I went into London today to have lunch with a friend who is ‘in media’. On the way in I read that ‘80% of Bill Bailey’s new show is a rant against Christianity’. Can’t remember exactly where I read it, but that was basically what it said. “Oh no,” I thought to myself, “here we go again. There’ll be more protests about Christians being persecuted and attacked.” And I was right! (Which is shameful when you see what is happening in the real world in Iraq…)
I am beginning to feel in a minority of one in being a Christian who doesn’t think we are being persecuted. ‘Misrepresented’, ‘misunderstood’ and ‘an easy target for people too lazy to think through their own assumptions’, maybe. Subject to educational and political assumptions that are sometimes staggering in their arrogance and ignorance in relation to Christianity in particular, definitely. But ‘persecuted’, no way.
I go with the agnostic Marxist Terry Eagleton when he complains that the so-called New Atheists have bought their atheism on the cheap and that this enables others to think that their easy dismissal of ‘religion’ (let alone Christianity) has inherent intellectual credibility – that Dawkins’ position is self-evidently true because it is Dawkins who says it. And it is obvious that the methodologies Dawkins adopts in his television tirades would never pass the editor’s desk were it to be driving towards a theistic theme. (It would be like me depicting Stalin in the first minute, extrapolating from Stalin that all atheists are on the same road as the Soviet dictator, then writing off atheism as having any intellectual, cultural or ethical credibility worth thinking about.)
As contributors to this blog have demonstrated, there is a thoughtful and intelligent discussion to be had between atheists and Christians (or theists) – one that presupposes mutual respect. I usually find Bill Bailey sharp and funny, so look forward to his new show. But, if it does turn out to be an easy potshot at Christianity, I guess I’ll just have to be big enough to take it. Popularity and big laughs don’t prove any point whatsoever.
The problem is that there is much about Christians that is funny or odd or open to question. Now is not an easy time to speak of ‘the ministry of reconciliation’ in a context in which Christians appear happy to accuse each other of all sorts of nastiness. But, if our reputation is tarnished and our credibility low, then we cannot blame anyone else for this… even if the reputation also involves selective reporting, misrepresentation and misunderstanding.
Anyway, to go back to the main point, being misunderstood or misrepresented by a liberal elite who dominate the public discourse with a confidence that is ignorant of its own (religious) illiteracy, is inconvenient, painful, embarrassing and should be countered. But, it isn’t persecution. Bill Bailey is not pulling our finger nails out or stopping our kids from going to university purely on account of their faith – he is simply doing what people have done to Christian faith since Calvary. It’s not clever and it is boringly predictable – get used to it. The way to counter it is to stop being ‘against’ anything we don’t like and proactively present what we are ‘for’ in the public space. And, for God’s sake, try to enjoy it.
I come back again and again to the need for Christians to put their own house in order, gain confidence in the content of the Christian faith (which, strictly speaking and in shorthand, means in ‘the Word made flesh’ – the person of God seen in Jesus Christ), question the assumptions of those who attack or question Christianity, and stop complaining about being victims of other people’s horribleness.
And the BBC still needs a ‘Religion Editor’…
November 12, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Here, here. Totally and utterly agree.
And you are most certainly not alone in being a Christian who doesn’t think we are being persecuted.
If I may take the liberty of linking to just one of my recent blog posts on Western Christian “persecution”:
Christian Today: Barnabas Fund says Christians in the West need to be ready for persecution.
Oh just one more if I may, as this is a pet peeve of mine:
Our Church Under Fire – On watch for ‘idiotic’ attacks on Christianity.
It’s more like an embarrassing persecution complex…..
November 12, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Well, hey. If it’s any consolation at all, here’s at least one atheist who deeply respects your stance.
