Print
2007, a bad year for God squadders
by Times Online
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article3080429.ece?Submitted=true
2007, a bad year for God squadders
It was the believers that did most to discredit religion this year, not the atheists
Nothing better measures the retreat of religion in our postmodern society than the diminished intensity of the war over Christmas.
This fight — waged for decades by a dwindling band of religious insurgents against a prevailing secularist consensus — used to be fought with a real passion. People actually once got quite upset about saucy Christmas cards or television schedules that omitted even a hint of religion between the comedy classics and the game shows.
Now it just amounts to a few feeble skirmishes, a couple of barmy Christians railing outside the shopping malls, while everybody else gets on with their daily worship at the shrines of the modern trinity: shopping, eating and drinking.
The Christmas war, in fact, is rapidly acquiring the status of historical curiosity. In a few years' time, we'll have to stage re-enactments, like those Civil War buffs who gather in soggy fields:
"Look, George. Those people over there with the lanterns and the hymn books actually used to believe in the whole Christmas Story."
"Wow. They look so real. What was the Christmas Story, Mum?"
The retreat continues, despite the best efforts of the Anglicans to keep making concessions to disbelieving modernity, as the Archbishop of Canterbury did again this week with his observation that we were obliged to treat the Christmas Story really as just a legend. Like Alfred and the burnt cakes, I suppose.
Christmas closes another year that has been pretty brutal on the God squadders, a year in which the swelling tide of unbelief crashed further through the structures of our cultural architecture.
If you measure intelligent sentiment by book-reading habits alone, then atheism was a big winner in 2007. Richard Dawkins continued to wave an angry Darwinian fist in the faces of carol singers (before, it turns out, rather oddly, lining up with them for a quick rendition of God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen) with his exposure of the God Delusion. He was joined by Christopher Hitchens, whose God is Not Great will be filling many Christmas stockings.
But the atheists didn't confine their advances to the rather narrow field of non-fiction for grown-ups. Seizing on the old Jesuit principle of getting them while their young, Philip Pullman went Hollywood this year with the Dark Materials trilogy.
Mr Pullman, knowing a commercial opportunity when he saw one, described Catholics who objected to the adaptation of his books, which feature as the principal villain a thinly disguised Papacy, as "nitwits".
This seems to be wanting to have your polemical cake and eating it. You can hardly blame Catholics for feeling a bit defensive. He told an interviewer a few years ago that the main purpose in writing his books was to undermine belief in God. Now belief in God may be increasingly optional these days for the more lukewarm leaders of Anglicanism but it is still pretty much a prerequisite for Catholics.
As ever, though, when it comes to discrediting religion, the efforts of atheist polemicists and fantasists were no match for the behaviour of believers themselves.
A certain brand of fanatical Islam continues to lead the world in advertising the deep unpleasantness of religion as it can be practised — whether submitting rape victims in Saudi Arabia to the lash or threatening the same against aberrant teddy bear teachers in Sudan, all in the name of God.
The unprepossessing brand of exclusive evangelicalism followed in some parts of America ( the "I'm Saved, You're Not" approach to salvation) has never been far from the headlines this year and is also very effective in turning people away from religion.
But this year also seemed to produce the most unlikely addition to the ranks of the unbelievers. In September we learnt that Mother Teresa, even while she was saving millions of souls in Calcutta, was apparently losing her own. Her posthumously published autobiography, Come Be My Light, much of it in the form of anguished letters to priests and others, recounted how the Blessed Teresa (she was beatified in 2003) had endured what theologians call a long, dark night of the soul. She repeatedly expressed the most excruciating of doubts about the existence of God and the faith to which she had dedicated her life.
The reaction to the book was predictable. She was denounced as a fraud and a hypocrite by some, welcomed posthumously into the ranks of the unbelievers by others. Few bothered to read through to the end and discover that Teresa recovered her faith before she died in 1997.
That someone as self-evidently devout as Mother Teresa could have been tormented for so long by such doubts should not be read as confirmation that the atheists have got it right. The lesson of Mother Teresa's long, dark night of the soul is precisely the opposite, in fact. That faith, by its very nature, entails doubt. If we could be really, truly certain, about the existence of God, what, really, would be the point of it all?
It is the Christmas Story, or legend if you will, as much as anything we believe, that underlines this essential tension between faith and doubt.
You'd have thought (and certainly the pre-Christians did) that the Son of God, when He chose, would enter the world in a way that would leave no doubt who He was or that He existed.
