St Paul's Cathedral:
thinking and faith
Martin Firrell is an artist, or claims to be an artist,
and is obviously regarded as an artist by the people at St Paul's Cathedral,
which has supported his work financially, and gave him the use of their
dome. Above, A Martin Firrell Company Enhanced General
Purpose Category Slogan for a Caring Corporate Partner and Sponsor: the
Church of England, St Paul's Branch.
Above: A
Martin Firrell Company Enhanced Pro-Radical-Feminist
False Generalization Slogan, not projected on any part of a cathedral. In
this section, I discuss some men at St Paul's Cathedral. I don't regard them
as dangerous, but I do regard them as naive. This is an
unenhanced slogan
on
the Martin Firrell
Website, www.martinfirrell.com
Embrace lesbianism and overthrow the
social order
The amazing thing is that Martin
Firrell would like companies and other institutions of the existing social
order to support him! His
hypocritical
Website has a begging section:
'Whilst we value the significant support of organisations like leading
digital media companies Clear Channel and Primesight. Firmdale Hotels,
Haysmacintyre, 20th Century Fox, Lloyd's of London and Virgin Atlantic, we
still need to raise significant funds to make our public artworks possible.
'We always work collaboratively with corporate supporters, understanding
business aims and Corporate Social Responsibility policies, to create
sponsorship opportunities with lasting value and impact: Mutual benefit is
vital to sustainable partnerships.'
Even more amazing, he has found some prestigious businesses and
institutions willing to support him, amongst them the National
Gallery, St Paul's Cathedral, The Guards Chapel Wellington Barracks, The
National Theatre, St Paul's Cathedral, Clear Channel ('Leading digital media
company'), Primesight ('Leading digital media company'), Firmdale Hotels,
Haysmacintyre, 20th Century Fox and Lloyd's of London.
And this is the context for Martin Firrell's 'art work,' obviously 'a
focus for reflection, meditation and contemplation.'
From the St Paul's Website,
https://www.stpauls.co.uk/history-collections/the-collections/arts-programme
'Cathedral Art
Throughout its history, art in St Paul's Cathedral has inspired
and illuminated the Christian faith for those who visit, and
provided a focus for reflection, meditation and contemplation.
The Question Mark Inside - Martin
Firrell (2008)
What makes your life worth living? The
artist Martin Firell posed that question as part of an art work to
celebrate the three hundredth anniversary of the Cathedral.'
There are short profiles in this section of
some men at St Paul's Cathedral - ones who appeared in the BBC film
'Christmas at St Paul's.'
This is Sarah Mullally,
the Bishop of London.
Credit for images above: Creative Commons
Link to licence:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode
Sarah Mullally's interest in helping underprivileged and
marginalized people is subject to {restriction}. She doesn't have a
privileged background - she was a comprehensive school pupil and has worked
as a nurse - but now she has certain advantages. Harriet Sherwood, the
Religion correspondent of the Observer, claims that she is 'now the C of E's
most powerful ever senior female cleric.'
As I see it, she now has a privileged position in an institution which
enjoys unjustifiable privileges, the established Church, the Church of England. The Right Reverend and Right Honourable Dame Sarah Mullally
DBE (Dame of the British Empire) has a seat in the House of Lords as one of
the Lords Spiritual. There are 26 bishops who have this privileged position.
The British Humanist Association has said it's 'unacceptable' that 'the UK is
the only Western democracy to give religious representatives the automatic
right to sit in the legislature.' I agree.
On this page, I discuss in detail
another area of our national life where the Church of England has a
privileged position, as I see it - the Church's participation in Remembrance
Day services. I don't think that this can be defended, but if Dame Sarah Mullally cares to defend it, I'd be very interested to read what her defence
amounts to - and, of course, the arguments of other bishops and other clergy
in favour of the Church's participation.
Stephen Holland isn't a member of the Church of England. He's an
evangelical minister who has many Youtube videos to his credit - or
many Youtube videos where his mediocrity and stupidity are obvious. One of
them has the title,
'Objection to the Bishop of London Sarah Mullally, and some good books.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=k8tNbOnVDoQ
He's protested at services where women are consecrated. This is from the
site 'Christian Today.' It includes some of his comments.
'It is not my intention to prevent these ungodly practices, but rather to
voice a public objection to them.'
He makes his objection during the part of the consecration service where
the question is asked of the congregation: "Is it now your will that they
should be ordained?"
He answers: 'No, in the name of Almighty God I protest. There are no
women bishops in the Bible.'
All the books
visible in the Youtube fiasco are Biblical commentaries. I regret giving any
space at all to this negligible figure
There are many, many clergy and others in the Church of
England who believe that during the Eucharist, the bread is changed into the
body of Christ and the wine is converted into the blood of Christ. The
Anglo-Catholics who believe this have a doctrine of the mass which is
identical to the Roman Catholic one, or very similar to it.
The BBC documentary 'Christmas at St Paul's' explains, when the making of
the Advent wreath is shown, that the red berries are a symbol of the blood
of Christ. Most Anglicans believe that the wine of the Eucharist is a symbol
of the blood of Christ, but Anglo-Catholic believers in transubstantiation
believe that the wine actually becomes the blood of Christ.
St Paul's Cathedral is a place which Anglo-Catholics find congenial, one with the smell of
incense. The documentary mentions 'Midnight
Mass.' It's not referred to as 'Midnight Holy Communion.' It may well be
that some or many of the clergy, and the people who attend services there, believe
in these Anglo-Catholic doctrines, believe that the wafers, the thin discs
of bread which were shown in the documentary, are transformed in this way.
The Dean of St Paul's, The Very Reverend Dr David Ison
(his PhD is in early church history) is shown delivering this article of faith
early in the documentary:
'In the name of God, who has delivered us from the dominion of darkness
and made a place for us in the Kingdom of his beloved son ...'
Obvious questions could be asked about the universality of these
benefits. For Christians who ignore traditional doctrine, these benefits are
universal, for other Christians, anything but universal: loving parents,
engineers, war heroes, everyone without Christian faith remain in the
'dominion of darkness' and have no place in 'the Kingdom of his beloved
son.' What is David Ison's view, I wonder? Perhaps he could explain.
The best known Dean of St Paul's is the poet John Donne. The site
contains an extended discussion of his poem 'A Valediction forbidding
Mourning' on the page on metaphor.
The Reverend Canon Michael Hampel was Precentor of St
Paul's Cathedral at the time the film was made. He's now the Vice-Dean and
Precentor of Durham Cathedral. In the film, he sees the enormous front doors
of the Cathedral as a sign of welcome. As so often, a different
interpretation is possible. The enormous doors weren't designed to be
welcoming. This was a vast building, to me a building which is grandiose,
and small doors would have seemed ridiculously small, out of scale.
The cathedral welcomes not just
'people who are very committed to their faith and people who are not sure.'
These are 'the hesitant people on the edges of faith.' He claims that these
people are in 'the shadows.' Is this the same as the 'dominion of darkness,'
or similar to it? He may or may not have an opinion on the people who remain
on the edges of faith and never become committed to faith. Do these people
remain in the 'dominion of darkness?'
The documentary gives a great deal of time to the sacrist James Milne. A sacrist
has responsibility for ceremony, for liturgical events. This doesn't exclude
responsibility for explaining his view of Christian faith, as he sees it.
James Milne really is an instructive example of a contemporary clergyman
attuned to some contemporary norms - following these norms in such a devoted
way. His devotion isn't quite the traditional Christian
devotion. He's more interested in the cult of celebrity than in the cult of
the Virgin Mary, let's say.
The commentary of the documentary mentions the 'carol concert with
orchestra and celebrity readers ... the glitziest event in the cathedral
calendar.'
James Milne is obviously an Anglo-Catholic. He's referred to as 'Father James Milne.' 'Fr James Milne has been tasked with
recruiting the celebrity readers.' He has been 'stalking celebrities for the
past 12 weeks and his efforts have begun to pay off.'
He says, 'We have, in alphabetical order, Sheila Hancock OBE, Emily Watson
OBE.' These mentions of the Order of the British Empire are significant, surely,
and the celebrities, and the honours they've received, are mentioned in the
tones of a glutton talking about the food he's eaten.
A member of the Cathedral staff sitting by a computer points out that
'last year we had Benedict Cumbebatch - that's made me excited like for two
decades. So I'm quite a happy bunny.' Drooling over celebrities seems to be
not unknown amongst clergy and other staff, then.
Commentator: 'At the 11th hour, Fr James has a breakthrough with his 3rd
celebrity reader.'
Fr James: 'I've just heard today that Michael Palin
thinks he's free ... so hopefully all will be well.'
(Compare and contrast T S Eliot, Four Quartets, Little Gidding:
'And all shall be well and
All manner of things shall be well')
Later: 'I've just heard today that Mr Palin is able to read,
which makes me very happy.'
After this triumphant end to his search, the commentator
tells us that he can now unwind. He unwinds by turning
to the model railway set he has available
in the cathedral.
Fame and celebrity preoccupy him intensely, it's clear
(and perhaps at the expense of ordinary people). 'You
can't quite believe that you're speaking to this person
who's famous, who's a celebrity.'
I don't see any reason at all why St Paul's Cathedral
should support his infatuations and allow him to spend
so much time 'stalking' famous people. This is not just a failure on his
part but a failure in the oversight of his work, perhaps.
Of course, there's much more to the film than what I've mentioned -
everyday banter, everyday friendliness, such as the friendliness of Fr
James, who seems to be an approachable man, and everyday jobs such as sewng
and dusting and sweeping - although the everyday jobs are applied in a
setting which isn't everyday. The women who sew may be sewing the very
ornate, and, to me, very ridiculous Bishop of London's mitre, a kind of hat.
It's shown in the photograph above of Sarah Mullalley, the Bishop of London.
The things which are dusted and swept are the massive furnishings and floor
of the Cathedral. Practical thinking is applied to problems which aren't of
the usual kind at all. They have a 'practical' solution if they run out of
wafers. A priest will be on hand to consecrate more. The stonemasons
comments on pigeons, a pest to them as they are to me, are far more
comprehensible. The information about damage to the Cathedral from German
bombs during the Blitz was very interesting, and that and the information
about repair work was, to me, a welcome relief from the Christianity.
Despite the cheeriness and good humour, I was left in no doubt that the
Cathedral existed to make known Christian claims, such as the claim that
Jesus came to save us. Towards the end of the programme, there was this,
spoken by the Dean:
'Let us pray for the people he came to save.' This shows an excessive
belief in the power of prayer. Does he really believe that the act of
praying for these people will make any difference?
From the Church of England Holy Communion service:
'Hear what Saint Paul says: This saying is true,
and worthy of full acceptance,. that Christ Jesus came into the
world to save sinners.' There's more about saving sinners in the section on
this page on Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
My interest in the English choral tradition, above all
Christmas music, is mentioned in the section on
this page on the King's College Chapel service. It was a great pleasure to hear the singing
of the St Paul's cathedral choir. I can't be as enthusiastic
about the architecture of St Paul's as the architecture of
King's College Chapel. I can't go into any detail about my
reasons here. The interior seems to me much less
successful than the exterior. Too much of the interior
seems grandiose and ungainly, without sufficient
expanse. I explain my concept of expanse, scale and
detail in my page on Design principles (the page is
mainly concerned with design in gardening but also
discusses architectural design.) The detail in St Paul's
cathedral is often very, very successful, of course:
the wood carving of Grinling Gibbons is just one example.
I've much greater appreciation for Continental Baroque
than English baroque, except for the architecture of
Blenheim Palace.
Introduction
Remembrance Sunday and the Church
Feeding
the hungry and the Sermon on the Mount
Profiles
Pete Wilcox,
Bishop of Sheffield
Justin Welby,
Archbishop of Canterbury
Adrian Dorber, Dean of Lichfield Cathedral
Andrew Hammond, Chaplain, King's College
Michael Dormandy, Chaplain, Christ's College
George Pitcher,
Anglican priest
St Paul's Cathedral: thinking and faith
King's College Chapel, Cambridge
The King James Bible
'For God so
loved the world ... '
Religious stupidity and non-religious stupidity
Aphorisms: religion and ideology
What is an ideology?
The page uses Large Page Design
- it's wide as well as long. It can't be viewed adequately on a very small
screen, such as the screen of a portable device.