November 12, 2010 at 7:33 pm
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ruth Gledhill , Philip Ritchie, fileyparish churches, Nick Baines, eChurch Blog and others. eChurch Blog said: RT @nickbaines: Just blogged on Bill Bailey and persecution: http://bit.ly/dkJXft – Excellent post, finally someone else has said it… […]
November 12, 2010 at 7:44 pm
A minority of at least two, Nick. Christianity is actually privileged in this country. Nobody else gets their religious holidays as statutory holidays, and the Sunday trading laws aren’t exactly convenient for people who don’t treat Sunday as a day of rest and worship. Loss of some of the privileges Christianity has had is not the same as persecution.
The way to counter it is to stop being ‘against’ anything we don’t like and proactively present what we are ‘for’ in the public space.
I think a lot of people don’t know how to do this without being accused of (or indeed participating in) very in-your-face pushy evangelism. That was certainly my experience growing up: it seemed that Christianity was either something Christians mostly kept to themselves as a rather private religious matter, or it was something they tried to foist on people. The first option seemed hypocritical and the second disrespectful.
I’d like to think it is possible to present some other way, but I don’t claim to be any good at it. Some of that is because of the inherent privilege Christianity has enjoyed in this culture. For a long time “Christian” was synonymous with “morally upright” and “heathen” with “devoid of morals”. The result of this is that If I say “As a Christian, I think all people ought to support one another as best we can” or something similarly unobjectionable, that can easily be taken as an assumption that I think non-Christians think we should not bother helping one another. That is not my opinion at all.
I don’t know how to avoid those sorts of false dichotomies when speaking to people who are (in some cases rightly) defensive and twitchy about any form of organised religion. So I try to be kind, I try to I say what I think, and I don’t hide that I’m attempting to follow a Christian path. That still allows people to mentally separate the two, to decide that I’m a basically decent person who has accidentally got caught up with the religious nutters.
My return to Christianity has been largely through the actions of Christians who cared about me whether I was Christian or not and who did not bring their own religious convictions into any conversation or correspondence. Somehow it became obvious to me that their faith was not separable from their actions or their capacity to love. I try to model my behaviour after theirs; if anyone is drawn to reconsider their attitude to Christianity as a result then that’s great, but that really isn’t the point of loving people.
I don’t know how that sort of interpersonal unconditional love, full of pain and joy and lit up by faith and hope, translates to presenting what we are for in the public sphere. I am not a journalist and my voice in the public sphere consists of blogging and Twitter, so maybe that’s not a problem. But I wonder how those who have a louder voice than mine might achieve this.
“Stop complaining” is certainly a good start, but if the other answers are “stay silent” or “prattle on incessantly about religion” then I don’t know that there’s much improvement.
November 12, 2010 at 8:02 pm
[…] someone else has finally said it, and someone of note at that! Bishop Nick Baines – Even Bill Bailey’s at it If you have stumbled onto this blog please do take a few moments to read the following piece:- […]
November 12, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Love your stance on Dawkins.
Kathryn – I wish more people had your attitude. A lot of the Christians I encounter online seem to genuinely believe that only Christians have any sense of morality. As a Christian with a Muslim best friend, that breaks my heat.
November 13, 2010 at 2:09 am
Can I just say what a relief to find an individual who really knows what theyre talking about over a internet. You actually know how to bring an problem to light and make it important. Much more folks need to read this and realize this side on the story. I cant consider youre not much more well-liked due to the fact you really have the gift.
November 13, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Nick, this is something of an experiment. I’ve rewritten your article from the atheist point of view; following your text as closely as possible, (I have trimmed it a bit to save space). I don’t know if this will work, but as a ‘thinking’ atheist I look forwards to the replies. KK
I went into Oxford today to have a beer with a friend. On the way I read that ’80% of Ann Coulter’s new show was a rant against Atheism. ’. “Oh no,” I thought to myself, “Here we go again. There’ll be more protests about Atheists being persecuted and attacked.”
I am an Atheist who doesn’t think we are being persecuted. Misrepresented, misunderstood, an easy target for those Theists too lazy to think for themselves; yes. Subject to religious, educational and political assumptions that are staggering in their arrogance and ignorance of Atheism, definitely. But ‘persecuted’, no.