But He chose instead to come in a way that ensured just about the maximum room for doubt; merely another barely noticed nativity in the most miserable of circumstances. If you were lucky enough to be one of those shepherds on the hills around Bethlehem who got the news from the angelic host, or one of the wise men who followed that star, you were lucky. No long, dark night of the soul for you. Instead, just one brilliant flash of celestial light and the secret of the universe was revealed.
But for the rest of us, forced to ponder the complexity of our existence and the competing implausibilities of faith and unbelief, that was surely the point of the manger, the stable, the ox and the ass. That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, December 20, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 71 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #101605 by Thanny on December 20, 2007 at 3:03 pm
It started out not so bad, but just had to end with rubbish.I've yet to see any screed remotely in favor of religion that showed any real consciousness of the fact that there have been thousands of belief systems invented on this planet, and that no religion (not even their pet one, whatever it may be) has ever held sway over a majority of the earth's peoples.
All these pro-faith nitwits come across as provincial ignoramuses.
Other Comments by Thanny
3. Comment #101606 by the great teapot on December 20, 2007 at 3:03 pm
?Other Comments by the great teapot
4. Comment #101608 by cursor on December 20, 2007 at 3:05 pm
That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.
That spoilt it for me.
Other Comments by cursor
5. Comment #101610 by Alex Malecki on December 20, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Wow, what convoluted, cliched nonsense. Other Comments by Alex Malecki
6. Comment #101612 by rev on December 20, 2007 at 3:08 pm
????????Other Comments by rev
7. Comment #101613 by rev on December 20, 2007 at 3:08 pm
?????????????????Other Comments by rev
8. Comment #101614 by rev on December 20, 2007 at 3:09 pm
It get bigger ???????????????????????????????Other Comments by rev
9. Comment #101615 by Inferno on December 20, 2007 at 3:09 pm
If we could be really, truly certain, about the existence of God, what, really, would be the point of it all?
Ummm, heaven, eternal life, being nice to everyone. I thought that was meant to be the point? Doesn't the bible say the only unforgivable sin is to doubt the holy ghost?
That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.
Oh, I agree. Same thing for all those people who claim to have been abducted by aliens - it's so unbelievable it must be true. In fact, scientology is even more unbelievable than christianity, so it must be even MORE true!
Other Comments by Inferno
10. Comment #101617 by Eamonn Shute on December 20, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Here is the original article, for anyone who wants to comment.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article3080429.ece?Submitted=true
Other Comments by Eamonn Shute
11. Comment #101618 by BAEOZ on December 20, 2007 at 3:17 pm
But He chose instead to come in a way that ensured just about the maximum room for doubt; merely another barely noticed nativity in the most miserable of circumstances.
Underlying assumption is that the nativity is somehow historical. It's not. I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist, just the implausability of a Galilean travelling to Bethlehem, avoiding robbers, for a census that didn't take place.....
If you were lucky enough to be one of those shepherds on the hills around Bethlehem who got the news from the angelic host, or one of the wise men who followed that star, you were lucky.
To paraphrase the archibishop, stars don't do that sort of thing. Also, at this time of year, shephards wouldn't be out in the fields at night, being cold and wintery......
forced to ponder the complexity of our existence and the competing implausibilities of faith and unbelief
Where is the implausibility of not believing when there's no evidence. Faith in a myth does seem problematic though.
That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.
As Daniel Dennett says in his book, religion hit upon a good idea. The more implausible or difficult the belief, the more one has to sacrifice because it must be the true belief and the only provider of the afterlife*.... Doesn't require god existing in the slightest
*Religion is great. It offers services that it can't demonstrate exist. What a sham.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
12. Comment #101621 by Richard Morgan on December 20, 2007 at 3:27 pm
That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.
The unbelievable compels us to believe? Really? I must be the odd one out here then : for me, lack of evidence kind of compels me to NOT believe. Am I that weird? (Don't answer that, PK!!!)
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
13. Comment #101626 by Janus on December 20, 2007 at 3:49 pm
The unprepossessing brand of exclusive evangelicalism followed in some parts of America ( the "I'm Saved, You're Not" approach to salvation) has never been far from the headlines this year and is also very effective in turning people away from religion.
As opposed to what? If salvation is to be a meaningful concept at all, there are only three possibilities. Either some people are saved and others aren't, or nobody's saved, or everybody is. But if everybody's saved already, then what's the point of this kind of religious belief?
That faith, by its very nature, entails doubt. If we could be really, truly certain, about the existence of God, what, really, would be the point of it all?