See also the
pages
Ethics:
theory and practice
Nietzsche: against
Nietzsche is an opponent of pity as well as Christianity. In
my page on Nietzsche I defend humanitarian values and criticize some of the
delusions, distortions and falsifications of Nietzsche - from a
non-Christian perspective.
Aphorisms
Ethics: theory and practice
Cambridge University: excellence,
mediocrity, stupidity
Introduction
Above, believers in
transubstantiation, in this case Roman Catholics - during the Mass, the bread and wine are converted to
the actual body and blood of Christ. Many Anglicans believe in
transubstantiation too. As I make clear in other places, the Church of
England is hopelessly divided, with a chaotic mixture of incompatible views.
Credit: Creative Commons
Link to licence:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode
Threats to the mind aren't important
to many people. If beliefs are deluded but the people holding them are
'harmless' (not terrorists, not advocates of indiscriminate violence which
threaten the body), then this is of no account. I regard threats to the mind
as well as to the body as important, as far from harmless, as threats to be
resisted. 'Threats to mind and body:' the phrase is a concise way of
expressing the conviction that harmful
forces may threaten not just the body, by killing and injuring, but the
mind, by threatening free thought and free expression, artistic
expression as well as intellectual expression.
There are still old-fashioned atheists who regard Christianity as the
most harmful force in the world today. In the twentieth century, fascism and Stalinism
and other forms of communism completely eclipsed Christianity as a threat to body and mind.
In the past, Christianity has often threatened mind and body. In the
section on
Pete Wilcox, the Bishop of Sheffield, I
discuss some of the people burned at the stake - by the Church of England
and by Calvin at Geneva - for disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity and
other failures of belief.
Hume, writing in the 'Treatise concerning Human Understanding: 'Generally
speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only
ridiculous.'
A partial updating of Hume's view: the errors in
religion may be dangerous but the most dangerous errors come from
non-religious ideologies. In the past, the most dangerous errors have been
Nazism and Communism, and of communist ideologies, particularly Stalinist
communism. The other-worldly aspects of religion, the stress upon ritual or
correct thinking or a holy book, and all the other varied characteristics of
religions, have lessened their capacity for causing harm. The cruelties of
Christianity, such as the Inquisition and the cruelties sometimes carried
out by Islamists, such as amputation of limbs and stoning to death, have
never been on the same scale as the savagery of Nazism and Stalinism, or the atrocities
committed by such regimes as those of Pol Pot in Cambodia.
There are still old-fashioned atheists who overlook the many, many
impressive Christians and followers of other religions. Their assumption
that non-religious people must always be superior to religious people could
be called childish, but I use the word 'unformed.'
In the twenty-first
century, Christianity is negligible as a threat to mind and body whilst the dangers of
Islamism have become obvious, to anyone with any sense, and
{adjustment} is needed to recognize these changing realities. But it isn't
enough to recognize the chief threats, there has to be quantification of the
threats. Even radical, terror-supporting Islamism is obviously far less of a threat to body than
Nazism in the past. Its outrages are horrific but generally localized. No Islamic state or
terrorist organization has perpetrated a fraction of the atrocities
inflicted by Nazi Germany, again, despite the horrific atrocities they have
inflicted, in part because radical Islamism generally seems to
be incompatible with highly developed economies, social organizations and
scientific and technological expertise. When an Islamic state is an
exception to this - Iran is the prime example now - then the potential
threat to the body is very great. If ISIS did have the power and the
resources, then its atrocities would equal those of Nazi Germany.
On this page, I criticize not just
the religious but some of their opponents, such as some humanists
(supporters of groups such as the British Humanist Association.) To see
through some illusions and forms of stupidity is no guarantee that someone
will not be subject to other illusions and forms of stupidity. Illusion
and stupidity aren't evaded too easily. A humanist who can see through the arguments intended to
show that the gospel records are largely reliable, that Jesus rose again,
that prayer works and is worthwhile (although not, nowadays, that praying for good weather works and is worthwhile), may well
be in the grip of delusions more harmful than any of these.
In various places in this site, I argue against pacifism. A Christian
who believes that Jesus rose again may well recognize the harsh realities
that make pacifism unworkable and disastrous in some circumstances, may have
delusions about prayer but recognize that to defeat Nazi Germany or the
Taliban requires practical action. The humanist who airily dismisses the
need for action by force of arms in some circumstances is suffering from a
more severe form of delusion. The believer's common sense and good sense may
be left unaffected by theological illusion.
I criticize the Anglican
priest George Pitcher on this page. This is someone whose superficiality
should be obvious. He shares the illusions of so many secularists in such
practicalities as defence, Islamism, migration and other issues but he has
religious illusions as well. They include his incredible belief that the
Church of England can still be taken seriously - provided, of course, its
Public Relations are conducted in a more sophisticated way, by making full
use of social media, for instance. He would like other things to happen as
well, things which are unlikely to happen.
The strengths of this age co-exist with stupidities.
The stupidities of previous ages were different but often as bad or worse. When Protestant persecuted Catholic and Catholic persecuted Protestant and
both Catholic and Protestant persecuted non-believers and believers in other
forms of Christianity, tolerance was an overwhelmingly important
necessity. Today, tolerance can be stupid and dangerous, as is increasingly recognized. Giving
sanctuary to the persecuted is noble but giving sanctuary to the persecuted
who would be only too glad to persecute, given the chance, is
usually very mistaken. To distinguish between people worthy of a safe haven
in a liberal democracy and people who aren't in the least an asset to a
liberal democracy, who are a threat to a liberal democracy, may be very
difficult, but the attempt has to be made.
But this isn't in general a tolerant age. Political correctness has
replaced Christianity as a threat to the mind.
It would be a great mistake to suppose that only
religious beliefs which are aggressive or grossly intolerant are dangerous,
that religious beliefs which are placid and tolerant can never be
dangerous, or that philosophical beliefs can never be dangerous - with
{restriction} of attention here to physical dangers, the dangers to body.
Only a little thought and reflection are needed to realize that Buddhism and
Quaker beliefs (which are peripherally religious) can be potentially
dangerous and actually dangerous. This is for the reason that any set of
beliefs, religious or otherwise, which fails to recognize and to act against
dangers by giving support to inaction is itself dangerous. If ruthless
militarism is a great danger, so is pacifism in the face of ruthless
militarism.
David Hume, the 18th century philosopher, the greatest and most
influential of English-speaking philosophers and a very versatile
writer, was born in Edinburgh, studied at Edinburgh University, was a
librarian at Edinburgh University and lived for much of his life in
Edinburgh - but he didn't secure a chair at the university.
Edinburgh ministers petitioned the town council not to give the chair to
him on account of his atheistic views.
This is from Richard Wollheim's introduction to 'Hume on Religion,' which
contains the classic 'Dialogues concerning Natural Religion' and other
texts, including 'Of Miracles' (Section x, An Enquiry concerning Human
Understanding.)
'Looking back upon eighteenth-century Edinburgh, we tend so readily to
think of it as bathed in that soft 'Athenian' light, in that glow of radiant
liberalism, which distinguished its middle and later years, that we quite
forget at how narrow a remove it stood, both in time and place, from
fanaticism and intellectual barbarism.'
This was David Hume's attitude to illusion and ignorance and people in
the grip of illusion and ignorance:
' ... it might be possible to liberate them from this illusion or that,
but it would only be replaced by another. 'In a future age,' he wrote, a
propos of the doctrine of transubstantiation [the belief that during the
Catholic mass, the bread and wine are transformed into the literal body and
blood of Christ, without any alteration of appearances] 'it will probably
become difficult to persuade some nations, that any human two-legged
creature could ever embrace such principles.' Then with characteristic
wryness he added, 'And it is a thousand to one, but these nations themselves
shall have something full as absurd in their own creed ... '
Many, many Catholics and other Christians have been and are not just
people of good sense but outstanding, to give just one example, the
Christian people who sheltered Jews facing extermination, at enormous risk
to themselves. A belief in transubstantiation can co-exist with
clear-sighted views - and humane views, as well as great abilities in the
sphere of practical action. Many, many secularists, who can see the
absurdity of transubstantiation have views which are ridiculous and
stupid.
This isn't in the least a scholarly page, but I can claim knowledge of
theological scholarship, including study of the New Testament in Greek, as
well as extensive study of wider theological debate and discussion.
It's my policy that any emails I receive, on any issues whatsoever, are
regarded as private, and won't be published or mentioned on the site unless
I'm given the permission of the sender of the email. So, anyone who is
critical of my views on religion (or a particular ideology) is free to
contact me by email and the criticism will remain private. I'm also glad to
discuss these issues in the public domain (provided I have the time - the
Home Page will show that there are many other
issues that interest me and concern me.)
Feeding the hungry and the
Sermon on the Mount
Above, a
page from The Gospel according to Matthew, from Papyrus 1, c.
250 AD
Above, a combine
harvester
© Copyright
Anne Burgess and licensed for
reuse under this
Creative Commons Licence.
Above, tractor working the land in Norfolk
This is a very brief survey of some of the issues, but none the worse for
that, I'd hope. In my page on Nietzsche, I quote
this, from his book 'Twilight of the Idols:'
' ... my ambition is to say in ten sentences what everyone else says in a book -
what everyone else does not say in a book...'
I'd claim that the arguments I give here are ones which
are missing from much longer discussions of the issues. In my page on
Nietsche, my loathing for him will be obvious. I criticize his criticism of
pity. I criticize him for his neglect of the material conditions of life,
which is the focus of attention here:
'He criticizes the Christian tendency to overlook the needs of the body
but largely ignores the material conditions of life. It was impossible to
satisfy the fundamental needs of the body until the industrial revolution
transformed the material conditions of life.'
The Sermon on the Mount isn't concerned with the material conditions
of life. These are addressed in the margins of the New Testament. The
feeding of the hungry is a practical problem which is addressed only in two
'miracles' of Jesus reported in the Gospels.
The first 'miracle,' the 'Feeding of the 5, 000' is reported by all
four gospels: Matthew 14: 13-21, Mark 6:31-44, Luke 9:12-17, John 6:1-14.)
The second 'miracle,' the 'Feeding of the 4,000', with seven loaves of
bread and fish, is reported by Matthew
15:32-39 and Mark 8:1-9.
The accounts in Matthew of the feeding of the 5, 000, the
feeding of the 4, 000 and the Sermon on the Mount all refer to 'multitude'
or 'multitudes,' in the original Greek
ὄχλον and
τοὺς
ὄχλους. The word can be translated in ways which are very
different: crowd, populace, throng, mob, the masses.
These 'miracles' are irrelevant to the practical problems of feeding the
hungry. Doctrines of salvation can easily be constructed from the New Testament
record, but not practical advice to do with the prevention of famine or the
prevention of plague or the healing of disease or the death of women in
childbirth. Christians have taken it for granted that people subject to such
terrible burdens as these can overlook their burdens and are free to
consider the welfare of the soul, the merits of Jesus Christ as their Lord
and Saviour. So, Jesus came to earth and gave advice about all kinds of
spiritual matters, but gave no advice about such problems as feeding the
people, releasing people from the Multhusian nightmare of too many births
and insufficient resources. Release from the consequences of sin is
adequately covered, not so release from the scourges of infectious disease.
Here, I concentrate on release from the scourge of famine. From the
page where I criticize Green ideology:
'On the
back cover of Peter Mathias's 'The First Industrial Nation': 'The fate of the overwhelming mass of the population
in any pre-industrial society is to pass their lives on the margins of subsistence.
It was only in the eighteenth century that society in north-west Europe, particularly
in England, began the break with all former traditions of economic life.'
'In the
'Prologue,' this is elaborated: 'The elemental truth must be stressed that
the characteristic of any country before its industrial revolution and modernization
is poverty. Life on the margin of subsistence is an inevitable condition for
the masses of any nation. Doubtless there will be a ruling class, based on
the economic surplus produced from the land or trade and office, often living
in extreme luxury. There may well be magnificent cultural monuments and very
wealthy religious institutions. [There are many images on this page which
show 'magnificent cultural monuments' and 'very wealthy religious
institutions,' the images which show King's College Chapel and St Paul's
Cathedral] But with low productivity, low output per
head, in traditional agriculture, any economy which has agriculture as the
main constituent of its national income and its working force does not produce
much of a surplus above the immediate requirements of consumption from its
economic system as a whole ... The population as a whole, whether of medieval
or seventeenth-century England, or nineteenth-century India, lives close to
the tyranny of nature under the threat of harvest failure or disease ... The
graphs which show high real wages and good purchasing power of wages in some
periods tend to reflect conditions in the aftermath of plague and endemic
disease.'