I go with the agnostic Marxist Terry Eagleton when he complains that ‘Religion has wrought untold misery in human affairs,…. a squalid tale of bigotry, superstition, wishful thinking, and oppressive ideology’. – that a Bishop’s position is self-evidently true because it is a Bishop who says it.
(It would be like me extrapolating from Hitler that all Catholics are on the same road as that dictator, then writing off Catholics as having any intellectual, cultural or ethical credibility worth thinking about.)
There is a thoughtful and intelligent discussion to be had between Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Humanists, Buddhists, Pagans, and Jedi Knights – one that presupposes mutual respect.
I usually find these blogs interesting, so look forward to the next. However, if it does turn out to be an easy potshot at Atheists, I guess I’ll just have to be big enough to take it.
Anyway, to go back to the main point, being misunderstood or misrepresented by a religious elite who dominate the public discourse with a confidence that is ignorant of its own (religious) illiteracy, is to be expected.
But, it isn’t persecution. The theists are not pulling our fingernails out or forcing our kids to go to a ‘Faith’ school. They are simply doing what people have done to Atheists since Thomas Paine’s ‘The Age of Reason’. It’s not clever and it is boringly predictable – get used to it.
I return to the need for Atheists to gain confidence in their common sense, and to question the assumptions of those who attack or question Atheism, and stop complaining about being victims of other people’s superstition.
KK
November 13, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Hurrah for Bish Nick. I started following a number of Christian blogs when I made my own first stuttering steps online at The Churchwarden, but only here do I find myself nodding in quiet appreciation (and relief) on an almost daily basis. Must run: church to lock up before it gets dark!
November 13, 2010 at 5:33 pm
There is unfortunately a tendency amongst the chattering classes to be repetitious and self referencing all the time. Someone starts saying “Isn’t x stupid” and the rest follow one after the other without any reflection as to whether there is merit in x or indeed stupidity in ” the opposite of x”.
In a way I think we are our own enemies in ascribing too much importance to those who criticise us. Your short but accurate dismissal of Dawkins is by far the better way.
I do sometimes wonder when it was decided that comedians have either knowledge or wisdom. Few have either. I exempt the late Lenny Bruce who could criticise the practice of faith with a brilliantly discomforting routine that worked by making us look at our inconsistencies rather than insulting the fundamentals.
On a happier note, back in the real world, people still have intelligent questions for religion.
Last night I was chatting to a street pastor who was asked last Saturday night at 1 am in a windswept doorway in a shopping centre why the Gospel of Judas did not make it into the Bible. Its good to hear that intelligent questions are still being asked by some – though rarely by those busy jumping on the latest passing bandwagon.
November 14, 2010 at 11:30 am
You go with Terry Eagleton and dismiss ‘new Atheists’ as having ‘bought their atheism on the cheap’. From your later comments I presume you refer to those who have recognised their atheism after reading Dawkins.
Which Christians would you characterise as having ‘bought their religion on the cheap’? Catholics perhaps, Methodists, Anglicans or Baptists? Perhaps those who were born into a Christian family or who were sent to Sunday School?
Your comments on Dawkins didn’t seem to tally with my experience, although I’ve never met the man and only base my opinion on his books and the occasional video and radio programme.
November 14, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I agree with Bishop Nick that Christians in Britain do not on the whole suffer persecution. Go and read about the church in baghdad Iraq faced by shooting gunmen, as on the news last week. Then complain of persecution.
November 14, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Never mind Geriant Davies still likes you.
So much so that he has photshopped together a picture of himself standing next to the archbishop of Cantebury
http://www.geraintdavies.org.uk/swansea-workers-to-be-sacked-then-treated-as-criminals-says-gera
I presume this picture is photoshopped.
I do actually agree with some of Geriant SomeonehadtospendthemostmoneyImgladitwasme Davies’s analysis but the picture is still amusing me.
Anyway, I seek clarity. Is this a real photo or not? I cannot use as the basis of a joke if it has actual veracity. Did Rowan Williams really take time out of his day to physically stand next to Geriant – or is this a bit of Stalinist airbrushing?