You tell me. What IS the point of religion? Many people would say that a big part of it is to provide moral guidance. If that's so, then being certain about the existence of God would mean we would know how He actually wants us to behave. As it is, His believers have to guess. Does He want us to shun and oppress homosexuals, or not? How does God feel about stem cell research? Is belief in God important, or are good works all that matter? God establishing His existence and His will clearly would solve a lot of problems. Also, it might save the two-thirds of the world who aren't Christians from an eternity of suffering, if you care about such things.
That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.
There's nothing strange or inexplicable about it. It's exactly the kind of story you'd expect superstitious, uneducated people living in the pre-scientific age to come up with. I mean, c'mon. A guiding star? A virgin birth? A half-god prophet? Walking on water? Magically healing the sick and bringing the dead back to life? An impending end of the world? Eternal bliss for those who follow the guy? All the popular mythological clichés.
Other Comments by Janus
14. Comment #101628 by Radesq on December 20, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Is that the best they can do? Truth is stranger than fiction...Mostly I am interested to know, can somebody tell this newbie American what exactly is "barmy" and what is with Alfred and the burnt cakes? I might at least find this article amusing if I understood the context
Other Comments by Radesq
15. Comment #101631 by kipton on December 20, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Nothing better measures the retreat of religion in our postmodern society than the diminished intensity of the war over Christmas.
Our society is postmodern? Since when?
Other Comments by kipton
16. Comment #101639 by SRWB on December 20, 2007 at 4:22 pm
If we could be really, truly certain, about the existence of God, what, really, would be the point of it all?
Then you wouldn't need to have FAITH would you? And we could could all go merrily on our knees praying every waking moment of the day knowing that He's listening and watching. Honestly, is there a large warehouse of columnists in the UK who get paid to churn out this crap?
Other Comments by SRWB
17. Comment #101640 by quill on December 20, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Radesq,Price Alfred of England once disguised himself as a peasant to hide from the Vikings, but turned out to be not such a great cook and was scolded by an old woman for having burned her cakes, so the story goes.
History Channel. :)
I'm quite relieved to hear that Mother Theresa recovered her faith before she died. Presumably this was after the exorcism, which was performed two hours before prior to her death. Pretty stressful things, those exorcisms. I'm sure it wasn't easy in her condition. But the important thing is that her soul recovered its Catholic label just in time. Hooray for the Church!
Other Comments by quill
18. Comment #101642 by SRWB on December 20, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Not from the UK but "barmy" is Brit for crazy and the tale of Alfred and the cakes refers to King Alfred of Wessex in the 9th century. While hiding from the Danish viking invaders he was apparently left in charge of some oatcakes, and they were burned. This earned him the wrath of a peasant woman.Other Comments by SRWB
19. Comment #101643 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 4:28 pm
That last sentence was a surpise: the fact it's all clearly such bollocks means it isn't. Other Comments by Dr Benway
20. Comment #101644 by quill on December 20, 2007 at 4:32 pm
No kidding. If the Jesus story is "so unbelievable, it compels us to believe", then get ready to be blown away because the Mormon story is even more so. Other Comments by quill
21. Comment #101645 by dlitt on December 20, 2007 at 4:35 pm
...so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.
That credulous twit has just defined 'cognitive dissonance'.
Other Comments by dlitt
22. Comment #101646 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 4:35 pm
We could have fun with this logic for hours, couldn't we. Each person trying to out-do the other in implausibility, and thereby proving their case. Other Comments by Dr Benway
23. Comment #101649 by Radesq on December 20, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Thanks for the info quill. As for If we could be really, truly certain, about the existence of God, what, really, would be the point of it all?
I thought Theists were "certain". Faith done properly provides certainty doesn't it? It just isn't amenable (couldn't resist) to objective proof. Doesn't this approach make even the "faithful" lukewarm agnostic? Again,not British or Anglican but willing to be educated.
Other Comments by Radesq
24. Comment #101651 by Steve Zara on December 20, 2007 at 4:47 pm
That last sentence was a surpise
I did not find it so much a surprise, as mentally unprocessable. It is almost like an attempt to see how much nonsense can be packed into a single sentence.
That God would choose
This is an omniscient God... choosing?
to come among us
Which seems a bit of a waste of time as He is supposed to be omnipresent as well.
in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable,
I assumed it was supposed to have been prophesied, so it should have not seemed that strange or inexplicable.
so unbelievable
Well, I can at least go for that
it compels us to believe
Apart from the fact that most don't, and that God is supposed to have given us free will, the real oddness is the idea that unbelievability should lead to believing.