'Larry
Zuckerman, 'The Potato:' 'Famine struck France thirteen times in the sixteenth
century, eleven in the seventeenth, and sixteen in the eighteenth. And this
tally is an estimate, perhaps incomplete, and includes general outbreaks only.
It doesn't count local famines that ravaged one area or another almost yearly.
Grain's enemy was less cold weather (though that took its toll) or storms,
which damaged crops in localities, than wet summers, which prevented the grain
from ripening and caused it to rot.'
Desperate
poverty in pre-industrial societies and the early period of industrialisation
required that 'every member of a family who could work did so, down to young
children.' ('The Potato'). And child labour, 'though among the industrial
revolution's evils, wasn't restricted to factory or home workshop. Farm workers'
six- and seven-year-old children toiled long days too.'
'What
ended grinding poverty (the poverty of being clothed in filthy rags as well
as the poverty of not having very many clothes), what eventually freed these
children from work in mines, factories, workshops, the fields, what gave men,
women and children increasing relief from back-breaking work, was greater
productivity.'
The problem of thirst - material thirst - was addressed in a
magnificent way, by the construction of reservoirs, which has involved large
scale civil engineering. At last, clean drinking water was available in
large quantity. The most significant cause of human disease is lack of clean
drinking water and lack of adequate sewage disposal - problems which Jesus
neglected.
The Sermon on the Mount doesn't mention
material hunger, or material thirst. Instead, we have this (Matthew 5:6):
'Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after
righteousness: for they shall be filled.'
This
has the advantage of resonance, to an extent. It sounds good, to an extent.
In the modern Church, as previously, sounding good and looking good have the
advantage over approaches which are ethically good or realistically good.
The translation here is the King James Bible, examined
and criticized on this page. I point out that King James was a persecutor of
women he considered witches.
Our dilemmas and difficulties aren't solved and aren't treated
realistically by producing a Biblical quote, such as some superficial words
of Jesus - overlooking, of course, the difficulties of deciding if the words
were used by Jesus at all. The 'teaching' of Jesus recorded in the gospel
according to St John which doesn't appear in the synoptic gospels - this is
a reminder of the difficulties. Any idea that the synoptic gospels are a
reliable source of information is ridiculous. The simple faith of ordinary
people requires a recourse to complex matters to do with advanced textual
scholarship. Before any claim that 'Jesus said ...' or 'Jesus
taught, the word 'allegedly' should be inserted. An additional source of
difficulty and confusion is to do with translation. One translation may
convey one impression, a different translation a different one. The King
James bible gives 'blessed' as a translation of the New Testament Greek word
Μακάριοι the plural of
μακάριος. The word can also be translated as 'happy.'
Familiarity with the original languages hasn't protected Christian
commentators from misrepresentation and outright stupidity. Christian
commentators have often claimed, for example, that the Christian doctrine of
the Trinity is supported by the fact that the word for 'God' in Hebrew is a
plural word, אֱלֹהִ֑ים The word appears in the first verse of
Genesis, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,'
Of course, 'heaven' and 'earth' here belong to a simple,
superseded cosmology and to accept that God created these is to ignore all
the scientific evidence. If it's claimed that this is a literal approach and
that anyone who takes it is ignoring the depth of the original, perhaps
claimed to be symbolic rather than literal, I'd say that it's not profound,
and that to take this approach is ruinous for clear-sighted thinking. Honest
thinking and honest feeling are both distinct from manipulated and
superstitious thinking and from the feeling which flourishes when unchecked.
The connotations of 'happy' are very different from those of 'blessed.'
Happiness, unlike blessedness, has rarely been prominent in Christian belief
before contemporary times. Happiness began to count in the Age of the
Enlightenment. Louis de Saint-just, prominent during the French Revolution,
claimed that 'le bonheur est une idée neuve en europe' ('happiness is a new
idea in Europe.')
In the Sermon on the
Mount, Jesus allegedly said, according to Matthew (5:4), 'Blessed are they
that mourn: for they shall be comforted.'
In times of war as in times of peace, those who mourn for loved ones
they have lost have no reason to be comforted, if the loved ones they have
lost never accepted Jesus Christ as their personal lord and saviour. The
confused and contradictory theology of the Bible is clear enough about this.
The belief of St Paul and countless other followers of Christ is that these
loved ones are lost.
The words of the Bible never give an adequate
treatment of any issue of any complexity. The alleged saying of Jesus,
'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things
that are God's' (Matthew 22:21) is useless as a guide to the many, many
problems to do with the relationship between Christian duty - or 'duty' -
and practice and the demands of a secular state. The alleged words of Jesus
in the Sermon on the Mount 'Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be
called the children of God' are useless in guiding those who try to end a
war. Ending the First World War and ending the Second World War entailed
issues of vast complexity, to do with military realities, economic and
financial realities, the competing claims of humanitarianism and harshness,
the realities of displaced people, and so much else.
The combine
harvester - one of them is shown at the beginning of this section - is a
very versatile machine, capable of harvesting a wide variety of grain crops,
including wheat, oats, barly, maize soya beans, flax and sunflowers. It's
one of the most important labour-saving inventions (and human
suffering-saving inventions, freeing humanity from the suffering which
arises from hunger and famine, the suffering which arises from limited
agricultural prodictivity.
The straw which is left can be chopped up and spread on the field, or
converted into straw bales. I've a great interest in straw bales, which I
use in my allotments for construction and other purposes. To me, they have
aesthetic as well as practical importance. This is an image from my page
Gardening, construction:
introduction, with photographs.
The combine harvester and the tractor shown in the photographs
at the beginning of this section are working in good weather
conditions. If bad weather is forecast, the Church of England has a solution
for Anglican combine harvester and tractor drivers: prayer. From the Church
of England Website,
https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/common-worship/churchs-year/times-and-seasons/agricultural-year
Prayer in Times of Agricultural Crisis
Two forms of prayer are provided. The first is a
prayer that can be used as a basis for corporate response to a time of
crisis. The second is for seasonable weather, and may be used in times when
heavy rain or flooding or indeed lack of rain prejudices the crops, or when
severe or extreme weather endangers the harvest and the welfare of animals.
The book 'Atmosphere, weather and climate' (Sixth Edition) by Roger G
Barry and Richard J Chorley includes this:
'The most
notorious type of cyclone is the tropical hurricane (or typhoon). Some 80 or
so cyclones each year are responsible, on average, for 20, 000 fatalities,
as well as causing immense damage to property and a serious shipping hazard,
due to the combined effects of high winds, high seas, flooding from the
heavy rainfall and coastal storm surges.' The book outlines the science
which underlies cyclones, including such branches of science as atmospheric
physics. An example:
'Enhancement of a storm system by
cumulus convection is termed Conditional Instability of the Second Kind ...
the thermally direct circulation converts the heat increment into potential
energy and a small fraction of this - about 3 per cent - is transformed into
kinetic energy ...
'In the eye, or innermost region of the
storm, adiabatic warming of descending air accentuates the high temperatures
... '
The physical processes which underlie the world's weather
are of vast complexity. Scientific advances have made possible control in
innumerable cases, but not so in the case of weather systems. Scientific
advances have made it possible to forecast adverse weather in many cases,
and the advance warning often enables lives to be saved and property to be
safeguarded by taking preventive action.
Praying that God will change
the weather to benefit the people praying is futile, ridiculous and stupid,
and by mentioning this on the Church of England Website, the Church is
making itself look futile, ridiculous and stupid. What are the mechanisms by
which God changes the weather when prayer reaches him? Does God alter
adiabatic warming, or the fraction of potential energy transformed into
kinetic energy?
Calming the storm is one of the miracles of Jesus, reported in all
the Synoptic gospel accounts - this is reporting which bears no resemblance
to the reporting which can be found in good or moderately trustworthy
newspapers.
This is the account in Matthew, 8: 23 - 27 in the
King James Bible:
23 And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples
followed him.
24 And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea,
insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.
25 And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying,
Lord, save us: we perish.
26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little
faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a
great calm.
27 But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this,
that even the winds and the sea obey him!
This is a contemporary translation, to be found in The Good News
Bible. As will be obvious, a translation into contemporary English doesn't
translate a superstitious world view of natural processes into a
contemporary world view.
3Jesus got into a boat, and his disciples went with him.
24Suddenly a fierce storm hit the lake, and the boat was in
danger of sinking. But Jesus was asleep.
25The disciples went
to him and woke him up. “Save us, Lord!” they said. “We are about to die!”
26“Why are you so frightened?”
Jesus answered. “How little faith you have!”
Then he got up and ordered the winds and the waves to stop, and there was a
great calm.
27Everyone was amazed. “What kind of man is this?” they
said. “Even the winds and the waves obey him!”
Compare and contrast the miracles of Jesus which amount to
faith healing and scientific medicine. It's sometimes claimed that
historical progress is an illusion. Although there are vast numbers of
credulous people now, including vast numbers of credulous Christians, the
credulous Christians of past centuries were more credulous, far more
dangerous in their credulity, than the Christians of today.
This is the storm as depicted by Rembrandt in one of his lesser
great works:
Art and architecture do nothing to demonstrate that a religious
doctrine is trustworthy (there are wider implications.)
To confine attention to great artists, the art of a great
artist can't demonstrate any of these:
That Jesus calmed a storm on the Sea of Galilee
That Jesus
was crucified as a matter of historical record, or that Jesus was crucified
for our sins
That Jesus was born in a stable, or that Jesus was born
anywhere else
That St Peter founded the Roman Catholic Church
That the
Assumption of the Virgin Mary took place
See also my discussion of art works of music as well as
pictorial art) and architecture in King's College Chapel. The architecture
of King's College Chapel doesn't validate Christian belief, either
pre-Reformation belief or post-Reformation belief. The quality of the choral
singing in King's College Chapel doesn't validate Christian belief, in any
of its contradictory manifestations.
These are instances of the {theme}
{separation}.
My pages on literature should leave no doubt that there are ways of
looking and ways of thinking which are separate from economic and
technological (and humanitarian) perspectives. In the case of grain, this is
one of them, a well-known example. From Thomas Traherne's 'Centuries of
Meditations:'
'The corn was orient and immortal wheat, which never should be reaped,
nor was ever sown. I thought it had stood from everlasting to everlasting.'
Profiles
Pete Wilcox, Bishop of
Sheffield
1. Above, I discuss Remembrance Day commemorations
which take the form of a Church of England service but which aren't held in
a Church. These commemorations, which take place throughout the
country on Remembrance Sunday, are attended by people with many different
religious beliefs or no beliefs at all. I give my reasons for thinking that
the Church of England's privileged status at these commemorations can't be
justified. Does the Bishop of Sheffield think that non-members of the Church of England, including
non-Christians, should be expected to join in Christian prayers at Church of
England outdoor services on Remembrance Sunday?
2. Pete Wilcox describes
himself as 'an
evangelical, and quite a conservative person.' He says that 'The bible matters to me a
great deal.' These comments were made in an article published
in the Sheffield newspaper 'The Star,'
Church Society, a Conservative
Evangelical group in the Church of England:
' ... all people are under the judgement of God and his righteous
anger burns against them. Unless a person is reconciled to God they
are under His condemnation and His just judgement against them is that they
will be separated from Him forever in Hell. (Romans 1 v18, 2 v16, Revelation
20 v15)
'Jesus will come back and the world will end, there will then be a final
judgement where those who have not accepted Jesus will be cast into hell
with Satan and his angels. Christians will receive new bodies and live in
eternal bliss in the presence of God the Father, God the Son, and God the
Spirit. (Hebrews 9 v27, Revelation 20 v11, 1 Corinthians 15 v51)
'The biblical way of salvation has often been attacked over the
centuries, however it is stated clearly in the 39 Articles of the Church of
England:
Article 6: Of the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation.