November 14, 2010 at 8:28 pm
By the way you may find this interview interesting.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/features/cultural-life-bill-bailey-comedian-904880.html
I dont think it’s a secret that Bill Bailey tends towards the humanist point of view but if you read this interview in which he bashes Dawkins quite a bit?! you may realise that perhaps he’s not as anti-Christian as purported.
So often with these things media storms are whipped up without anyone having seen the original source material. You get a feeling as a comedian/promoter that some people are WAITING to be offender and so then your think whats-the-point-in-being-subtle-may-as-well-go-all-the-way.
November 15, 2010 at 8:24 am
[…] on "Social-skills training for children with autism: not all group therapies are created equal". Bishop Nick Baines gets stuck into those who claim Christians are persecuted in Britain. He advocates much more and constructive interaction. We here on the Hub play out part by hosting […]
November 15, 2010 at 9:53 am
cnocspeireag,
I don’t think I’ve bought Christianity anywhere; it isn’t for sale at any price. Christian faith is, rather, something that has been given to me. Christian behaviour is something I aspire to, not something I claim to be any good at, but my impression of it when I have observed it in others is that it is often very costly.
I don’t propose that all who call themselves Christians display exemplary behaviour and I don’t propose that all atheists do either. I feel as uncomfortable with theists claiming that there is solid scientific proof of God’s existence as I do with atheists claiming there is scientific proof that God can’t exist.
I think any argument that claims “those who believe differently than I do must just not be very smart” rather than listening to what is being said cheapens the entire discussion. That is what I and many theists find frustrating about Dawkins’ reasoning. He sets up a straw man in the form of a belief system to which I do not subscribe, and then calls me delusional.
I’m fully willing to admit that my theist beliefs could be delusion, but I don’t really want to have a conversation about that based on a stereotype of what someone else thinks I believe. Someone quoting Dawkins at me (and yes, this has happened) is only going to get about as far as I would if I were quoting, say, the Gospel of John. If people have learned more about their own beliefs (or lack of same) from reading Dawkins, great, but much of his work is not relevant to my theism.
What I recognise as special or inspirational isn’t necessarily useful when speaking with someone who recognises a different canon. So I don’t try to convert atheists to theism by quoting bits of the Bible at them, and I appreciate those (the vast majority) who don’t try to assert that they are right and I am wrong by quoting Dawkins at me.
Maybe that is the distinction between the “so-called New Atheists” and others. I don’t know.
November 15, 2010 at 10:15 am
Christianity only has a privileged position with respect to historical ties (holidays etc) – I don’t think there is automatically more respect given to Christians than anyone else. Indeed, given that the ‘authorities’ have been slow to catch onto the fact that nobody-really-cares, it isn’t really surprising that comics satire the fact that the deeply religious are talking to themselves.
In a real sense, comics are the most honest of people. They say it like they see it – if someone looks weird, they laugh about it. It is equal opportunity offence, one day old people talking at the bus stop, then next the bizarre rituals and theology of religion.
You’ve got to have a really thin skin if you think this is an example of Christian persecution.
November 15, 2010 at 11:36 am
I am pleased to read some commonsense in respect of alleged persecution of Christians in the UK. In common with other faiths, it appears that some people have an agenda to discredit any sort of belief, which is not based on science or secular values, but that is fair comment. We need to be a little more thick skinned in such matters.
I think that the comment about just being ourselves and getting on with living out our faith in our lives in our communities as witness is perhaps the most practical way that most of us are able to offer.
Mission and evangelism need to be based on who we are and what we do, which allows others to encounter Jesus through us, and perhaps to open their hearts to him.
November 15, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Joe, never forget that the C of E has 26 guaranteed seats in our House of Lords. Is that priviledge?
KK
November 15, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Ernest
Do not confuse faith with belief. Faith is belief without evidence.
You have faith in a supernatural invisible sky-god. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow in the East, and set in the West.
