Right Reason

Today (what’s left of it) or tomorrow I’ll post the blog entry that I referred to last time, where I discuss an issue related to ethical naturalism/non naturalism and theologically grounded ethics.

For now, however, I want to let you know what to expect in the subject matter of this blog. On the whole it won’t change of course, and any time something interesting and current rears its head or gets my attention in the subject areas that I tend to write on, I’ll blog on it. As I’ve mentioned in the past however, I’ve started gradually chipping away at a book project on the moral argument for theism. It’s more productive time-wise to blog on things that I’m currently working on, so the dominant themes you can expect to see popping up at this blog as I work my way through the blog are the ones that I will be including in this project.

At this early stage obviously the final table of contents is subject to change, but the book will start out in the history of philosophy and historical theology, covering historical versions of the moral argument (e.g. Aquinas, Locke, Kant, C. S. Lewis then contemporary writers). It will look at the way that detractors of the moral argument have treated those versions of the argument, and whether or not those treatments stand up to scrutiny.  Next, I look at the work of sceptics who I will regard as hostile witnesses for the moral argument; moral nihilists like Nietzsche and J. L. Mackie and (very arguably) David Hume (along with my former lecturer and PhD co-supervisor, Dr Charles Pigden). These men do/did not argue for theism, but do give reasons for thinking that metaphysical naturalism requires the nonexistence of moral facts. I will use this as a springboard into an explicit defence of the moral argument that really has not been made in the literature as far as I can tell; one that draws on the burgeoning 20th century literature on meta-ethics. I’m not yet sure if I will include an extended discussion of divine command and natural law ethics.

The order in which this stuff appears at the blog will not likely reflect the order given above. So while you can still expect to the same old subjects (and perhaps all new ones!), a general theme revolving around the combination of philosophy of religion, history of philosophy and meta-ethics is going to be somewhat dominant for the foreseeabe future. Incidently, recent (and future) discussion surrounding ethical naturalism has arisen for precisely this reason.

It’s Christmas day, get off the internet!

Just recently I blogged on the billboard erected by St Matthew-in-the-city. I said at the time that it was an act of desperation from a brand of religion that wants to effectively give up its religious nature but still retain its spot in the church, jettisoning anything that might connect it to (eeeew) Christianity, and trying to be hip and risque by poking crass fun at Christianity itself.

Although whoever comes up with ideas like this is apparently in the bizarre headspace where he/she thinks that the non-Christian world will admire this, the reality is somewhat different. For quite some time now I have consistently noticed that such tactics never achieve the stated (although probably false) goal of “getting people to think” or “encouraging serious dialogue” about faith in the modern world. Claiming Christianity while rejecting God and virtually everything that the Christian faith teaches does not make people look credible. It makes them look ridiculous. Genuine sceptics toward Christianity simply see straight through these attempts to be relevant as a way of selling out and living a ruse.

While I don’t share her take on the meaning of Christmas (largely because it sounds like she attributes no theological importance to it at all – and because of her heretical comment about guitars in church), I did appreciate the comments of the ever lovely Kerre Woodham in the New Zealand Herald:

I do wish churches would get back to core business and start laying down the moral law, delivering thundering nightmare-inducing sermons and ministering to the poor.

My dad always said no good would come of allowing guitars and folk songs into services, and he was right. All this faffing around trying to be edgy and relevant is embarrassing. It’s like watching your parents dance.

St Matthew-in-the-City is the latest culprit, with its Saatchi & Saatchi-generated billboard depicting a dejected looking Joseph and a disappointed Mary in bed. The caption read: “Poor Joseph. God is a hard act to follow.” Implying, of course, that God is the Man – capital “M” – in the sack and Joseph is a poor second.

The billboard has generated much debate, with some saying it’s offensive and others saying religious maniacs need to lighten up. Predictably, Family First is in the offended camp.

But really, Bob McCroskrie’s great-great-grandfather was probably the first man to cover the legs of pianos in Victorian England, so as not to offend the sensibilities of the ladies. The Catholic Church had a milder response, saying the billboard was inappropriate and disrespectful.

On the other hand, archdeacon Glynn Cardy is beside himself with excitement, saying the agency has fulfilled the brief. He says the church wanted to get people to think more about the meaning of Christmas. Is it about a spiritual male God sending down sperm so a child would be born, or is it about the power of love in our midst, as seen in Jesus?

Although I don’t think the billboard was especially offensive, I think it was probably just a bit too arch. I don’t know about you, but Christmas has never been about God and sperm. It’s a time to be with people you love, sharing what you have with those who might need a bit of help and for me, it’s about doing a moral stock take. How much have I done for others this year, and what more could I do? Not wondering whether bodily fluids were ever mingled between God and Mary – or for that matter, Joseph and Mary. St Matthew-in-the-City prides itself on being “at the progressive end of the Christian continuum”, but the way it’s promoting itself, its future seems more assured as a venue for fashion shows rather than a place of worship.