Article 1: Faith in the Holy Trinity
Article 9: Of Original or Birth-sin
Article 2: The Word, or Son of God, who became truly man
Article 4: The resurrection of Christ
Article 11: Of the Justification of Man
'Unless a person is reconciled to God they are under his condemnation ...'
Good works are no defence. Article XII 'Of Good Works' states
'Good Works ... cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's
Judgement.' Whether the good works include bringing safe drinking water to
people ravaged by water-borne diseases such as cholera by means of massive
engineering works, or rescuing Jews from the Nazis, or opposing the Nazis by
heroic action in battle, or everyday goodness and self-sacrifice, if there's
no belief in Jesus Christ, the good works are ignored, in this loathsome
scheme, and there's no salvation.
Are the Bishop's Conservative Evangelical views the
same, or are they different in some ways? The Church Society statement has
obvious implications for Remembrance. Does Pete Wilcox believe that those who
fell in war are separated from God forever if they never accepted Jesus
Christ as their personal lord and saviour ?
This is from The Church of England Website (A Christian presence in every community)
https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/join-us-in-daily-prayer/morning-prayer-contemporary-saturday-26-may-2018
¶ Morning Prayer on Saturday
Saturday, 26 May 2018
Augustine, first Archbishop of Canterbury, 605 [Lesser
Festival]
John Calvin, Reformer, 1564
[Commemoration]
Philip Neri, Founder of the Oratorians, Spiritual Guide,
1595 [Commemoration]
The service begins with this:
O Lord, open our lips
All and
our mouth shall proclaim your praise.
The doctoral thesis of Pete Wilcox was on the 'thought and practice of
John Calvin:
'Restoration, Reformation and the progress of the
kingdom of Christ : evangelisation in the thought and practice of John
Calvin, 1555–1564.'
As is well known, Calvin denounced Michael
Servetus as a heretic. Michael Servetus had denied the doctrine of the
Trinity, the doctrine that God consists of God the Father, God the Son and
God the Holy Spirit. Michael Servetus was burned alive.
Above, John Calvin
Above, Michael Servetus being burned alive
My own view is that Calvin has obvious historical importance, for
people interested in Reformation theology, and historical importance in the
history of humanitarian thought and practice, as a hideous example of cruel
intolerance. I haven't been able to consult the Bishop of Sheffield's thesis, but
his interest is obviously in Calven's place in Reformation theology. Is this
aspect of his
background, obviously important to him, of any use whatsoever in approaching
the problems of this industrial city and the people who live and work here?
Below, Edward Wightman being burned alive. He was the last person to
be burned alive for heresy in this country, in 1612. Only three weeks
before, Bartholomew Legate had been burned alive for heresy. Both had denied
the doctrine of the Trinity. Edward Wightman had also questioned the status
of the Church of England. The charges against him included these:
That there is no Trinity;
That Jesus Christ is not God, perfect God and of the same substance,
eternity and majesty with the Father in respect of his God-head;
That Christianity is not wholly professed and preached in the Church of
England, but only in part.
Below, a diagram which is supposed to explain the mysteries and
paradoxes of the Trinity: why Michael Servetus, Edward Wightman and
Bartholomew Legate and all the other disbelievers were mistaken, according
to Trinitarians.
Sheffield's industrial past and present will be of
far less importance to the Bishop of Sheffield than the theological
controversies of the past and present, but industry has always presented
problems for theology, generally unrecognized, and continues to do so. This
is just one example. From Friedrich Engels, 'The Condition of the Working
Class in England (1844) described conditions at the time. Here, he compares
conditions in Sheffield with conditions in Manchester:
'In Sheffield wages are better, and the external
state of the workers also. On the other hand, certain branches of work
are to be noticed here, because of their extraordinarily injurious
influence upon health ... By far the most unwholesome work is the
grinding of knife-blades and forks, which, especially when done with a
dry stone, entails certain early death. The unwholesomeness of this work
lies in part in the bent posture, in which chest and stomach are
cramped; but especially in the quantity of sharp-edged metal dust
particles freed in the cutting, which fill the atmosphere, and are
necessarily inhaled.'
I live near to a valley where a large number of
industrial operations flourished during the industrial revolution and in
some cases later. The work included the manufacture of cutting tools,
absolutely essential tools, without which society would have ground to a
halt. The grinding operation was an essential step in their manufacture,
and the workers paid the price. They were exposed to these dangers but
they weren't exploited. It was impossible to protect them. Modern
methods of protection depend upon technical advances which lay in the
future. The Articles of Faith of the Church of England are relevant to
these workers if you accept these articles of faith. They aren't
relevant in any way if you regard them as hideous. They are given on the
Church of England Website - so much the worse for the Church of England.
Justin Welby, Archbishop of
Canterbury
Justin Welby has made his views clear on a wide range of subjects - food
banks, same-sex marriage, matters to do with taxation, and many more. He has
claimed that the European Union ranks as 'the greatest achievement “since the
fall of the western Roman Empire” in the fifth century.
What
are his views on non-Christians and the Christian doctrine of redemption and
salvation? He gave the sermon at the service at Westminster Abbey on 11
November, 2018. What are his views on the war dead who were commemorated?
What kind of consolation can he offer?
'Bishop Welby is regarded by observers as being on the evangelical wing of
the Church, closely adhering to traditional interpretations of the Bible ...
' according to the BBC report at the time of his appointment,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20242129
Evangelicals in the Church of England don't have identical views on
doctrine. Church Society states the views held by many, many Conservative
Evangelicals within the Church of England. Extracts from the Church Society
Website,
https://churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/heads/
salvation/iss_doctrine_heads_salvation_intro.asp
Which of the claims on this particular page does Justin Welby accept and
which does he reject? Does he accept these claims, for example, or reject
them unreservedly?
' ... all people are under the judgement of God and his righteous
anger burns against them. Unless a person is reconciled to God they
are under His condemnation and His just judgement against them is that they
will be separated from Him forever in Hell. (Romans 1 v18, 2 v16, Revelation
20 v15)
'Jesus will come back and the world will end, there will then be a final
judgement where those who have not accepted Jesus will be cast into hell
with Satan and his angels. Christians will receive new bodies and live in
eternal bliss in the presence of God the Father, God the Son, and God the
Spirit. (Hebrews 9 v27, Revelation 20 v11, 1 Corinthians 15 v51)
'The biblical way of salvation has often been attacked over the
centuries, however it is stated clearly in the 39 Articles of the Church of
England:
Article 6: Of the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation.
Article 1: Faith in the Holy Trinity
Article 9: Of Original or Birth-sin
Article 2: The Word, or Son of God, who became truly man
Article 4: The resurrection of Christ
Article 11: Of the Justification of Man
Which of the 39 Articles of the Church of England does Justin Welby
accept and which does he reject?
Anglicans who don't believe in hellfire presumably believe that being a
Christian does make a difference. They can - should - explain what
difference it does make. What are the disadvantages to those who don't
believe that the birth of Jesus is at all relevant to them, or who have
never given any thought to the matter?
The Labour Party of this country has members with very varied views and has
often been described as a broad Church. A less broad, much narrower Labour
Party would be much more preferable. A Labour Party without members who are
doctrinal anti-Semites would be a vast improvement.
A less broad, much narrower Church of England would be a vast improvement -
a Church of England without members who believe that only those who have
accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour will be spared
hellfire.
The breakup of the Church of England would be a momentous event, one which
is possible and, in my view, desirable, but unlikely. I hope that the dispensers of amiable
platitudes (there are some Anglicans who have more to offer) become
increasingly uncomfortable about belonging to the same Church as the
preachers of God's wrath against unredeemed sinners - who include devoted
parents, holders of the Victoria Cross, scientists, surgeons, engineers, the
vast numbers who haven't accepted the Gospel message.
Adrian Dorber, Dean of Lichfield Cathedral
See also my page
Israel, Islamism, Palestinian ideology
All the instances of bias I document on the page, some of it deluded,
psychotic bias, come from non-Christians. The Church of England's record in
relation to the state of Israel isn't in the least bad. The case discussed
here isn't typical in the least. It's a rare exception.
Adrian Dorber has been heavily criticized for his role in a blatantly biased
conference which was suppposed to shed light “on the Israel/Palestine
Conflict and the prospect of peace” but which obviously did nothing of the
kind. From the graphic account written by David Collier of the
conference 'Holding Palestine in the Light,' held at Lichfield Cathedral.
The full account is at
http://david-collier.com/?p=2328
An extract:
... sitting next to me with her hand raised is Mandy Blumenthal. Zionist to
the core, Mandy had asked a question of Yossi Meckleberg earlier in the day.
She had wanted to know why Yossi had seemed to imply settlements, rather
than Arab rejectionism and violence was a (the?) major stumbling block. This
time, with the knowledge that Mandy was a Zionist, the Chair was visibly
ignoring Mandy’s raised hand.
The Chair was desperately seeking questions
from elsewhere in the audience. The questions had dried up. It was a
stand-off. Mandy became vocal:
‘why won’t you let me speak?’
‘Because you spoke earlier’ came the reply.
As an answer it did not suffice. Several people had asked more than one
question. The situation was absurd. There were no more questions. Only
Mandy’s hand remained aloft. There were still 10 minutes left till the end
of this session.
Several people became visibly agitated. A member of the audience asked why
the chair was ignoring Mandy’s question. Mandy spoke up again:
“Isn’t this a conference, why is only one side allowed to be heard?”
Open confrontation. This was not what the Dean had wanted, he stepped in to
soothe the situation and offered Mandy Blumenthal the microphone. Yet as he
did this and as Mandy stepped up, the Chair led Kamel Hawwash off the stage.
The ‘Jew’ question need not be answered. An awful, vile slur. In the end,
Hawwash did return but only to claim that Blumenthal had lied.
It was break time again. There were several cries of “shame on you”, but I
am not sure to who it was directed. Someone came straight up to Mandy
to apologise. ‘This is my town and I am Christian but that was
unacceptable’. ‘I do not know why it happened’. Others started to get
involved, some suggested they had not expected this conference to be so one
sided. This time as I mingled I was approached by a young activist. He
identified himself quite quickly as a ‘BDS supporter.'
My comment, published below David Collier's article:
The Church of England is often regarded as naive, blundering, ineffectual –
but some naive, blundering, ineffectual people in the Church can cause real
damage. Adrian Dorber, the Dean of Lichfield Cathedral, is one of these.
The Bishop of Lichfield claims that he couldn’t have stopped the
Conference, but it was naive of him – more than that, a serious blunder –
not to have realized that a Conference on this topic would be controversial.
He ought to have intervened and made sure that the Conference would be
fair-minded and balanced but failed to do that. Justin Welby says that ‘He
has no direct authority over the Dean,’ but he’s admitting, in effect, that
he, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is sometimes unable or unwilling to do
anything about the anti-Israel propaganda which is allowed to go
unchallenged far too often in the Church of England.
A sermon preached at St Marks Church, Sheffield in 2014 included this:
‘The Revd Dr Stephen Sizer, who has researched and published broadly in this
area, concludes ‘that Christian Zionism is the largest, most controversial
and most destructive lobby within Christianity. It bears primary
responsibility for perpetuating tensions in the Middle East, justifying
Israel’s apartheid colonialist agenda and for undermining the peace process
between Israel and the Palestinians.’ ‘
What? The intractable problems of the Middle East, the atrocities in the
Middle East, largely caused by Christian Zionists? The Revd Stephen Sizer is
yet another naive and blundering Anglican, but a particularly dangerous one.
He gave a link to an article which claimed that Israel was responsible for
the 9 / 11 attack on the World Trade Center!
The Bishop of Guildford acted decisively: he made it clear that Stephen
Siver was in danger of losing his job, as reported in 'The Church Times'
and other places,
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2015/13-february/news/uk/not-anti-semitic-just-stupid-stephen-sizer-ordered-offline-to-save-his-job
The Bishop of Lichfield failed to act at a time when he should have acted.
If he'd acted, he could have prevented this embarrassing and ridiculous but
very harmful series of events.