I have just realised what this is all about. It is homeopathy! How do you "cure" rationality to let in faith?
Well, you take a bit of rationality - the like cures like principle of homeopathy (a baby was born long ago)
and dilute it (in a manger)
and dilute it (with all the animals in awe )
and dilute it (and kings came to visit bearing gifts)
and dilute it (something funny happened to the stars)
and dilute it (the baby was God)
and dilute it (well, sort of a third of God, but not quite)
And you have a high potency cure for rational thinking that compels you to believe! Amazing!
Other Comments by Steve Zara
25. Comment #101652 by Scott McMeekin on December 20, 2007 at 4:49 pm
*slaps forehead*Scott.
Other Comments by Scott McMeekin
26. Comment #101654 by USA_Limey on December 20, 2007 at 4:59 pm
We could have fun with this logic for hours, couldn't we. Each person trying to out-do the other in implausibility
It would end badly.
In an effort to come up with the most implausible stories we'd have to drop a few tabs of LSD to really get our creative juices flowing.
Other Comments by USA_Limey
27. Comment #101655 by Radesq on December 20, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Thanks SRWB also for the history lesson. Steve Z picks this thing apart much to easily. Quill your example of... if you think that's unbelievable try Mormonism is very apt and you could substitute any number of others Christian Scientist, Scientology, Branch Davidianism you name it. I have sometimes thought that starting my own cult would be very prophetable (there I go again) and easier than a real job -- but I guess I just don't have it in me. Other Comments by Radesq
28. Comment #101669 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 5:57 pm
The ontological argument revisited.Imagine the most implausible God possible. What would make such a God even more implausible, if not His actual existence?
Therefore by definition, the most implausible God you can't believe in actually exists.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
29. Comment #101672 by Flagellant on December 20, 2007 at 6:00 pm
I began to find difficulties when I read this sentenceSeizing on the old Jesuit principle of getting them while their young, Philip Pullman went Hollywood this year with the Dark Materials trilogy.I guess it should have been "they're" instead of "their". Almost excusable in a blog but not in a proper article.
Oh it is a blog, not a proper article, is it?
That explains the homophone - poor subediting - but not the degeneration in the last four or five paragraphs, changing the whole tenor of the piece, based on Mother Theresa's flip-flopping. Which part is meant to be ironic? Surely it's the ending...
Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
Other Comments by Flagellant
30. Comment #101674 by Rational_G on December 20, 2007 at 6:01 pm
WTF??????????????? Other Comments by Rational_G
31. Comment #101680 by Russell Blackford on December 20, 2007 at 6:12 pm
What a dangerous article.I nearly broke my arm when I reached the final sentence and fell off my chair, laughing.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
32. Comment #101683 by Haikuin on December 20, 2007 at 6:29 pm
"squadders" ?Did I miss an OED entry somewhere?
Other Comments by Haikuin
33. Comment #101685 by Haikuin on December 20, 2007 at 6:37 pm
I did love this, though:"But for the rest of us, forced to ponder the complexity of our existence and the competing implausibilities of faith and unbelief, that was surely the point of the manger, the stable, the ox and the ass. That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe."
Pity the poor bastard doesn't "come among us" in the teen pregnancies, youth gang murders, islamo fasciscists, democro fascists, M/I/B complex fascists, et al. Slacking bastard! Wot a fukkin ASS! Come on, GOD, let's find out if my weak-assed rational mind can put your face in the dirt! Arrrrghhh! You're too easy. I can burn you in my fireplace and not be bovvered.
Other Comments by Haikuin
34. Comment #101686 by Haikuin on December 20, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Just how many of us are "forced" to ponder "...the complexity of our existence and the competing implausibilities of faith and unbelief..." anyway?If we do (or are)why do we always wind up with an ass? Is that, like, the door prize or something?
Other Comments by Haikuin
35. Comment #101687 by Jack Rawlinson on December 20, 2007 at 6:43 pm
That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.Yuh! And the idea that flying saucers draw pretty circles in Farmer Giles's corn field just before abducting him and jamming an anal probe up his fundament is so bonkers it compels us to believe it!!
And they wonder why we disrespect them.
Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
36. Comment #101688 by mmurray on December 20, 2007 at 6:44 pm
We should forgive the grammatical mistakes. He clearly doesn't have both hands occupied by typing.Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
37. Comment #101704 by Eclectic on December 20, 2007 at 7:35 pm
The issue of "implausibility-means-it-must-be-true" was covered excellently by Sam Harris in the Four Horsemen video. Richard Dawkins also answered all of these questions about his carol singing before they had been asked.Other Comments by Eclectic
38. Comment #101714 by dweebs on December 20, 2007 at 8:01 pm
At the risk of sounding inarticulate- what bollocks.I truly expect better from the Times.