KK
November 16, 2010 at 1:55 am
I’ve no idea who Bill Bailey is, but apart from that, I wholeheartedly agree. Christianity has always had its “cultured despisers” (was it Dorothy Sayers who said that?) and their utterances do not amount to persecution.
Though I will say one thing — when I first went to the UK to study theology 45 years ago, having akipped the country one jump ahead of the Security Police, I applied for a job with the late lamented London Transport, and they asked for references. The only people I knew in the UK were clergy, but LT said that clergy weren’t acceptable as referees. Not exactly persecution, but an interesting take on church and society.
November 16, 2010 at 2:47 am
An interesting blog. Not confined to UK, either. I remember my working days when we would go to lunch as a group and discuss our beliefs — we were (in no particular order) Baptist, Catholic, Bhuddist, Hindu, Muslim and a Wiccan. We were from (again, no order) China, Taiwan, Korea, Australia, Nepal, Pakistan, India, Ivory Coast, UK and USA. No one changed their religion and we remain friends. That shouldn’t be an oddity.
November 16, 2010 at 7:20 am
Kevin,
I like the rewrite – and like earlier comments reminding us (why do we need this restating?) that we do not have an automatic monopoly of righteous behaviour.
However, on faith and belief, you have to be careful. If I have clear evidence that the effect of love (mediated through words or actions) is to change the character of the person loved, then this is an evidential database of the loving. This happens in most people’s experience. Thus, if I see that people spend time in God’s presence, seeking him in the ways that are set out in the gospels and the rest of the New Testament, then see the resulting transformation, this is then evidence of the activity of God in their lives (or at least this cannot be discounted as a reason).
The reason we don’t see more of this is that most of as Christians do not take God seriously enough.
Huw
November 16, 2010 at 12:30 pm
KK: “Faith is belief without evidence”.
Clearly, in your canon, faith is a lesser attribute because it can enable belief in things which don’t exist or which can’t be ‘proved’. However, keeping faith is something which atheists and theists do in equal measure [there is a good deal of ‘taking on trust’ in scientific assumption for instance].
We, as humans, are able to keep faith in things, people, ideas, systems often without evidence, sometimes despite the evidence [take the person who continues to love even though they have been betrayed or let down, because they must]. Because of this I tend to see faith as a positive personal quality, a moral determination if you like, rather than as a tendency to sloppy thinking. I remember Professor Robert Winston arguing very persuasively that, in evolutionary terms, faith appears to have survival value i.e. that people with some kind of faith are much more able to survive difficult, even horrendous, circumstances than those who don’t. It could be as important as drawing breath. In fact, would you bother to draw breath or do anything at all without some sort of faith in a host of things which can’t be ‘proved’ in the strict sense you want to insist upon?
p.s. Also, the sun doesn’t “rise” strictly speaking … but it’s a quaint idea you have there!
November 16, 2010 at 11:21 pm
I recently turned down an invitation from Channel 4 to have a rant about Christians being persecuted. To argue that Christians in the UK are persecuted is disrespectful to our brothers and sisters in places like Iraq and Orissa. The only exception is that some teenage Christians in UK High Schools may suffer something that amounts to persecution from their peers. But as to Bill Bailey, a) he’s a very funny man and b) we should probably listen carefully to what he’s saying to us.
November 17, 2010 at 8:48 am
You said in a previous post that you would like Christians to be judged by the best of you and as an atheist I would like that to be true of us too. It annoys me that many people I talk to make assumptions about me based on my lack of belief in a God.
Losing my faith was a difficult process that took a long time and I certainly did not take lightly, but now I find that many people who were once my friends now believe I am going to hell, unless I change my mind again. Some claim I never truly believed and others think I chose to be an atheist so I could be sinful!
I have met many wonderful people who are a credit to their faith, but I wonder if this is a result of their beliefs or that they were good people anyway. I certainly feel I have become a more tolerant person since loosing my faith and my motives for my actions are, I believe, more honest.
I have of course been asked ‘What if you’re wrong?’ and I do think it is a fair question for someone to ask.