Bishops, like so many other people,
have their specialities. Michael Ipgrave, the Bishop of Lichfield, has a
great interest in the relations between Christians and other religious
groups. You'd think, then, that he'd take a very close interest in this
conference, where the relations between Christians, Jews and Moslems play an
important role. He was appointed Diocesan Chaplain for relations with
people of other faiths in 1992. Later, he became Inter-faith Relations
Advisor to the Archbishops' Council and Secretary of the Anglican Church's
Commission on Inter-faith Relations. In the 2011 New Year Honours List, he
was appointed an OBE 'for services to inter-faith relations in London.' And,
he's the author of a book on inter-faith dialogue and has contributed to
other publications on inter-faith matters. He was Bishop of Woolwich before
he became Bishop of Lichfield.
Despite all this experience, general
and specific, he failed comprehensively in this instance. He failed to do
what was within his power, he failed to ensure that there was some degree of
fairness in this disastrous conference.
President Harry S. Truman
had a sign 'The buck stops here' on his desk. Recommended: that the Bishop
of Lichfield has the same sign on his desk to remind himself of his
responsibility.
My view of human imperfection is very different from the Christian
one. I don't accept the Christian view of sin but I do accept the reality of
human imperfection. (My view is very, very different from most others. (See
my page {restriction}). I think that the
Christian view takes far more account of realities than some non-Christian,
atheistic views - and not just the ones which are utopian. The Christian
view that a person can put aside faults, including very serious
faults, can go beyond them, can evolve, in moral terms, deserves to be
treated very seriously. We must often criticize and condemn, but compassion
is one of the most important of all virtues - and not, of course, a purely
Christian one.
Professor Kamel Hawwash didn't like David Collier's account one bit.
Compare and contrast the cool, supposedly 'objective' tone of this
'Reflections of a diaspora Palestinian Professor Kamel
Hawwash'
and this, the Professor's mini profile
'Professor
Kamel Hawwash: a British/Palestinian and a long standing campaigner
for justice for Palestinians'
both to be found on Lichfield
Cathedral's Website page on the recent conference on Israeli-Palestinian
issues
http://www.lichfield-cathedral.org/news/news/post/123-conference-holding-palestine-in-the-light
- and the article written by Kamel Hawwash which has this headline, 'Lichfield Cathedral stands strong in the face of bullying by the
pro-Israel lobby' and which refuses to consider any possibility of reasoned dissent,
dissent based on arguments and evidence, and was published in that
well-known purveyor of ideological claptrap the 'Middle East Monitor'
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20161015-lichfield-cathedral-stands-strong-in-the-face-of-bullying-by-the-pro-israel-lobby/
and also published on the evasive Website of Professor Kamel Hawwash
https://kamelhawwash.com/
who has every reason to be taken seriously as an academic civil engineer
but has no reason to be taken seriously as a commenter on such issues as the
politics and military conflicts of this particular area of the Middle East
and the ethical issues which arise from them.
Lichfield Cathedral too has abandoned the basic principles of
fair-mindedness and has become a purveyor of ideological claptrap, at least
in this hideous fall from grace.
But the organization's distortions and
evasions and selective use of evidence and misuse of evidence are often much
more serious than this simple incompetence. For example, 'Labour
Friends of Palestine' claims that Israel has sentenced prisoners 'without a
proper trial, which includes the right to present evidence, call witnesses
and be represented by a lawyer who can visit them freely' but the safeguards
of the Israeli legal system are vastly greater and more effective than those
in Gaza. On 22 August 2014, 18
suspected collaborators were executed by
Palestinian firing squad in different parts of the Gaza strip, without
representation by a lawyer, without a proper trial or any trial at all. In
the legal system of Gaza, homosexuality is a criminal offence, punishable
with imprisonment for up to
ten years. A mother may be imprisoned for
having a baby when unmarried.
Andrew Hammond, Chaplain,
King's College, Cambridge
The Church of England is a 'broad Church,' including believers in the
main doctrines recognized by soteriologists (specialists in the ludicrous
field of salvation theory. Meanwhile, other patient investigators and
recorders toil in nearby unfruitful soils, such as patrologists,
ecclesiologists and Christologists.) There are believers in hellfire and
damnation (even if the realities are portrayed more tactfully.) Damnation is
for everyone except people who have accepted Jesus Christ as their 'personal lord and saviour (most Evangelicals).
There are believers in hellfire and damnation for
everyone whose good works aren't of the required standard (including many
Anglo-Catholics). There are believers in Hell who believe that there's nobody in Hell,
since God will forgive all sinners, including Hitler. There are Anglicans
who think this is wrong - they believe that philanthropists and
humanitarians are in exactly the same dilemma as Hitler, since all share in
original sin. (This would seem to be the view of Ian McFarland, Regius
Professor of Divinity at Cambridge and author of 'In Adam’s Fall: A
Meditation on the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin') And, of course, Anglicans
whose Anglicanism is difficult to tell apart from agnosticism or atheism -
but they leave room for vague feelings that there's Something More to Life,
Something Spiritual, in fact.
Michael Dormandy, Chaplain, Christ's College, Cambridge
Christ's College claims to be a 'vibrant community.' Its vibrant Chaplain
Michael Dormandy has published a secondary school Latin textbook and a
critical edition, with translation and commentary, of a letter, the Epistola Fundamentalis by
the
seventeenth century Roman Catholic priest, Bartholomaeus Holzhauser. He
has also been working on 'scribal habits in the Greek majuscule pandects.'
Bartholomaeus Holzhauser is, of course, the celebrated interpreter of the
Book of the Apocolypse. According to his interpretation, the 7 stars and the
7 candlesticks which were 'seen' by St John signify 7 periods in Church
history. To these periods correspond the 7 churches of Asia Minor, the 7
days of creation, according to Genesis, the 7 ages before Christ and the 7
gifts of the Holy Spirit.
George
Pitcher, Anglican priest
The Wikipedia entry for George Pitcher can be strongly
recommended. It makes clear that this is someone with a record of
substantial, sustained achievement, including achievement in an unexpected
but very important field, industrial reporting. If my own account draws
attention to some shortcomings, I recognize his achievements. The
shortcomings don't cancel his achievements or diminish his achievements.
He's not in the least one of those ineffectual clerics with no interest in
practical matters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pitcher
George Pitcher is a
very unusual, unconventional priest of the Church of England - but a priest
with some of the usual, conventional faults and failings, I think.
A very brief, very revealing introduction to some of his 'thinking' is published
in the 'Church Times.'
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2011/14-october/comment/ten-media-tips-for-the-church
So, 'ten media tips,' not ten commandments. In his 'top tips' article in the top Anglo-Catholic megaphone (not that it
can transform negligible thoughts, of next to no interest, into resounding,
convincing demonstrations of Truth), he accuses critics of Islamism and left-wing
thinking of cowardice:
'Islamophobic, blogging rightards had gone strangely quiet.' (Here,
'blogging' seems to be yet another insult, like 'Islamophobic' and 'rightards.')
His claim is ridiculous. Nothing like that had happened. Is he quite sure
that all or most - or any - opponents of Islamism and left-wing views had
'gone quiet?' Could he name a few? Could he name a large number? Can he be sure that if a few had 'gone quiet' there wasn't an
alternative explanation?
I'm a critic of Islamism and left-wing thinking too, and a critic of George
Pitcher. I don't think it's likely in the least that he'll give serious
answers to the criticisms I make of Islamism, left-wing thinking and George
Pitcher. Most of the criticism (but not the criticism of George Pitcher) is on other pages, not this one. If he can
spare the time, he could read some of it . -
Let's make a direct challenge to George Pitcher and find out if he can
answer the objections or if he'll go 'strangely quiet.'
His top-tip number 2:
'Stop being a
victim: get on the front foot, and stop whingeing
about how badly you are treated. This is not Pakistan or Palestine, and you
are not being persecuted.'
When he refers to Palestine, he's not referring, of course, to any
oppression by Hamas or to oppression of homosexuals in Gaza (homosexuality
is illegal there, and women who have children whilst unmarried can be
imprisoned and are imprisoned.) Of course, he's referring to the Israelis.
My page Israel, Islamism and Palestinian ideology
gives a comprehensive discussion of some of the faults of Palestinian
society.
In the same 'top tip,' he writes,
' ... use your freedom. Head-butt the bullies, by which I mean give as good as you get: journalists
respect, albeit grudgingly, those who fight back.'
I'm not a journalist but I'll respect George Pitcher all the more
if he decides to fight back, to oppose me and my views - if he can, that is.
I don't regard myself as a bully, and I think that the advice to head-butt
is disastrously misguided. He leaves unexplored the glaring contradiction
between this advice and Christ's commandment to 'turn the other cheek.' The
people he calls 'bullies' include people of very different kinds. Most of
them, I'm sure, are anything but bullies. They're often people who, unlike
the head-butter, give arguments and evidence, but arguments and evidence he
doesn't like at all.
In general, the profiles on the more developed pages are very
critical, but I try and find out a great deal about the people I criticize.
I've removed profiles and decided not to write profiles when I've found out
that the profiles concern people who suffer from a very serious health
condition, or have a relative with a very serious health condition. It's
essential, I think, that polemics, like the waging of war, shouldn't be
unrestricted. Human values should inform polemics. George Pitcher's bright
and breezy, unformed and superficial advice to 'head-butt' the bully - the
alleged bully - is wrong.
His 'top tip' number 8 is this: 'Rapid rebuttal: don't whine that you have
been misrepresented. Hit the phone and tell the journalist in monosyllables.
It not only does good, but feels good.'
Religious
stupidity and non-religious stupidity
'For
Christianity and all existing creeds Hume had, and always displayed, the
greatest contempt: and he used the attribution of orthodoxy as a standard
form of abuse. Writing for instance, to his old friend, the Moderate
minister, Hugh Blair, Hume referred to the English as 'relapsing fast into
the deepest stupidity, Christianity and ignorance.' (From Richard Wollheim's
introduction to 'Hume on Religion,' which includes 'Dialogues concerning
Natural Religion' and other essays by David Hume.)
When Hume wrote
these words, and for many centuries before, stupidity took the form of
Christianity more often than not in this country and the rest of Europe. In
a largely post-Christian age, stupidity more often takes other, secular,
forms. Many of the English, and other nations, have relapsed fast into the
deepest stupidity and ignorance which are completely unreligious. Even so,
the prevalence of Christian stupidity in the United States can't be ignored.
One of the post-Christian stupidities - there are many more - is extreme
hedonistic stupidity. A sticker seen on a car near here: 'If it's not fun,
don't do it.' (The temptation was strong to go home, print out a large
poster and stick it on one of the car doors, the poster containing just
these words: 'If removing this poster isn't fun, don't remove it.)
'The sentiment of the sticker is ridiculous, infantile in its view of the
world, hopelessly unformed and mindless. The defence that it's nothing but
a little fun in itself won't work. There are many, many people who believe
it, believe in it, or something ridiculous and infantile but less stupidly
ridiculous and infantile. If very many people followed it - but that would
be impossible - then societies of any worth would be impossible. These
societies would certainly be incapable of defending themselves.
Religious people have included many, many mawkish sentimentalists, but they
have often had a view of the world which is strenuous, which recognizes
duties, such as caring for the sick even when the duties involved no gain
for the carer, let alone 'fun.' The objections to 'If it's not fun, don't do
it' are obvious and include the objection that when people who believe this
fall sick, they will be looked after by people with very different views.
Secular views, like religious views, may be clueless, secularists, like
religious people, may be clueless.
Richard Wollheim, on Hume's
attitude to the ignorant: 'He was convinced that the ignorant ... would
always have their superstitions: it might be possible to liberate them from
this illusion or that, but it would only be replaced by another. 'In a
future age,' he wrote, à propos of the doctrine of transubstantiation [to
people unfamiliar with the Catholic doctrine, the notion that during the
Mass, the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ -
not symbolically but in actual fact the body and blood of Christ] 'it will
probably become difficult to persuade some nations, that any human
two-legged creature could ever embrace such principles.' Then with
characteristic wryness he added, 'And it is a thousand to one, but these
nations themselves shall have something full as absurd in their own creed,
to which they will give a most implicit and most religious assent.'
Since Hume wrote, the creeds have usually been of an informal kind.
Stupidity has often been too vague-minded for inclusion in a creed. Hume
seems not to have anticipated the dangers and stupidity of some
non-Christian and post-Christian beliefs, which now dominate our world.
