While there is more hope for an end to the killing and displacement of millions because of the pursuit of naked self interest by those in control, we as a species still have a long way to go before that hope turns into a lasting peace.
Those remaining who still promote the Christian message, are struggling to gain traction with a public turned off by the hypocrisy and mismanagement of the once dominant faith based denominations.
Who would have thought that the most senior bishop of the Anglican Church, fresh from crowning the King of England, would find it necessary to resign in the face of criticism for his role in the coverup of some of the church’s worst crimes against its own people.
No wonder those who are looking at the Christian churches for help mentally, spiritually and physically during their hour of need, are finding the cupboard is bare and must look elsewhere for salvation.
However, given that the world has generally renounced the teachings that once upon a time and not so long ago formed the backbone of the British Empire, it is understandable that the Christian message makes no sense to the millions who have lost everything.
So, should those that are left give up?
I say - not at all!
As someone who is arguably the least worthy in modern society to be promoting the gospel message of rebirth, I still believe that it is the only one that is timeless in its capacity to forgive and start over.
I say that because, stripped of all the modern secular images of Santa and the commercial extravaganza we are about to witness, the message of a child being born in humble surroundings is the story that accommodates all the misdeeds of the past year and offers the hope that we just might be heading for better times.
It is also worth noting that international events of recent times (during the last few days in fact) appear to offer a reasonable expectancy that a world at war has suddenly turned the corner and is heading for a period of peace.
Donald Trump’s victory in November and the overthrow of the Assad regime in Syria, plus the apparent willingness of Ukraine and Russia to halt hostilities and reach a settlement do suggest that the tide may have already turned.
But it will not be enough for the leaders of the waring factions to work out a deal on their own.
It will require all the peoples of the world to commit to a new beginning where no person is left behind.
We have shown before that this sort of herculian task is not beyond us.
This time though, it will be different because any agreements will not be based on a common belief in a greater being.
We are going to have to trust in mankind’s ability to do it on our own.
That proposition scares the hell out of me but we have no choice.
Happy Christmas everyone and all that it means to you and those you love.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
So, should those that are left give up?
I say - not at all!
As someone who is arguably the least worthy in modern society to be promoting the gospel message of rebirth, I still believe that it is the only one that is timeless in its capacity to forgive and start over.
I say that because, stripped of all the modern secular images of Santa and the commercial extravaganza we are about to witness, the message of a child being born in humble surroundings is the story that accommodates all the misdeeds of the past year and offers the hope that we just might be heading for better times.
It is also worth noting that international events of recent times (during the last few days in fact) appear to offer a reasonable expectancy that a world at war has suddenly turned the corner and is heading for a period of peace.
Donald Trump’s victory in November and the overthrow of the Assad regime in Syria, plus the apparent willingness of Ukraine and Russia to halt hostilities and reach a settlement do suggest that the tide may have already turned.
But it will not be enough for the leaders of the waring factions to work out a deal on their own.
It will require all the peoples of the world to commit to a new beginning where no person is left behind.
We have shown before that this sort of herculian task is not beyond us.
This time though, it will be different because any agreements will not be based on a common belief in a greater being.
We are going to have to trust in mankind’s ability to do it on our own.
That proposition scares the hell out of me but we have no choice.
Happy Christmas everyone and all that it means to you and those you love.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
27 comments:
>" it will be different because any agreements will not be based on a common belief in a greater being."
I didn't realise 'common beliefs in a greater being' had anything to do with all the treaties signed with the Soviet Union and other communist entities during that era. Or with the People's Republic of China today.
Indeed, international law is remarkably silent on the supernatural. No vague promises are made to nebulous entities in the sky when concluding international treaties.
We need to look inwards, not outwards, for the solutions to our problems and for the courage and persistence to apply them. If anything, beliefs in ethereal beings would appear to impair rather than assist the process.
It's difficult to understand Mr Bibby's grip on history if he thinks that, just because it's Christmas, the world will change overnight. Two thousand Christmases have contributed nothing to peace on earth. And citing developments in the war in Ukraine as somehow representing a force for good is staggeringly naiive. To understand that, you only have to connect Ukraine with Syria, the other straw in the wind on offer. Yes, the brutal Assad regime has fallen, but look where their criminal leader has fled for protection, with his looted billions; straight to his mentor Vladimir Putin. And that pretty much sums up Russia's capacity for doing anything good, in Ukraine or in the world at large. And also remember the victorious party in Syria is just another terrorist Islamic group who don't actually share the West's obsession with Christmas. So, sorry Mr Bibby. I don't share your fantasies. Christmas is just another day at the office for the Vladimir Putins and Islamic terrorists of this world.
