De Omnibus Dubitandum Est.

Just a few thoughts on this. I am no fan of Stephen Fry although I recognise he is incredibly popular, and considered to be extremely intelligent and witty. If you haven't seen the context you can watch it here: The internet has been alive with this and the first good response I read was from Fr. Ed Tomlinson, who wrote this charitable and reasonable response, aimed directly at Fry. Fr. Ed articulates my immediate thought on the matter, which was why rail against something that doesn't exist? Counter-Cultural Father wrote what is perhaps a more satisfying response here , insofar as it is a little more critical of Fry's somewhat petulant approach to what is, after all, one of the oldest and most dealt with questions in theology. I think it is clear from both these responses that this is not a new question, indeed it is perhaps the oldest question, addressed by the oldest book in the Hebrew Scriptures (Job). Indeed I have addressed it numerous times here on my...

In January 2009 the British Humanist Association paid for an advertisement to be carried on the side of London buses as above. Perhaps the biggest consequence of this action is that it seems to have been the catalyst for the former Chief Rabbi, Dr. Jonathan Sacks to write an extraordinary book: The Great Partnership . It is for this reason that I will be eternally grateful to them. Sacks seems to have been incensed by the poor logic of the statement "because it raised the greatest of all existential choices: How shall we live our lives? By probability? Or by possibility?" (p. 267). Lord Sacks was Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth from September 1991 until this year. He was educated at Cambridge where he obtained first class honours in philosophy. He went on to gain a PH.D in 1981 and rabbinic ordination from Jews' College and Yeshiva Etz Chaim. He also holds 14 honorary degrees including a Doctor of Divinity conferred by the Archbi...

Dawkins: God love him! Ever since I first read The God Delusion, I have held a kind of exasperated respect for Richard Dawkins. It has always seemed to me that he was so incredibly ignorant about religion, yet asked all the right questions, questions that religious people should be answering, issues that religious people should be addressing. In this respect he has done religion a great service, I have no doubt, in that he has kept the important issues alive and being discussed. I have been consistantly frustrated by the lack of good answers coming forth from the religious community, although some have risen wonderfully to the challenge, notably the Chief Rabbi, Dr. Johnathan Sacks, in his wonderful book The Great Partnership. But also Professor John Lennox: I do think that Dawkins has become more and more a character of ridicule over the last few years however, to the point now where many atheists are exasperated with him and his bizarre opinions, as I have blogged about b...

Happy New Year to you all! A great blogging start to the year I have to say. Credit where credit is due; @PartTimePilgrim drew my attention to these great posts yesterday morning. So good, I felt I had to share some sort of conspectus with my own readers. First off, you must read this post by CCFather. It is concise, yet contains all the main historical, social and philosophical developmental points of the argument. CCFather correctly identifies that what is missing in broader society is any real concept of what marriage really is. We must address this fundamental point before we can begin to be heard on issues like same sex marriage. It is extremely valuable that he has placed the currently position squarely in its correct temporal context, i.e. that it is not first step 'on a path that we shouldn't take, but rather because..[it constitutes] a further step on a path we have already gone too far along'. @PartTimePilgrim suggests the penultimate paragraph of Be...

I know this blog is a bit late, coming on the back of comments made by Professor Richard Dawkins on Twitter on the 22nd December, but I've been a bit busy with Christmas and all. This is what started it all: I do think it is worth returning to however, because I feel Richard gets a bit of a bad press to be honest. I have a lot to thank him for, it was his thinking in The God Delusion that led me to ask some very important questions for myself. Much of his work has provided the background to my own study, pushing me in new directions and making me think about things with a depth of perception I would otherwise have lacked, not having the scientific understanding he undoubtedly demonstrates. In his books, Richard really does ask all the right questions. Even this, rather bellicose query, is worth making, isn't it? Does it not provide us with an opportunity to explain why it's not child abuse to bring up a child with a religious belief? Professor Dawkins has been rou...