Aphorisms:
religion and ideology
I share, to an extent, Nietzsche's view of the possibilities and the
importance of the aphorism form, but I don't share his high opinion of
himself. The section which contains this (section 51 in his book 'Twilight
of the Idols.')
'the aphorism ... in which I am the first master among Germans ... my
ambition is to say in ten sentences what everyone else says in a book - what
everyone else does not say in a book ...'
also contains this ludicrous claim:
'I have given mankind the profoundest book it possesses, my
Zarathustra.' (R J Hollingdale's translation.)
From my page Aphorisms which gives most of
the aphorisms I've written.
The great achievements
of religious architecture, painting, sculpture and literature are no evidence
for religion but evidence that people with artistic gifts may have far less
talent for critical thinking.
This world is inexhaustible
and unfathomable. We need speculate about no other.
Mystics who are 'deep'
are out of their depth.
Humanity can be explained
only partly in natural terms but not at all in supernatural terms.
The horrific imperfections
of the world foster courage and ingenuity. Why not skepticism?
DEUS ILLUMINATIO IGNIS FATUUS
The understandable fear
of becoming lost, of leaving behind roads and paths, helps to explain the
refusal to follow an argument wherever it leads, the reassurance of religions
and ideologies.
The Christian revelation
has taken away from life the mystery which for non-Christians remains. For
skeptics more than for Christians, this is a mysterious world and sometimes
a magical one.
The Christian God has
become softer and gentler, a God who's 'only human,' although no more so than
the old vengeful God.
My atheism is far from
being the most important thing about me, otherwise there would be a strong
linkage between me and the atheist Stalin.
To know that someone is
a Christian or an atheist tells me almost nothing about the person.
Self-evident untruths
and half-truths will always be popular.
Honest people may well
reinterpret their lives at intervals as drastically as totalitarian regimes
reinterpret their own history.
I detest your ideology
and the ideologies you detest.
Oppose mindless tolerance
as well as mindless intolerance.
If the world were imperfect
in the way that Christians or communists suppose, Christianity or communism
might be true, but it's imperfect in a way that refutes them. And so for other
theisms and ideologies.
The world, like some faces,
can look better seen in a distorting mirror.
What is an ideology?
I explain my conception of ideology here. In
this section, I make use of {themes} in a few places. These are introduced
in my page Introduction to {theme}
theory.
'Ideology' derives from the Greek
λόγος and ἰδέα.
Liddell and Scott give three basic meanings for ἰδέα in the Greek Lexicon,
(1) form (2) semblance, opposed to reality (3) notion, idea. The third is
taken to be the meaning applicable in 'ideology,' but an ideology makes use
of the second meaning. Liddell and Scott include an interesting illustration
for this second meaning, from Theognis:
γνώμην ἐξαπατῶσ’ ἰδέαι 'Outward appearances cheat the mind.'
Of course, etymology isn't a reliable guide to meaning, or the range of
meanings in the case of a complex term.
A
number of disparate conceptions of ideology have been employed since the
term 'idéologie' was coined by Destutt de Tracy in 1796. He envisaged
ideology as a general science of ideas, their components and relations - or
{linkages}, as I would term it.
The word ideology is predominantly given a normative meaning now. An
important stage in the transition to a normative meaning occurred in the
1840's. Marx and Engels in 'The German Ideology,'
('Die deutsche Ideologie'), criticized the Young Hegelians. Their view, it
was claimed, regarded ideas as 'autonomous and efficacious'
and failed to grasp 'the real conditions and characteristics of
socio-historical life.'
Karl Popper regarded Marxism, and the views of Freud and Adler, as pseudo-scientific. His account in Chapter 1 of 'Conjectures and Refutations' has great
importance in the study of ideology. The book's index reference to this
material is 'total ideology.' I don't endorse in its entirety his view
of Freud and Adler. I regard his criticism of Marxism as valid. I don't
provide amplification here.
From Introduction to
{theme} theory:
Expansion brackets are useful for the process I call
'amplification.' A writer who is pursuing a main argument will sometimes
make claims or comments or provide evidence which amount to a brief mention,
without any attempt to substantiate the claim or comment or to explain such
matters as the degree of reliability of the evidence. Very often, it would
be impractical to do so. It is not always possible to present every aspect
of an argument thoroughly.
Popper writes,
'I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and
Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and
especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories
appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within
the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have
the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to
a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once you eyes were thus
opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of
verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it.
Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who
did not want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it, either
because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions
which were still 'un-analysed' and crying out for treatment.'
All of the criticism here is applicable to the feminist views I criticize, although the 'unbelievers,' of course, are the non-feminists
who refuse to see 'the manifest truth' because it was against their gender
interest, as males, or because of some deep-seated psychological conditions.
Feminist 'consciousness-raising,' when successful, is held to open the eyes
of the woman (or man), who now sees confirming instances everywhere of the
deadly effects of patriarchy and the truth of feminism. The world is full of
verifications of feminist theory. Women who act in non-feminist and
anti-feminist ways, for example, are held not to falsify the theory. Their behaviour is due to the malign influence of patriarchy.
Popper adds, 'A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on
every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history.' The
corresponding feminist will find confirming evidence for an interpretation
which finds 'sexism,' not perhaps everywhere, but permeating so many areas
of reality, including personal, social, historical and economic reality.
In Chapter 9 of
'Unended Quest,' he explains the development of his thought during an early
period of his life: 'I developed further my ideas about the demarcation
between scientific theories (like Einstein's) and pseudoscientific
theories (like Marx's, Freud's, and Adlers). It became clear to me that
what made a theory, or a statement, scientific was its power to rule out, or
exclude, the occurrence of some possible events ...' This is the concept of
falsification which he elaborated in 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery'
('Die Logic der Forschung.')
Falsification is a concept which has very great importance in the study
of philosophy of science but its applicability to the study of ideology,
including the ideology - as I see it - of feminism hasn't been adequately
explored. I introduce two technical terms which I think are useful in
discussions of falsification and attempts to falsify: 'falsificans,' the
falsifying arguments and evidence, and 'falsificandum,' the
application-sphere of the falsificans. The falsificandum is more general
than scientific subject-matter. An ideological falsificandum is, however,
falsified less conclusively than a scientific falsificandum.
The two terms, like the word 'falsify,' come from late Latin 'falsificare,'
from 'falsus' and facere. They have a linkage with the established terms 'explanans'
and 'explanandum,' from 'explanare.' Carl Gustav Hempel and Paul Oppenheim
proposed a deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation (not given
expansion here):
' ... the event under discussion is explained by subsuming it under
general laws, i.e., by showing that it occurred in accordance with those
laws, by virtue of the realization of certain specified antecedent
conditions' and 'By the explanandum, we
understand the sentence describing the phenomenon to be explained (not that
phenomenon itself); by the explanans, the
class of those sentences which are adduced to account for the phenomenon.'
('Studies in the Logic of Explanation,' 'Philosophy of Science,' XV, p.
152.)
Popper's concept has been criticized by a number of philosophers.
One of them is the Australian philosopher David Stove, who was strongly
anti-feminist. Some limitations of David Stove's approach have been very
well explored by Patrícia Lança in her article
David Stove against Darwin and Popper: The Perils of Showmanship.
(Originally published in 'The Salisbury Review,' Summer 2001.) I don't
include her discussion of David Stove's criticisms of Darwin and Darwinism,
but I do include her brief, critical, mention of feminism and her criticism
of relativism. Many feminists include science in their relativistic views.
What she has to say about the manner of criticism is very important for
critics of feminism, although I favour a mixture of styles, including
ridiculing the ridiculous. She writes:
'THERE IS ALWAYS something immediately enjoyable about watching,
listening to or reading apparently outrageous attacks on received
opinion. Reductio ad absurdum is, after all, a time-honoured trick of
rhetoric. The attempted dictatorship of 'political correctness' nowadays
makes the trick even more liable to work. According to those who
listened to the lectures of the Australian philosopher David Stove, he
was a virtuoso in the genre. Professor Michael Levin says: 'Reading
Stove is like watching Fred Astaire dance. You don't wish you were Fred
Astaire, you are just glad to have been around to see him in action'.
'There is, however, a problem with ridicule, especially if we
ourselves have our own reasons for not liking its victims. It is liable
to obscure solid grounds for criticism and play into the camp of the
adversary by providing facile, spurious or distorted arguments. This
would seem to be the case with some of Stove's writing as exemplified in
the two books under review. Not that he isn't worth reading. His
provocative style is such as to make many readers stop, think and
re-examine their own preconceptions. On the other hand, those unfamiliar
with the subject matter, especially among the younger generation, are
likely to be seriously misled about some of his targets and to mistake
rhetoric for serious argument.. Stove, who died in 1994, was a
conservative, an anti-communist and desperately at odds with the
fashionable Left-wing views prevalent in the academy ...
[On his criticism of Popper]
'It is not easy here to produce
a rebuttal of the required brevity or to embark on a boringly technical
argument for and against Popper's epistemology, but justice does require
some attempt to be made. It must first be stated quite unequivocally
that certain of Popper's epistemological positions, once widely
accepted, have in recent years come under forceful criticism from many
quarters ... Nevertheless it is one thing to criticize and quite another
to misrepresent.
...
'It is indeed ironic that the
anti-communist Stove should find Popper so objectionable when there is
probably no academic figure in the last half century who has done as
much to combat their common enemy. In fact on many matters Stove and
Popper were on the same side. Against irrationalism and relativism,
against Freud, against philosophical idealism, against scepticism,
critical of some aspects of Darwinism, and, much else.
'So,
Popper concluded, scientific laws are not immutable but are always
hypotheses. All you can have are better or worse theories and the
scientist's work is to produce ever-better theories. The only logically
and practically acceptable way to do this is to try to falsify your
theory by appropriate testing: the method of trial and error. This,
Popper says, is what scientists actually do in real life. Scientific
method is basically one of testing, making public and criticizing.
Failed theories are abandoned and the search begins again, either by
trimming or adapting the old theory or formulating a new one. So a good
scientific theory should be framed in such a way that it is testable, in
other words falsifiable. If this is not the case then the theory is
neither a good theory nor even a scientific theory.
'Demarcating
science
Popper was interested in finding a criterion for demarcating
science from non-science and he concluded that such theories as Marxism,
Freudianism or astrology do not meet the criteria required of a
genuinely scientific theory. They are couched in such broad terms that
they are invulnerable to falsification. Whatever happens their
proponents regard them as either corroborated or unfalsified. They are
theories against which no arguments or criticisms can count.
'Whatever the justice of his views on induction, Popper's conception of
falsifiability proved a rich field and he mined it for theories in the
realm of his other passion: politics and social questions.. Having
thrown out positive corroboration as crucial in favour of its negative,
namely falsifiability, and having made criticism the essential method
for this, he proposed a similar approach in the political and social
spheres. The aim of government, of the State, should never be the
positive one of trying to make people happy, a quite impossible aim.
Happiness is a private matter and conceived of differently by each
individual. On the contrary the only feasible objective of government is
the negative one of reducing misery. Suffering, starvation, disease and
the rest are objective, public and measurable and it is the State's job
to try to minimize them because the only justification for the existence
of government is the protection of the citizen. To this end freedom to
criticize, to discuss and debate solutions is essential. So for Popper
democracy means freedom of criticism and institutional arrangements that
provide for the removal of unsatisfactory rulers without bloodshed. He
deduced from this position the enormous importance of institutions and
an institutional tradition, of gradual reform as against revolution, and
wrote and lectured widely on these subjects, declaring untiringly that
the political systems of Britain, America, Canada, Australia and New
Zealand were the best models so far known.
'Popper’s philosophy
of science
Now none of this can be unacceptable to a reasonable
person, least of all to a conservative. What has stuck in the throat of
many people is that Popper makes his anti-inductivism bear too much
weight. To deny the possibility of inductive knowledge is to fly in the
face of everybody's everyday experience, including that of our dogs,
cats and most other sentient beings. If we did not start by assuming
regularities and their more or less indefinite replication none of us
would survive for a moment. Indeed, we would be unable to learn anything
at all. It would seem, in fact, that all of us, including animals, have
an innate predisposition to use induction. Popper did not accept this:
he thought that what is innate is the predisposition towards using
methods of trial and error. However, to object to induction on the
grounds that it does not use the rules of entailment of deductive logic,
is to extend the criteria of formal systems and mathematics beyond what
is appropriate. Deductive logic is one thing, inductive logic is another
and their modes of justification are distinct. In science both logics
would appear to have their place. Indeed in the areas of logic and
epistemology we can find an ever-growing literature in which even
deductive logic is questioned and alternative logics proposed.
