Holiday over. Back in the office. Back on my laptop where I can embed links in my posts. It’s also back to viewing the world from home (as opposed to ‘away’).
As the Libya endgame continues, there is a good deal of comment in the blogosphere about the role of the National Transitional Council, NATO, foreign governments, etc. Much of it involves urging caution and questioning NATO’s involvement – approving the end whilst worrying about the means… and the potential consequences. EthicalComment has some good post-holiday observations (as usual) and some useful links to, for example, Chatham House papers.
I was intrigued to catch up with Tony Blair’s reflections on the UK riots. I know too many people who would disagree with Blair on principle even if he said the sky was blue; but, I think he is absolutely right to question the reflex of British politicians, religious leaders and media commentators to blame some sort of generalised moral decline for the riots. Whilst agreeing with Michael White’s critique of the inadequacy of Blair’s critique, I still think he was right to assert (initially when Prime Minister) that specific problems need specific solutions – that the dysfunctionality of some families requires systematic, one-at-a-time, targeted investment of time, expertise and accompaniment to turn around those dysfunctionalities that are deeply embedded in family culture, experience or expectation.
The problem, of course, is that one of the most valuable resources to achieve that end – and one that was making a demonstrable difference to many families – is being severely cut back: Sure Start. Ask any health professional working with such families and they will almost universally tell the same story. David Cameron has trumpeted the percentage increase in health visitors (my wife is one), but the health visitors need resources such as Sure Start to which they can refer their people. There is surely an irony that financial investment in youth provision and resources for supporting families is being severely cut at the very time that the decision-makers are complaining about the dysfunctionality of some of our citizens.
(And, yes, Blair helped to develop the consumer-greedy society that Thatcher began; and, yes, that introduces a further debate about public morality and the shaping of our culture in the last thirty years. But, it doesn’t setract from the significance of the specific point about the so-called ‘hard to reach’.)
This is not just about financial investment and my observation is not about ideology – that somehow chucking money at problems solves the problem. But, it is crazy to cut funding of those resources that are designed to make a long-term difference, but have already made short-term improvements.
Which leads on to the third element of these post-holiday thoughts: the teaching of Religious Education in schools. Again, some commentators will automatically reach for their red ink at the mere mention of religious education having any value at all. They think that their own world view is neutral and that religous world views are somewhere up the loony scale, heading away from neutral. Such respondents should read David Bentley Hart‘s excoriating expose of such shallow thinking in The Atheist Delusions – an academically informed response to the assumptions and ill-informed sweeping assertions of the so-called New Atheists. (Obviously, it’s a bit of a shame to introduce fact and history into these debates…)
However, what is often ignored is that Religious Education does not start from the assumption that a particular religious ‘truth’ needs to be propagated, but, rather, that children and young people need to learn (a) how to think about what they think about the world, (b) how particular traditions have developed ways of doing this through particular histories, and (c) why understanding epistemology – how we know that we know what we know – matters. Surely, this should be indisputable in post-riot England. Yes, I believe that the Christian world view makes most sense of the world, human experience, morality, etc.; but, that is secondary to the importance of at least getting kids to (a) ask the right questions and (b) understand that asking these questions actually matters.
To that end I agree that the teaching of RE should continue to be a core subject in the school curriculum. If it isn’t, what will be saying to the riots of twenty years from now when faced with dysfunctional kids whose morality was allowed to be shaped by happenstance and serendipity rather than being shaped and informed to the extent that they can make their mind up?
It is unsurprising that the Apostle Paul wrote to the Christians of Rome the way he did:
Don’t be conformed to the patterns of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind…
We continue to neglect the shaping of the mind at our future peril.
August 26, 2011 at 12:03 am
To be fair not all religious and political leaders and thinkers have jumped up
In horror at the same time over the “causes” of this present social unrest and many simply do point to the fact that they’ve been saying what they’ve been saying for the last thirty years! There are of course those who , for reasons of political (with a small and large P !) expediency ,will make the necessary noises BUT an awful amount of reportage has been thoughtful and reflective.There are groups in particular from youth services challenging the overriding popularity of gang culture and all that this brings with it.I was born and brought up in harlesden nw10 famed for horrendous levels of gun crime and violence and the constant fear of violence on the streets performed inthe main by gang members who believe in a code of respect and killing or maiming those who don’t give that respect.I still have a sister who lives within minutes of where she was born and her boys would tell stories to curl your toes.she and her husband ( a nsm ) continue to work with and as much as is possible work within that troubled community.their job is made that much harder BECAUSE of this masoginist , racist violence loving, family busting gun toting gang culture.it was allowed to fester and grow years before I left in the seventies and now we are reaping the benefit of successive governments of both colours not facing this “culture ” head on.