So I ask, respectfully, what is your view? If there is a God and I am wrong will he condemn for examining the evidence and coming to the wrong conclusion. Is hell a reality? I know what my old church would have said but I am intrigued to find out your view.
November 17, 2010 at 9:53 am
Hi Nick,
I don’t think Terry Eagleton would consider himself an agnostic. I heard him give a lecture on ‘The God debate’ at Edinburgh University last year he seemed to be firmly in the Catholic Maxist camp.
November 17, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Dubious, thanks very much for the reply.
The definition ‘Faith is belief without evidence’ is not mine (I think it was a mathematician who 1st suggested it to me, and it probably goes back a lot further), but you are right, I do think that the best way to understand Life, the Universe & Everything is to look at the evidence.
Under this definition, ‘faith’ cannot possibly enable ‘belief’. Faith remains faith until evidence is produced.
I don’t understand why you think that atheists and / or scientists ‘take things on trust’. Are you a scientist? Can you expand on this?
I agree that people take things on trust. I suggest that your ‘faith’ in people is actually based on evidence. On average the people we deal with in our daily lives are decent, honest, law-abiding people (despite what ‘Watchdog’ tells us). This is belief, not faith.
I saw Professor Robert Winston in debate with Richard Dawkins some years ago. I am not an apostle of RD, and RW is a fine man, but I do remember that during the debate, RD asked RW on several occasions whether he believed in a God, and RW refused to answer.
There are good arguments to suggest that religious faith has given the human animal an evolutionary advantage, a survival value as you put it. This does not prove that God exists. We have moved on.
KK
November 17, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Huw,
Thanks for the reply
The rewrite was a bit of an experiment & I’m glad you liked it. It wasn’t really intended to be a reminder that theists have no monopoly of decency. It was more to show that Nick’s tirade (rant?) against atheists in general & Bill Bailey in particular could be turned thro’ 180 degrees, and the same phrases could be used to attack ‘unthinking Christians’ like Ann Coulter.
(If you have not read Ann Coulter, I recommend it). Google is your friend.
Your 2nd paragraph is important.
There is no doubt that love, or friendship, or our community, can change our opinions, our beliefs. I suspect there is plenty of evidence for this. This is belief, not faith.
The same phenomenon might happen in a church. I willingly ‘believe’ that people might be influenced and helped by the warmth of the Christian community. It is very comforting.
But this has nothing to do with a divine creator. The step you make from ‘community’ to God’ is a step of faith, not of evidence.
KK
November 17, 2010 at 4:56 pm
[…] Even Bill Bailey's at it « Nick Baines's Blog […]
November 17, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Renny,
I can’t speak for Nick or for others, but I hold that belief in God is not a deal-breaker for God. I don’t think you are going to hell. I don’t think anyone is going to hell!
That’s hard to stomach sometimes, because it means that people I dislike, fear or even hate are also not going to hell. Nevertheless it is what I believe. I don’t know what happens after we die, but I can’t bring myself to think that the eternal suffering of hell is part of it. Salvation is universal or meaningless, and God’s mercy is larger than any of us could ever imagine.
I wrote more about this recently here.
November 17, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Beaten to it but I don’t think Terry Eagleton is an agnostic either. He’s a Catholic as I understand from people who know him. His review of The God Delusion in the London Review of Books was a gem and only libertarian instincts prevent me from saying it should be compulsory reading for everyone. Like so (on a violuntary basis) > http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
November 17, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Sorry for silence after such interesting comments – working long hours and little time for the blog.
I think Eagleton is a cultural Catholic, but read (for example) Reason, faith & revolution: reflections on the God Debate and you’ll see why ‘agnostic’ fits him better.
Kevin, I think you confuse faith, belief and wishful thinking. You also need to explain to me why a Maths professor explained to me recently why he posits formulae for which he has no evidence other than the apparent beauty of the equation – or why the models he uses are treated as ‘real’ even though they have no real existence outside of the model itself. (Not that I understand all this…) Even multiverses are not based on ‘evidence’, but on extrapolations from assumptions. As we’ve discussed before, we use ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ in different ways in different contexts: I don’t prove my love for my wife in the same way I prove the existence of carbon or the way I prove that something or someone is beautiful.