[Emphasis added]

As one person said on St Matthew’s website: “Glynn Cardy, As one atheist to another, take my advice: get yourself out of the Church and try working for a living.” People can see straight through the absurdity of rejecting everything that makes Christianity distinctively Christian while trying to retain a position among its ranks (and even drawing a paycheck from it!). In spite of the claims about encouraging thought and discussion, the stunt has not worked. It has caused a lot of people to notice how antithetical to Christianity the action was, it has caused umbrage among plenty of Christians, and it has sent the liberal defenders of such messages to become extremely defensive, disappointed that the outcome – amazingly – was not in their favour. In a word, “duh.” This self-serving publicity gimmick failed to get anyone talking seriously about the meaning of christmas. It failied to stir up any genuine theological discussion of any kind, as far as I can tell. All it did (as was probably the plan all along) was to get people talking about Glynn Cardy and his church. Well, he got it, in spite of the fact that he might not have liked the way it turned out. That anyone at St Matthews might have hoped for anything other than what they got just demonstrates how painfully out of touch with reality they really are.

Glenn Peoples

OK, this guy is officially awesome:

St Matthew-in-the-City Anglican church in downtown Auckland offended a few people with a Christmas billboard.

I can’t think how…

Archdeacon Glynn  Cardy dubs the church’s brand of faith as “Progressive Christianity.” It’s a faith that “believes the Christmas stories are fictitious accounts designed to introduce the radical nature of the adult Jesus.” What’s surprising is that the Rev Cardy actually appears to think that this is a good humoured lampoon against traditional, orthodox Christianity. As everyone knows, historic Christianity teaches that God had sex with Mary, right?

How can ludicrous caricatures like this possibly portray liberal/progressive Christianity as anything other than juvenile and ignorant (or perhaps dishonest, misrepresenting the faith of others so as to burn a straw man). Click the link at the start of this post, and what you’ll see, unfortunately, is more of the same misrepresentation and false bravado at the courage involved in crass religious humour.

The billboard didn’t last, and has been vandalised already, little more than five hours after it went up. I’m no fan of vandalism of course, but people can hardly be amazed here. Imagine a billboard along the lines of “Jews, for the last time: It’s just a wall. Get over it” or “Ah, Hillary Clinton. Imagine thinking that a woman could become anything.” It would hardly wash to say “All we really want is to lampoon women,” or “But we were only making fun of Jews. JEWS!” It’s an ironic twist that in a rather self serving defence, maintining that Jesus is all about accepting the rejects and rejecting the powerful, this church is actually offering a justification for attempting to publicly make fun of mainstream Christianity and write it off as “fundamentalist,” apparently banking on the fact that it will be unpopular (rejected?) enough that not too many people will care.

The fact is, so called “progressive” Christianity has few reservations about stunts like this because it has little to offer and is somewhat desparate. Within, for example the Presbyterian and Anglican churches here in New Zealand, they are losing the war and are a shrinking voice, fading into the oblivion of obscurity. By contrast, evangelical congregations are on the rise and at a national level the decisions being made are more in keeping with traditional Christian belief than ever before in the last 30 years. People are (for what I take to be obvious reasons) taking seriously the fact that it’s frankly a bit facile to expect to be given church resources as well as recognition as a Christian movement while denying more or less all of the truth claims of the Christian faith, from the resurrection of Jesus to the virgin birth, or even in many cases the very existence of God.

It isn’t a surprise that the churches that are experiencing growth are the evangelical churches that do not try to divorce the moral aspects of Christianity from its claims about reality. I have no reason to think that attention-seeking tactics like these are going to change that.

Glenn Peoples

By reason! No…. wait… that’s not it…. Ah yes, politics and force.

Props to Whale Oil for drawing my attention to this.

Whatever else he thinks about anything, Professor Robert Winston just won some brownie points with me. He calls the worship of New Zealand’s celebrities a “false idolatry” that glorifies traits that, in the big picture, really don’t matter all that much.

Lord Winston believes Kiwis do not value intellectuals and ignore the worst behaviour of our sports stars. “New Zealand celebrates attributes which really aren’t that important,” he said.

“You do it with sportsmen and you don’t do it particularly with intellectuals, for example. In New Zealand, being an intellectual is slightly disadvantageous and is often seen by the press as being something which is rather well, not to be celebrated.

“On the other hand, if you are a great rugby player, maybe parts of your private life which are pretty appalling, will go ignored.

Check out the audio at the news story.

If I had a Christmas list, Winston would be on it.

Glenn Peoples