It is not going to be solved by just injecting money once again( though as nick correctly observed removing the sure start funding is simply stupid and nonsensical surely as the one initiative that is long term and already shows results!)but by a recognition that certain behaviours( like female circumcision or honour killings for example) are not cultural but criminal.finally, I have visited in the course of my work 27 countries and Britain is STILL the most successful multicultural country I have been and I speak as a mixed race chappie who has an inward emotional investment in this country and its people and future.left or right is irrelevant at this point.let’s be adult and find courage in parenting these kids who need real boundaries and love BOTH at the same time or twenty years from now when I’m 71 we WILL just be a talking shop once again.
August 26, 2011 at 9:04 am
I agree that Hart has written an excellent book, informed by a wide-ranging historical perspective embracing late antiquity, the middle ages and the rise of revolutionary secularism in France, along with an analysis of the underlying assumptions about rationality held by the ‘New Atheists’ Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens et al – of whom the last is the most interesting, because of his honesty (and his brother). More of Hart’s coruscating style can be found on the First Things website.
Sadly for Britain, the secular humanist assumptions of the ‘New Atheists’ have pevailed through the years of New Labour and their pale successors: Dobson, Harman, Cook, Blunkett, Smith, Brown et al have all been solidly secularist sorts, whatever their parents believed, shoving Christian faith to the outer darkness, while believing in their own moral superiority – a common syndrome. Meanwhile, the social fabric of the country has continued to rot (not that Britain is alone in that).
Confronting the ‘New Atheists’ in the UK (if they show up) is William Lane Craig, who will visit Cambridge and Oxford in October. The execrable Polly Toynbee, having initially agreed to debate him, has now backed out and Richard Dawkins refuses to cross swords – not exactly a display of intellectual courage. I hope (and expect) that thousands of students will turn out ot hear Craig nd some worthy opponent will be found for him. Videos of his debated around the world with atheists can be found on his website reasonablefaith.org, along with lots of other apologetic material. More Chrisitna teachers and preachers need training in basic apologetics – Hart’s book is brilliant but few will read it in today’s attention-deficient culture.
August 26, 2011 at 9:27 am
I should add that Hart’s book is mainly an historical study, focusing on the relationship between Christianity and late antiquity (the supposed greatness of the classical pagan world) and between Christianity and modern science (esp. Galileo). He doesn’t engage much at all with Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris etc, other than to note their philosphical and historial ignorance – common conditions, alas. This is what Craig does, in the public arena.
Some people, like Rowan Wiiliams, doubt the value of public apologetics for convincing people, but I judge that too easy a surrender. “Public Intellectual” Dawkins has convinced a lot of people to his point of view (or at least sold a lot of books!).
August 26, 2011 at 10:14 am
The sky isn’t blue.
August 26, 2011 at 10:18 am
dearsoeur, !!!!!
August 26, 2011 at 10:23 am
Kieran, it is pathetic that not one of the New Atheists is prepared to debate publicly with Lane Craig. AC Grayling even accused Lane Craig of “being wrong about everything in the universe” – bizarre.
Don’t forget that New Labour only continued what Thatcher began. Part of the disappointment many felt about Blair et al is precisely that they continued that project rather than changing it.
August 26, 2011 at 12:25 pm
“Don’t forget that New Labour only continued what Thatcher began.”
Up to a point. Thatcher at least was (and is) a Christian and the Education Act 1988 did enshrine Christian worship in English education, which schools have gone on to ignore. Thatcher was followed by nearly 7 years of the agnostic adulterer Major in which the drift ot secular liberalism washed easily into New Labour. Then the ‘gay agenda’, under the banner of ‘equality’, began to bite in earnest, because the left is nothing if not ideological on ‘rights’ issues. Blair pushed this fiercely, along with opposition to any restrictions on abortion. How strange for a man who ‘did God’ and became a Catholic, to undermine Catholic social ethics.
Concerning the social fabric of the modern western world, compared to 1970, there is scarcely a country in the western world where illegitimacy hasn’t almost become the norm (and is already for some demographics) or abortion a thing of no consequence.
August 26, 2011 at 12:41 pm
To their credit, Hitchens and Harris have debated Craig, as has Avalos (I don’t know about Dennett); it’s Dawkins who keeps his distance, wisely because he prefers to demolish straw men, and because he has no real grasp of cosmology or philosophy, which is one of Craig’s areas of expertise.
Alistair McGrath has also done a lot of crossing swords, at least in print, with Dawkins, but I don’t know if they’ve ever squared off in public debate.
There are some common assumptions among agnostic/atheist young people today which you can pick up in their GCSE exam answers. Typically:
1. The problem of evil disproves the existence of God.
2. Something called ‘the big bang’ (or ‘science’) created the world, not God.
3. Evolution created life, not God.
4. You have an inalienable right to suicide.
Knowledge of Jesus’ life and sayings and the Bible are virtually non-existent among English teenagers. However, ignorance is no barrier to having an opinion.
August 26, 2011 at 2:19 pm
I agree that our young people should be taught about religion, it is a very powerful force in the world. They should be taught about all the major religions and, in particular, the differences between them.
They should most certainly be taught Christianity, as it is the dominant religion in the country, but they should also be taught the differences beween Anglicans, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Methodists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. etc. ad. infinitum, and encouraged to ask why they hold such divergent views.
