leading religionist on a matter. I then gave an example where I strongly disagree with the individual on a different matter.

7) It may sound harsh, but when believers talk about their god, they are deluded. On other topics they well be world experts and worthy of high regard. Please bear in mind that there are plenty of educated individuals, and even emminent Professors, of different faiths. You and I can only reasonably conclude that someone's academic standing cannot be used to ascertain the truth of their religious beliefs.

Anyway, I hope you had a pleasant weekend. I'd better dash - got to go out and see a client now.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

36. Comment #84329 by Enlightenme.. on November 1, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Brother John:

...give me a chance to show you both that(1) I hate (probably most of) the things you hate...

Brother, this ain't the atheist creed I recognise. Of course, you will find people looking for something to feel that way about here - they appear to have missed the strapline in red at the top.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

Reload Comments | Back to Top