No Anon 8.50 , my beliefs are based on real life experiences that provide sufficient evidence that the Christmas message has played a huge part in world affairs since the birth of Christ - admittedly not always for good - otherwise how do we explain the questions that have stumped the greatest scholars of the world.
I am content that, in the absence of any alternative convincing evidence, the Christian story is enough for me.
You can sneer at my simple faith all you want but my guess is that privately, you are deeply troubled about the lack of real answers to your questions.
That’s your choice and l wish you well as you struggle to fill the gaps we must all face just trying to survive.
>"how do we explain the questions that have stumped the greatest scholars of the world."
Many/most of the 'big questions' - meaning of life etc - were being discussed by the pagan Greeks centuries before the Palestinian cult. They tend to be unanswerable because there is no way of empirically approaching them.
Religion tends to offer 'answers' that in fact precede the 'questions' they supposedly address - they are answers begging for questions.
A common logical fallacy with such 'answers' is that they fall into the trap of the 'God of the Gaps' - a paradigm coined by a Cambridge theologian in the 1920s - "if we don't know how this happens, there must be a god doing it."
Self-delusion too is a choice.
The dictionary interpretation of delusion is “a mistaken belief.”
Isn’t it rather arrogant to claim that another person’s beliefs are mistaken?
Can you prove they are ?
I prefer to trust my own judgement based on real life experiences but you are welcome to choose your own pathway to contentment.
We’ll probably never know who is right but it matters not to me.
>"Isn’t it rather arrogant to claim that another person’s beliefs are mistaken?"
Nope, not when they clearly are.
>"Can you prove they are ?"
I don't have to as I am not the one making the assertions. If you believe in the tooth fairy, you have to prove her existence, I don't have to disprove it. There is a good epistemological case to be made for no negative ever being 'provable'.
>"I prefer to trust my own judgement based on real life experiences "
Right, so you prefer the subjective to the objective. Well, I don't, 'cos that ain't evidence, old chap.
>"it matters not to me."
That's right, 'cos you already know so much better, or you have convinced yourself that you do - a common believer self-delusion.
Oh really Barend!
I’m not trying to prove anything and that is the difference between you and me. I am humble enough to admit l could be wrong.
You appear frustrated at the possibility you might be.
My faith based rationale fills the gaps and we deal with the real problems based on what we know to be true - leaving the rest to others to pretend that logic is the only answer.
Well, we can see from every day experiences that apparent common sense assumptions don’t always provide the answers to our questions.
“ sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof”
That quote suggests there is enough in today’s world to worry about without concerning ourselves with what tomorrow might bring.
Pretty common sense advice don’t you think.
>"I’m not trying to prove anything"
No, you're just stating it as fact, without any need for evidence. We have to believe it because you do, no proofs required. Sorry, no ball game.
>" I am humble enough to admit l could be wrong."
No you're not. There is no way you would concede that your core religious beliefs may be so much hogwash. Be honest! (Woops, intellectual honesty not being an attribute of believers...... still, one tries.........)
>"My faith based rationale fills the gaps"
Right. So when you don't know something you appeal to a god. As I have explained above, this is classical 'God of the Gaps' stuff.
>"we deal with the real problems based on what we know to be true - leaving the rest to others to pretend that logic is the only answer."
Oh the utter arrogance of religious belief! "Based on what we know to be true" through purely subjective means and the blazes to rational, critical thought. Yep, says it all! The delusion of religion in a nutshell!
>"apparent common sense assumptions don’t always provide the answers to our questions."
Going off on a tangent here. It's a common. Who said anything about 'common sense assumptions'? Not me!
>"there is enough in today’s world to worry about without concerning ourselves with what tomorrow might bring."
Another diversion.
You typically avoid the substantive epistemological issues and throw in straw men and red herrings. Boring.
FAIL.
Addendum: the word 'ploy' should follow 'It's a common'
Oh well, l’m done trying to explain my position based on what it is.
I’m happy to leave to others to judge whether l am a “looney” who entertains “child like” answers to questions we all must deal with.