They should also be taught about paganism, humanism, agnosticism, atheism, scientology, and the difference between secularism and theocracy.
They should certainly be taught to think for themselves, and how to distinguish between strong evidence, weak evidence, and no evidence.
I do not think, however, that this should be part of the national curriculum, or the new ‘E-Bacc’, and I would not call it ‘Religious’ education, the word is far too narrow.
August 27, 2011 at 7:55 pm
The comments seem in accordance with my own view that at the root of the problem is not resources or ” cuts” but primarily values.
This is a generation brought up according to the educational/ social/ moral/ media/ views of the secular liberal establishment . I use the adjective with a degree of sadness as I have much time for the classical Liberalism of JS Mill but I suppose we have to use the usage of the day.
I call this cohort of young people ” Generation Toynbee” and we certainly need a counter Reformation to put right some of the dispiriting attitudes, material, moral and spiritual, that found their most violent expression in the riots and looting.
August 28, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Kieran, I am curious about the GCSE exam papers you refer to above in #8.
Where did you get this information from, are you an examiner? Can you point me to the data source please?
What were the questions asked, and in which GCSE exams did these questions appear?
Finally, yes Dawkins & McGrath have debated publicly, Google is your friend.
August 28, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Kevin K: “I agree that our young people should be taught about religion, it is a very powerful force in the world. They should be taught about all the major religions and, in particular, the differences between them.
They should most certainly be taught Christianity, as it is the dominant religion in the country, but they should also be taught the differences beween Anglicans, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Methodists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. etc. ad. infinitum, and encouraged to ask why they hold such divergent views.
They should also be taught about paganism, humanism, agnosticism, atheism, scientology, and the difference between secularism and theocracy.
They should certainly be taught to think for themselves, and how to distinguish between strong evidence, weak evidence, and no evidence.
I do not think, however, that this should be part of the national curriculum, or the new ‘E-Bacc’ ”
Why not? You have just made a very good case for why it should be (call it what you will)
August 29, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Cathy, this is a very good question (and I am sorry if that sounds patronising).
This ‘subject’ whatever we choose to call it, should be part of a young person’s broad, early education, just as reading, writing and arithmetic are. It is sensible to teach it to up to the age of, say 14, but it is not something that should be subject to an automatic general examination.
A young person who wanted to pursue this branch of philosophy must be allowed to do so, of course. It is not obvious to me that a school is the right place to do so.
.
August 30, 2011 at 12:33 pm
A few questions.
What exactly is the ‘gay agenda’ and how does it differ from wanting equality?
Does Craig bring anything new to the debate or is it just a continuation of the intellectual game of wits that these debates seem to have become? I wonder what the disciples, some of whom were meant to be illiterate would make of these debates, I know they lose me!
The accusation of Dawkins setting up straw men is usually thrown about without anyone elaborating on it. As far as I can tell it is because he uses the god of the old testament as if the stories are believed to be a literal history by christians. I know that many dont see it that way but it is a fact that a great many do, most churches I have been to see it that way. Can he be accused of using a straw man argument if it is a fact that many hold those beliefs?
August 30, 2011 at 5:57 pm
#14:
1. Where have you been since 1997? “equality” isn’t a Christian word; it’s an ideological construct.
2. Craig’s work is easily ( & freely!) available on reasonablefaith.org, so if you are serious about finding out, you can do so for free. If he comes to your town (or thereabouts), go and hear him.
3. The ‘straw men’ refers to his penchant to “debate” rather unsophisticated peopel like Ted Haggard et al who only look foolish on Dawkins’ TV programs. He has debated John Lennox, though, and that’s worth watching.
August 31, 2011 at 1:31 pm
[...] this unwillingness is born of fear rather than rationality. I am still waiting for a response to David Bentley Hart’s The Atheist Delusions and the substantive philosophical and historical refutation of the lazy and unargued-for assertions [...]
September 1, 2011 at 10:36 am
“the ‘gay agenda’, under the banner of ‘equality’”
By this you suggest something sinister beyond equality or acceptance, would you care to elaborate? Yes I’m well aware equality isnt a christian word!
I’ve had a bit of a look at Craigs work, I think the answer to my question is “no”.
A straw man argument is were you deliberately misrepresent the views of another person so you can knock it down. Dawkins could be accused of choosing ‘soft targets’ but the views of these individuals are representative of large number, if not the majority, of modern christians
September 4, 2011 at 8:47 am
“By this you suggest something sinister beyond equality or acceptance, would you care to elaborate? Yes I’m well aware equality isnt a christian word!”
Sinister? Moi?? I don’t know what you believe. My simple point was that “equality” (of all people) isn’t an empirical fact: people are NOT equally good, beautiful, virtuous, intelligent, diligent etc. So the decision to make “equality” the basis of politcal policy isn’t based on scientific fact but subjective ideology. Nobody really believes in “equality” even though secularists, who believe they judge objectively by “scientific” standards push the idea forcefully. Nietzsche was much smarter and more honest (even though he was also a lost soul).