'Popper's great contribution to the philosophy of science was to
highlight the importance for good theorizing of the need for clear
articulation so that it is immediately, or as immediately as possible,
apparent what would be the conditions for falsification. Such procedure
is both practically and intellectually economical and nurtures the
critical approach and in no way encourages relativism.
'Stove
will have none of this. In a dizzying dithyramb he inveighs against
Popper, not only ignoring his closely woven arguments, but accusing him
of such crimes as denying the accumulation of scientific knowledge, of
irrationalism and of self-contradiction. The aim of science in Popper's
view, Stove alleges, is not to seek truth but to find untruth. Popper's
insistence on the provisional nature of scientific theories, on what he
calls 'conjectural knowledge' is regarded by Stove as irrational in the
extreme. Popper, in effect, denies the accumulation of scientific
knowledge because, if it is all provisional, then it cannot be
knowledge. Knowledge, for Stove, always means knowledge of the truth,
and truth cannot bear the adjective 'conjectural' (as though truth were
absolute). He implies that to talk about 'conjectural truth' is rather
like talking about somebody being 'a little bit pregnant'. So the
concept of 'conjectural knowledge' is a nonsense, a contradiction in
terms and meaningless, and leads to the denial of objective truth found
in the relativists. Stove makes much of this with his usual darting wit.
But his objections are unconvincing. Without entering into the sorely
disputed question (among philosophers) of what constitutes truth it
seems no more unreasonable to talk of 'conjectural knowledge' than to
talk of 'partial knowledge', which everybody does without batting an
eyelid. All Popper means by 'conjectural knowledge', is 'the knowledge
we have so far on the basis of our unfalsified theories', that is, those
theories which when tested are found to have verisimilitude with
empirical facts. This is something we hear every day when we are told
about 'the present state of knowledge'. So the proposition that absolute
truth is unattainable does not entail relativism and, indeed, seems
undeniable to most people.
'That Popper believed fiercely in
objective truth (in its non-absolute sense) is evidenced from his
constant stress that the job of the scientist is the quest for truth. He
also thought that this was an unending quest, for our ignorance is
infinite before the infinity of what is to be known and the finite
nature of our knowledge. This is not the place to examine Popper's
somewhat bizarre theory of 'epistemology without a knowing subject',
what he called World Three, that mysterious sphere in which are stored
books and all man's artefacts, but any serious study of this shows just
how much Popper believed in the objectivity of knowledge.
'So,
because of his misreading, Stove sees Popper as the ultimate progenitor
of the real irrationalists including the unspeakable Feyerabend whose
relativism led him quite openly to declare that schoolchildren should be
taught astrology and myth as equally valid explanations of the world
along with science. Popper's frequent and extended criticism of these
attitudes is regarded by Stove as mere quarrelling between inmates of
the same stable. He totally ignores the historical fact that the actual
forerunners of relativism in philosophy of science were the sociologists
of knowledge going back to Mannheim, examined and combatted by Popper
himself in many writings. Today, of course, relativism in science
studies, rather than coming mainly from Stove's three musketeers has
sadly been given a new boost by philosophers of cognitive science in
conjunction with artificial intelligence theory such as Stitch, the
Churchlands and their disciples.
'Those who wish to have a more
informed and balanced view of Popper's ideas would do well to read
Anthony O'Hear or Susan Haack. The latter should be of especial interest
also to adversaries of all forms of relativism, gender feminism and the
corruption of the academy.
'For anyone acquainted with what
Popper actually wrote, Stove's wholesale condemnation, can only be
regarded as dogmatic and unjust. This is serious because in the present
academic atmosphere of relativism, irrationalism and sub-marxism, there
could be no better antidote for today's students than to read what
Popper has to say about these matters.
'Reading Stove's opinions
about him will do little to encourage them in this direction. The
trouble is, as indicated at the beginning of these comments, that
Stove's style is frequently so engaging and humorous that many readers
will be taken in.'
Popper's account of 'pseudo-scientific' theories is a suitable
starting point in explaining my own view of ideology. I regard the concept of falsification as
important in demarcation, although not the demarcation which Popper employs.
The demarcation here is demarcation between two non-scientific
interpretations, ideological and non-ideological. I replace 'demarcation'
with the {thematic} operation of {separation}, symbol '//' which has
material as well as non-material application-spheres. As my concern on this
page is feminism rather than Marxism, I give no account of my reasons for
thinking that Marxism is ideological, or the views of Freud and Adler.
Outside science,
falsifiability has a legitimate use in deciding which views to do with
human nature, human achievement, and other aspects of humanity - I'll refer
to 'human studies' - are securely grounded or the product of
ideological distortion. If the distinctive conclusiveness of scientific
falsification is lacking, the claim that an argument has been falsified may
have great cogency, the argument that an argument has withstood the process
of testing far less cogency. 'People are benign' is a statement which can't
be tested, or falsified, by the methods of science, but it can be tested,
and falsified, to a high degree of probability, by non-scientific methods.
'Women are benign' is a statement which can be tested and falsified too.
Facts are used differently in ideological and non-ideological theories
and views. Facts in non-ideological theories and views may often be
problematic but they are assessed by using independent methods and
techniques, such as comparison of source materials, avoidance of
demonstrably unreliable witnesses.
Facts in ideological theories and views avoid the use of methods and
techniques external to the ideology. Ideological theories and views are
based on the distinction between appearance and reality. Facts belong to the
world of appearance, which is regarded as illusory. Facts which are
demonstrably true, passing the most thorough and comprehensive tests, belong
only to this world of appearance if they conflict with facts which support
the ideology. If not in conflict, they are admitted to the world of reality.
It's essential to distinguish between facts and the explanation for those
facts, the context of those facts. The sphere of facts, although far from
straightforward, is much simpler than the sphere of explanations and
context. I don't accept that facts are themselves interpretations, that
there aren't many, many well-grounded facts in human studies.
A feminist could claim that the generalization 'all women lack serious
vices' (without {restriction} to sexual vice, of course) should be
considered in context, which supplies a cause. The many women who could be
cited as counter-examples, the women who obviously have serious vices, are
so on account of the manipulation and control exercised by men. A wide
variety of other claims about women which seem to challenge feminist views
could be countered in a similar way. The feminist would then have to
explain, or explain away, the unflattering view of many women which is
required here - women as weak and malleable.
If X is the subject matter - class in society, women in history or
whatever may be treated in an ideological or non-ideological way - then the
crucial difference is that the ideological and the non-ideological way are
different in the reasons for {modification} and the use of counter arguments
and contrary evidence. {modification} has /{revision}, an example of a
'specific' {theme}, with {restriction}:- general applicability, and the
capacity for /{revision} is the term in non-thematic form 'revisability.'
Revisability is common to scientific theory and a non-scientific theory, as
well as, more loosely, a 'view,' which is non-ideological.
{modification}:- [ideological theory or view] has as agents not counter
arguments and contrary evidence but, as examples, the forces which change an
ideology and give it different forms, perhaps as a result of the very
different social contexts in which the ideology is found. Similarly, the
language in which an ideology is expressed may develop different 'dialects,'
for similar reasons.
An ideology may exhibit drastic and abrupt {modification}, as in the case
of the communist supporters who abandoned criticism of Nazi Germany, but
this was not as a result of counter arguments and contrary evidence but the
fact that Soviet Russia entered into a pact with Nazi Germany at Stalin's
instigation.
If counter arguments and contrary evidence lead in all cases to no, or
practically no, /{revision} of a theory or view, then the theory or view is
likely to be ideological.
/{revision} of a non-ideological theory or view, like /{revision} of a
scientific theory, allows of quantitative differences. The most drastic form
is abandonment. Of course, there may be abandonment of an ideological theory
or view, as in the case of communists who became non-communists. Counter
arguments and contrary evidence of value may be rejected for a time but
eventually have an effect.
'The God That Failed,' published in 1949 book, contains six
essays by prominent writers and journalists who decame disillusioned with
communism and abandoned it. The six were Louis Fischer, André
Gide, Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, Stephen Spender and Richard Wright.
A critique of a possible feminist defence is only given in outline here.
On this page, as in so much of the site, evidence and argument is often
given in a dispersed form. I examine feminist arguments in many places on
this page and there are many places in other pages of the site where
material can be found which has relevance to this page.
I see the need not to confine attention to the arguments and evidence but
to the factors which may prevent the arguments and evidence from being
understood or appreciated. This is particularly necessary when considering
the totalitarian ideologies, above all Stalinism and Nazism, the subject of
Hannah Arendt's 'The Origins of Totalitarianism,' in three parts. Evidence
may require insight and sometimes empathy to appreciate. Hannah Arendt could
obviously enter the world of totalitarian ideology. She possessed a a far
deeper degree of distinctively personal insight, over a far wider range,
than, say, Karl Popper. Intellectuality of very great distinction, such as
he possessed, can probe some things far more effectively than others.
In the last chapter of the third volume of 'The Origins of
Totalitarianism,' significantly entitled 'Ideology and Terror: A Novel Form
of Government,' she gives, too late in the book, it has to be said, a
formulation of ideology. The formulation isn't a good one: 'Ideologies -
isms which to the satisfaction of their adherents can explain everything and
every occurrence by deducing it from a single premise - are a very recent
phenomenon and, for many decades, played a negligible role in political
life.' No ideology explains everything or every occurrence. This is much too
wide a claim. Ideologists don't claim to explain, for instance, most natural
phenomena. The use of the logical term 'premise' isn't appropriate, and
ideological explanations and directives may be derived from a small number
of basic beliefs, not necessarily a single one.
Hannah Arendt elicits very different responses. Two very different
responses, those of David Satter and Bernard Wasserstein, are given in an
excellent
Symposium: Is Hannah Arendt still relevant? I very much believe that she
is.
In general, ideologists see no need to defend a
thesis against the arguments and evidence which comprise a legitimate
anti-thesis. The reference to 'ideology' can be removed, since the claim
that the thesis is ideological is often part of the claim of the
anti-thesis. I think that these terms 'thesis' and 'anti-thesis' are useful
in examining the reaction of feminists to criticisms, and their lack of
reaction.
The evidence and arguments put forward by opponents
of feminism amount to a substantial case to answer, surely, and I claim to
have added to the evidence and arguments. I think that the thesis is
substantial but that the anti-thesis is far from substantial.
Argument and the presentation of evidence and the
giving of counter-argument and counter-evidence are of fundamental
importance and my terms 'thesis' and 'anti-thesis' express these necessities
of debate concisely. If the views often summarized as 'political
correctness' seem to avoid debate on these terms, it's cause for particular
alarm that this is so often the case in universities and colleges.
Thesis can become anti-thesis and anti-thesis can
become thesis. If a feminist criticizes the arguments I use and denies that
the evidence I put forward is convincing, then this anti-thesis becomes the
thesis which it is for me to answer as an anti-thesis.
It's possible that a
synthesis will emerge from the contending thesis and anti-thesis, but often
this is not the case.
When a very powerful thesis - one with very strong
arguments and accompanied by very strong evidence - is challenged by an
anti-thesis which has neither, a synthesis is very unlikely. In this case, I
use the simple symbolism (thesis) >> (anti-thesis). If the anti-thesis is
better supported, then (thesis) > (anti-thesis).
This simple scheme, using this simple pair of terms,
has to be supplemented and extended when there are more than two opposing
viewpoints, but it can often be used if single aspects are the focus of
attention: this is to practise {resolution}. Often, a practical
decision is the issue. A measure may become law or not and there may be
support for the change in law or opposition to the change.
Supporters of the
status quo and opponents of the status quo may have various reasons and may
supply different arguments and evidence but the decision may well be a
clear-cut one. Support for the status quo is the thesis and opposition to
the status quo is the anti-thesis. All that is needed is to distinguish the
diverging views which make up the composite thesis and anti-thesis.