Renny, ‘pretend’ Christian faith (for fear of hell or exclusion from a community) gets a hammering in the Bible! Those who claim a faith they don’t have (or don’t live out – which means they don’t really believe it anyway) get the hardest criticism – read the prophets, for example. Honest and authentic atheism has to be preferable to a faith that lacks either content or integrity. You will notice also that my problem is not with atheism per se (or atheists), but with certain expressions of atheism – those that assume a rationalism ironically lacking in that expression and those that set up religious aunt sallies that most religious people do not believe in anyway. I think it is good to have conversation and debate with honest atheists, but some of the so-called New Atheists do not fit that bill. I know this is irritating to some of my interlocutors, but the prominent New Atheists all-too-frequently display an irrational fundamentalism that is as ridiculous as any religious fundamentalist or literalist.
Joe Turner, the thin-skinnedness of some Christians is precisely the problem I was addressing. Being mocked by Bill Bailey (if that is what he does) hardly counts as persecution. My contention is that Christians should stop whingeing and occupy the space they complain is being kept from them. I am not sure there has ever been ‘privilege’ where getting people to contemplate authentic Christianity is concerned.
Sorry these responses are brief and a bit shorthand – gotta go out again now… Thanks for all comments – keep them coming.
November 17, 2010 at 7:51 pm
KK: “I agree that people take things on trust. I suggest that your ‘faith’ in people is actually based on evidence.”
If you look back at my reply to you I think you will find that I wrote: “We, as humans, are able to keep faith in things, people, ideas, systems often without evidence, **sometimes despite the evidence** [take the person who continues to love even though they have been betrayed or let down, because they must].”
But that aside, I recommend you to the link provided by white rabbit [above]. I can’t better Terry Eagleton on this topic.
November 17, 2010 at 8:50 pm
KK: “I don’t understand why you think that atheists and / or scientists ‘take things on trust’.”
Read martin sewell on this blog ….. Sept 18th 2010 comment no.7 I can’t better his response either!
November 18, 2010 at 11:27 am
KK, I am an anarchist to the extent that I do not believe in bishops or the House of Lords, hence the issue is of no importance to me.
November 18, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Nick,
I do not think that I confuse faith, belief & wishful thinking. On the contrary, I think I am very clear on these things. I think it is you who are confused.
It is difficult for me to comment on the conversations you had with your maths professor, as I was not there, and I do understand that you are not a scientist and you know nothing about these things.
Mathematics (& physics) took us to the moon. Is that enough evidence that it works?
Mathematics does not depend upon ‘faith’ or ‘beauty’, but there is beauty in Euler’s equation, and Schrödinger’s equation, just as there is beauty in a painting, a piece of music, or the Humber suspension bridge.
Finally, ‘evidence’ & ‘proof’. I suggest there is no such thing as ‘proof’, there is only evidence. There is good evidence for the existence of something called Carbon, and I am certain that there is very good evidence that you love your wife.
Timothy Evans was ‘proven’ guilty of murder & hanged for a crime he did not commit.
KK
December 1, 2010 at 6:34 pm
[…] the week and this week it asks whether Christians are being persecuted in Britain today. Readers of this blog will not be surprised to hear that I don’t think we are being persecuted. Some Christians […]
December 10, 2011 at 12:28 pm
As Christians we have to stand up an be counted.
Our Country has accepted so much that now it’s in financial ruin, and it’s church is dying.
I love Bill Bailey, I care about him, if we sit back and don’t say anything he will perish.
I don’t think he is persecuting the Church in anyway, but maybe it’s time to do some things differently, by sending good messages and encouraging him to turn his life around and follow Christ, then his shows will have an amazing impact, God needs people like Bill to have testimonies of Grace.
We need to do as Jesus said and make disciples by showing we are Christian by our love.
Maybe even going to his shows wearing T-shirts saying we love you Bill and handing him a Bible.
People have come to Jesus this way!