Other Comments by dweebs
39. Comment #101730 by mandrellian on December 20, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Bastard! Got me interested and made me read right until the second-last paragraph before whipping out a novelty plastic gun, pulling the trigger and ejecting a little flag with "PSYCH! GODDIDIT" on it. Utter, utter bastard. Classic bait & switch: "Hi guys, here's something a little bit interesting and OH WAIT NO IT'S NOT IT'S THE SAME OLD SHIT, BWAHAHAHA". Bah! Humbug![Ned Seagoon voice] I shall write to The Times about this!
Other Comments by mandrellian
40. Comment #101735 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 8:54 pm
This thread wins the "most use of the word 'bollocks' among the first 40 comments" prize. Other Comments by Dr Benway
41. Comment #101743 by monoape on December 20, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Seizing on the old Jesuit principle of getting them while their young, ...
'Their'? Don't think so. Try 'they're'. This coming from "Gerard Baker is United States Editor and an Assistant Editor of The Times." lmao.
That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.
Bollocks. It might compel someone devoid of all critical reasoning, but the rest of us spot the 'unbelievable' component as quite a large clue.
This thread now wins the "most use of the word 'bollocks' among the first 41 comments" prize. ;)
Other Comments by monoape
43. Comment #101748 by Arcturus on December 20, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Hey? Didn't you hear the good news? The Christmas story is just a myth :)
Other Comments by Arcturus
44. Comment #101760 by Lord of the Morning on December 20, 2007 at 10:55 pm
During the long dark night i found a flashlight, but glow in the dark crosses are awesome at raves. Other Comments by Lord of the Morning
45. Comment #101768 by flying goose on December 21, 2007 at 12:15 am
This person doesnt understand the dark night. by the way its is not depression.
negativism is the winner here.
Other Comments by flying goose
46. Comment #101770 by DNAtheist on December 21, 2007 at 12:43 am
But for the rest of us, forced to ponder the complexity of our existence and the competing implausibilities of faith and unbelief, that was surely the point of the manger, the stable, the ox and the ass. That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.
What stable, ox, and ass? None of these are mentioned in either of the two very different nativity stories in the Bible. This idiot is invoking non-existent biblical verses to argue for the authenticity of the bible.
Other Comments by DNAtheist
47. Comment #101771 by AdrianB on December 21, 2007 at 12:43 am
If you were lucky enough to be one of those shepherds on the hills around Bethlehem who got the news from the angelic host, or one of the wise men who followed that star, you were lucky. No long, dark night of the soul for you. Instead, just one brilliant flash of celestial light and the secret of the universe was revealed.At least he's managed to get in the best reason for NOT believing in my opinion.
We are supposed to believe that there were lucky people that actually met Jesus and knew his divinity. How lucky they were to truly know, and yet they couldn't be bothered to leave any evidence for the rest of us, or protest when he was crucified.
We are supposed to believe that there are lucky people that had personal contact with god himself. The Hebrew slaves were provided with incredible evidence, led by god as a column of smoke by day and a column of fire by night, manna from heaven, the parting of the sea etc. How lucky they were to truly know, and yet as soon as god's back is turned they are off worshipping some other god.
Of course I don't believe any of this for a moment.
Other Comments by AdrianB
48. Comment #101775 by Philip1978 on December 21, 2007 at 12:50 am
Bollocks!My goodness, its as if the writer of the article didn't even read the first half of it - the bit about people doing incredibly stupid things on behalf of religion!
I really can't understand the mentality of it all - its like saying " Well, I know the sky is not an amusing shade of the colour purple but I still want to believe it, after all it is Friday!"
Tis still a mad world my masters!
Glad I am completely sane, beep!
Philip the Badger!
Other Comments by Philip1978
49. Comment #101780 by Steve Zara on December 21, 2007 at 1:11 am
Here is the original article, for anyone who wants to comment.
I think the poor chap is going to regret that people can comment. He is getting rather beaten up. I would almost feel sorry if he had not be paid to write the stupid article.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
50. Comment #101794 by irate_atheist on December 21, 2007 at 1:46 am
49. Comment #101780 by Steve Zara -I would almost feel sorry if he had not be paid to write the stupid article.I never feel sorry for these idiots. They are not worthy of our pity.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #101604 by USA_Limey on December 20, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Boring.
Other Comments by USA_Limey