King's College Chapel, Cambridge
Credit for images above: Creative Commons
Link to licence:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode
©
Copyright
Richard Croft and licensed for reuse under this
Creative Commons Licence
In this section, I concentrate on
the King's College Chapel carol service, its strengths, which are often
mentioned, as well as its weaknesses, which largely go unmentioned, but I comment in a few places on some other strengths and
weaknesses of King's College, and of Cambridge University.
The
English choral tradition, above all the singing of Christmas music, and
English architecture are strong interests of mine. In its union of beauty in
music and beauty of architecture, the King's College service has an appeal
for me greater than any other. Here, I concentrate on the defects, as I see
them, but with immense gratitude for the experience of excellence and
beauty.
The faults of the
King's College Chapel service and the faults of Cambridge University are the
faults so common in organizations and events of some complexity or enormous
complexity - and in not so very complex things. The carols which are sung at
the Carol service aren't the union of excellent music, sung to an excellent
standard, and excellent words. The words are often at a much lower level than the
music - I discuss the issue below. The words are often doggerel. The words often
give opinions which can only be held by very credulous people, as I show
very soon. The readings from the Authorized Version of the Bible may be
sonorous or impressive in other ways, but they raise very difficult issues.
There isn't here the union of language of real grandeur and language which
conveys beliefs which can be held by people who aren't credulous. Again, I
show this very soon.
Opera performances too, as events of
substantial, complexity, show an admixture of excellence and imperfection. A
performance of the Bach Chaconne for solo violin can attain, or almost
attain, perfection, although one performance can't possibly bring out other
qualities to be found in the music. The music can be interpreted in various
ways, but a single performance can only give one interpretation. The
calmness of a section may be brought out in one interpretation, calmness
with an abrasive edge in another.
A stage production of Mozart's
'Cosi fan Tutte' will make it clear that the music is at so much higher a
level than the implausible, almost ridiculous plot and that the musical
value is so much more important than the words. The libretto has no literary
value at all. It's unlikely that the soloists will all sing at the same,
very high level of excellence, that the orchestra will also play at a high
level of excellence, and that the direction and the stage production will be
at the same high level of excellence. This is to simplify, of course. The
parts have to be broken down into sub-parts.
Supplementary
information: I refer to this as implementation of the {theme} {resolution.}
My page Introduction to {theme}
theory is a general introduction and the page
{resolution} explains this
particular {theme}.
This is the order of service for the
Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols, broadcast by BBC Radio 3 on
25
December 2018:
Hymn: Once in Royal David's City (desc. Cleobury)*
Bidding Prayer read by the Dean
Up! good Christen folk (Piae Cantiones)*
First lesson: Genesis 3 vv 8-19 read by a Chorister
Adam lay ybounden (Ord)
Jesus Christ the Apple Tree (Poston)
Second lesson: Genesis 22 vv 15-18
read by a Choral Scholar
In dulci jubilo (arr. de Pearsall)*
I saw
three ships (arr. Simon Preston)
Third lesson: Isaiah 9 vv 2, 6-7 read by
a representative of Eton College
Nowell sing we now all and some
(Medieval)
Unto us is born a Son (arr. Willcocks)*
Fourth lesson:
Isaiah 11 vv 1-3a, 4a, 6-9 read by a Fellow
A spotless rose (Howells)
The Lamb (Tavener)
Fifth lesson: Luke 1 vv 26-38 read by the Master over
the Choristers
Joys seven (arr. Cleobury)
Bogoróditse Dyévo (Arvo Pärt)
Sixth lesson: Luke 2 vv 1-7 read by the Mayor of Cambridge
What sweeter
music? (John Rutter)
Stille Nacht (arr.Ledger)
Seventh lesson: Luke 2
vv 8-16 read by the Director of Music
In the bleak midwinter (Darke)
While shepherds watched (desc. Cleobury)*
Eighth lesson: Matthew 2 vv
1-12 read by the Vice-Provost
O mercy divine (Judith Weir) (King’s
College Commission 2018)
Sir Christèmas (Mathias)
Ninth lesson: John
1 vv 1-14 read by the Provost
O come, all ye faithful (arr. Willcocks)*
Collect and Blessing
Hark! The herald angels sing (desc. Cleobury)*
My discussion is very brief, and I only comment on a very few of the
carols and the readings. The music of 'Adam lay ybounden in Ord's
arrangement is so wonderful that it deflects attention from the words.
Closer attention to the words may well remind us that our ancestors were
capable of believing in preposterous rubbish - and give rise to alarm that the doctrine
conveyed by the words can still be taken seriously or semi-seriously at
King's College. The reading from Genesis which precedes the carol gives a
view of the origin of sin which is much the same as the one expressed by the
carol. There was every
reason to include the carol in the service, for the quality of the music and
not the quality of the text, but no reason at all to include the reading
from Genesis, except to preserve the pattern that a carol should illuminate a text, supposedly, and a
text should illuminate a carol, supposedly. (It obviously seemed a good idea
at the time.)
This is
the text of the first lesson, Genesis 3: 8 - 19
8 And they heard
the voice of the
Lord God
walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid
themselves from the presence of the
Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the
Lord God called unto Adam, and
said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said,
I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and
I hid myself.
11 And he said,
Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I
commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man
said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and
I did eat.
13 And the
Lord God said unto the woman,
What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled
me, and I did eat.
14 And the
Lord God said unto the serpent,
Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above
every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou
eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will
put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it
shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 Unto the
woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in
sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy
husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam
he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast
eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of
it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all
the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also
and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of
the field;
19 In the sweat
of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out
of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
This is likely to have been included with a symbolic, not a literal,
sense in mind, although there are many Christians who would regard it as a
literal and true description of events. As a symbolic account of the coming
of sin into the world, according to the Christian account, this is
valueless. What can possibly be the contemporary benefit of hearing this?
The reading is followed by the carol 'Adam lay ybounden,' (Ord), an
ignorant text set to music of such beauty. This is the Middle English text
in largely modern spelling:
Adam lay ybounden,
Bounden in a bond;
Four thousand winter
Thought he not too long.
And all was for an apple
An apple that he took.
As clerkes finden written
In their book.
Ne had the apple taken been,
The apple taken been,
Ne had Our Lady,
A-been heaven's queen.
Blessed be the time
That apple taken was!
Therefore we may singen
Deo gratias!
From the section on this page Feeding the hungry and
the Sermon on the Mount:
Art and architecture do nothing to demonstrate that a religious
doctrine is trustworthy (there are wider implications.)
To confine attention to great artists, the art of a great
artist can't demonstrate any of these:
That Jesus calmed a storm on the Sea of Galilee
That Jesus
was crucified as a matter of historical record, or that Jesus was crucified
for our sins
That Jesus was born in a stable, or that Jesus was born
anywhere else
That St Peter founded the Roman Catholic Church
That the
Assumption of the Virgin Mary took place
To extend the list,
The musical quality of 'Adam lay ybounden' and the musical
quality of a performance of 'Adam lay ybounden' in King's College Chapel do
nothing to demonstrate the doctrine to be found in the carol, the
significance claimed for the eating the apple and for 'Our Lady.'
The
magnificence of the architecture of King's College Chapel does nothing to
demonstrate the validity of the beliefs of worshippers in pre-Reformation
times.
The magnificence of the architecture of King's College Chapel does
nothing to demonstrate the validity of the beliefs of worshippers in
post-Reformation times.
The architecture of King's College Chapel is
irrelevant to the competing, contradictory claims of Protestants and Roman
Catholics.
The painting by Rubens in King's College Chapel is irrelevant
to the historical investigation of the reliability of the Nativity story.
The choral music performed in King's College Chapel is irrelevant to the
competing, contradictory claims of Protestants and Roman Catholics.
Performances of works by the Roman Catholic Palestrina do nothing to
validate Roman Catholicism.
Performances of works by the Lutheran Bach do
nothing to validate his Lutheran beliefs.
Performances of Bach's B minor Mass do
nothing to validate the theology of the mass.
John Eliot Gardiner's documentary film 'Bach: a passionate life' is
impressive in many ways, but completely overlooks the difficulties in
linking theology and music, or, as he puts it, the amalgam of theology and
music. The film can be found at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o1DZPqqx-M
At 59:20 the astounding and shattering opening music is interrupted
by John Eliot Gardiner's words:
'Bach's purpose was to draw the listener in, to recreate in front of
their ears and eyes the drama of Christ's crucifixion and his St John's
Passion is an extraordinary amalgam of theology and music, religion and
politics, drama and wonderful presentation of story telling. So we sense the
tension already in St John's Gospel between Light and Darkness, between Sin
and Good Works and Faith and Doubt.
This is clumsily worded, as in 'to recreate in front of their ears
and eyes,' which, in its concentration on ocular and aural evidence ignores
understanding - as well as misunderstanding. The elemental Light and
Darkness, which have such great appeal to so many Christians, and many
non-Christians, conceal rather than illuminate. The difficulties in this
Gospel account are decisive. I discuss the difficulties of this verse from
St John's Gospel in the section on this page Why
the Christian God didn't love the world:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that
whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.' John
3: 16 (World English Bible).
I discuss Christian views of sin and good works in the section
Pete Wilcox, Bishop of Sheffield.
John Eliot Gardiner's book 'Music in the Castle of Heaven: A Portrait
of Johann Sebastian Bach' is, as would be expected, a much more detailed
portrait, but one marked by the same misunderstandings. He finds in the
music of Bach 'the voice of God' and declares 'God is still the only true
creator.'
In contrast to John Eliot Gardiner, I'd claim that Bach's
transcendental musical genius was accompanied by conventional, and mistaken,
views on theology. If a Mormon composer of genius had emerged to write works
of genius to celebrate the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, non-Mormons
would be able to appreciate the music but not the non-musical content.
The King James
Bible
'TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE JAMES, [BY THE GRACE OF GOD,] KING OF
GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &c.
'The Translators of the Bible wish Grace, Mercy, and Peace, through JESUS
CHRIST our Lord.
'GREAT and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which
Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of
[England], when first he sent Your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and reign
over us. '
This is from the introduction to the King James translation of the Bible,
also known as the 'Authorized Version.'
From the Website of the British Library
https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/king-james-vi-and-is-demonology-1597
'In 1597, King James VI of Scotland published a compendium on witchcraft
lore called Daemonologie. It was also published in England in 1603 when
James acceded to the English throne.
'The book asserts James’s full belief in magic and witchcraft, and aims
to both prove the existence of such forces and to lay down what sort of
trial and punishment these practices merit – in James’s view, death.'
From the site
http://www.wondersandmarvels.com/2014/07/king-james-i-demonologist.html
'James personally oversaw the trials by
torture for around seventy individuals implicated in the North Berwick Witch
Trials, the biggest Scotland had known ... The trial resulted in possibly
dozens of people burned at the stake, although the precise number is
unknown.
'In 1597, James published Daemonologie, his
rebuttal of Reginald Scot’s skeptical work, The Discoverie of Witchcraft,
which questioned the very existence of witches. Daemonologie was an alarmist
book, presenting the idea of a vast conspiracy of satanic witches
threatening to undermine the nation.
'In 1604, only one year after James
ascended to the English throne, he passed his new Witchcraft Act, which made
raising spirits a crime punishable by execution.
...
'In 1612, the King’s paranoid fantasy of
satanic conspiracy, planted in the minds of local magistrates eager to win
his favor, culminated in one of the key manifestations of the Jacobean
witch-craze—the trials of the Lancashire Witches, accused of plotting to
blow up Lancaster Castle with gunpowder. Eight women and two men were
executed.
James’s legacy extends even into our age.
The King James Bible, completed in 1611, saw the scriptures rewritten to
further the King’s agenda. Exodus 22:18, originally translated as, “Thou
must not suffer a poisoner to live,” became “Thou must not suffer a witch to
live.” '
The reference to 'poisoner' here is mistaken. The Hebrew word does not
mean 'poisoner.' The translation is subject to some dispute but all
plausible translations give an instruction which will be condemned, rightly
so. The Good News Translation is
'Put to death any woman who practices magic.'
Whether the translation of the Bible has grandeur or is plain and
contemporary, Biblical Christianity is a hideous thing.
Below, the Apotheosis of King James I by Rubens, at the Banqueting
House, Whitehall