Many of those who supported the right of David Irving, the Holocaust denier, to speak at the Oxford Union the other night, argued that however abhorrent his views one should negate them by debate rather than by banning him. It seems to me, though, that debate is alright when you're arguing about interpretation. However, debating against a Holocaust denier whose views are shaped by a not-so-hidden agenda and are based on the premise that a clear fact does not exist, is a waste of time and effort. Anyone with a real interest in Irving's views could read the account of the libel trial he lost in London a few years ago in which his case was completely dismantled by "proper" historians. Debating against Irving is a bit like a scientist trying to argue against a creationist.
This brings me on to the savaging by the Roman Catholic Church in America of the Golden Compass, the new film of Philip Pullman's novel The Northern Lights. At least the American Catholics haven't, as far as I know, called for the film to be banned, only boycotted. I know that the number of Catholics is falling in the world, yet, even so, it is extraordinarily defensive of them to worry about a movie that doesn't attack Catholicism directly. Yes, there's a layer of the books (toned down in the movie) that attacks the authoritarianism of religion and the abuse of power, doubtless with Catholicism in mind. It seems that in America, religion has become so politicised in a way that's alien to the UK. It's akin to the Muslim fundamentalists that they're the firstto attack. To the religious right, atheists are the equivalent of what Communists were a few decades ago. The Communists banned religion. The Catholic Church and the Communist Parties are both heavily centralised institutions. Yet where's the Christian tolerance here? Philip Pullman is not denying "facts" and does not possess a pernicious doctrine. I didn't notice atheist groups mobilising for boycotts of the movies of CS Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia, another children's book but with an avowedly Christian message. Different religions are, anyway, interpretations of various scriptures. An Oxford Union debate about whether organised religion is a good or bad thing would have been far more interesting than whether or not the Holocaust existed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi Bob
Interesting Blog. I find both articles have faith-based issues which I generally agree with. As a practicing Christian I have no problem with the Golden Compass (aka northern lights) and, like many other Christians, feel as strongly as many atheists and agnostics abut the misuse of power by 'the church'.
owever, the correct description of the church is not the human organizations with buildings, rules and hierarchies but rather the people, with like faith, wherever they may congregate.
The biggest problem is that the power that these 'church' organizations hold has nothing to do with biblical writings and everything to do with people's desire to hold power and control over others for personal and financial gain.
We should note that this is done by people under the guise of religion, nationality, colour, gender, ethnicity, size, ability, class, etc. and has been since the beginning of time (more on that later!) so it is mankind that is the problem, not the faith that some hold.
In the end one has to realize that it is not what you believe that makes a difference, but whether or not you abide by the principles that you hold and, in some cases, preach. You can only show the truth by carrying it out. Just like a scientific theory it is only a hypothesis until it is carried out and the results show the proof. A hypothesis holds only as long as the results continue to prove it and then a new hypothesis must be drawn up. A faith is the same.
W.R.T. the scientist and the creationist, I believe that a discussion could be held.
One could argue that science and religion are not at odds but rather are endeavouring to answer different questions, namely, "how?" and "why?" respectively.
Both creation and the big bang require a great deal of faith to believe in as both are limited in their details and can be interpreted in different ways. There are many scientists with a Christian faith in the world and there are many Christians who have no problem with the big bang theory.
Take a structuralist point of view when reading Genesis and it is even possible to see parallels between the two descriptions.
It would be difficult to write a text many thousands of years ago and talk about the subatomic particles and quantum mechanics required to fully explain the big bang.
Both describe a state of time and space coming into existence in a moment with a state 'before' outside of time and space.
Hi Bob, an excellent read and I totally agree with moose. It's power and money what makes things roll. Give me Ghandy any time.
Post a Comment