But don’t be surprised if others more respected in society express similar opinions about the world in which we live. It happens every day.
There is room for us all.
Oh, and just one more thing
My assertion based on “what we know to be true” is in fact a humble reference to all the evidence of a creative influence we see during our every day activities.
Perhaps farmers like me are in an advantageous position working at the coalface of this creation.
We see it in all is glory every day.
Unfortunately mankind has interfered with this perfect design to such an extent that we are on the verge of destroying the planet upon which we depend for our survival.
There is nothing illogical about that statement so go figure.
>"l’m done trying to explain my position based on what it is."
You never even started. Just told us this is how it is 'cos you feel that's how it is and that's final.
>"answers to questions we all must deal with."
No we don't - certainly not your formulaic 'answers begging for questions'. We've seen through them.
>"others more respected in society express similar opinions about the world in which we live"
Sure there are, and for every one of them you cite, I'll find you someone just as 'respected' who says the opposite. That's the trouble with this logical fallacy 'Appeal to Authority' - the other side can always locate their own.
>"It happens every day."
That's right. That's why we're in such a bloody mess.
>"There is room for us all"
Yep, in a post-Christian society that lives according to principles of human rights.
>"There is nothing illogical about that statement so go figure."
No, Clive, you have absolutely nothing to offer the rational informed mind. When it comes to logic, you are a rich source of logical fallacies. It ain't me that needs to 'go figure'.
I have a book in my possession titled "Freedom, the end of the human condition", by Jeremy Griffith. Former president of the Canadian Psychiatrists Association, says it's "The Book That Saves the World". Is is some 800 pages aND CONSISTS OF `1
I've got a funny feeling some bits dropped off your comment before making it onto the page, Kawena. Would you like to have another go?
MODERATOR
I have a book in my possession titled "Freedom, the end of the human condition", by biologist Jeremy Griffith, and according to Professor Harry Prosen, past president of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, this is the "Book That Saves the World". It consists of some 800 pages, and 1300 paragraphs. It is available on the computer by typing in "www.HumanCondition.com". May I wish everybody a Merry Christmas from one who has stood in for Santa Claus for over 60 years.
Kevan
I like what Anthony Hewish has written. He is an astronomer and won a Npbel Prize in 1974 for the discovery of Pulsars : "the ghostly presence of virtual particles defies rational common sense and is non-intuitive for those unfamiliar with physics. Religious belief in God and Christian belief -----may seem strange to common sense but when the most elementary physical things behave in this way,, we should be prepared to accept the deepest aspects of our existence go far beyond our commonsense understanding."
The Bibby/Vlaardingerbroek dialogue is as old as philosophy itself and our tolerant Western culture recognises that Clive is entitled to his "simple faith" if it gives him solace. Freedom of religion is a human right. However he has to accept that many of us recognise that faith is a pretty poor substitute for reason in navigating today's complicated world and we refuse to accept that things are the way they are because of some divine plan. Science is daily pushing back the boundaries of our knowledge . Naturally we don't have all the answers and probably never will because the more we discover the more questions that arise. But one thing we have learned is that every question has a rational and provable explanation and can be answered if we turn our minds to it. Faith just gets in the way. Faith is designed to keep the people ignorant so they are forced to accept the "official" truth. And the strategy is as old as human society. Invent a problem that scares the hell out of the people and then offer the people a solution only they can deliver. So It's not surprising the Bible locks in the problem right up front - knowledge is forbidden fruit, and all those who eat it will burn in hell. But fortunately the Church has a solution, everlasting life. But only if you kept the faith and believe what the Church tells you to believe. And while Christianity is a spent force today, the broad strategy still works well in politics, with Donald Trump as the leading practitioner. Immigrants will murder us in our beds and rape our wives he says. Only I have the solution so trust me he says. Only I can make America great again. So it's entirely understandable that Clive would be such an admirer of Trump. Its just a matter of simple faith.
Re: Gaynor above, There are several problems associated with using quotations from high-profile people in science about things beyond the material realm. One is that they are by definition out of field, as science deals exclusively with the material realm. Another is that they are expressing opinions that cannot be subjected to empirical tests - in the schema of Karl Popper, these assertions are unfalsifiable and therefore neither provable nor, more importantly, disprovable. But the biggest problem is that it is always possible to find a quote from someone just as prominent that comes down to the exact opposite of the one being bandied about. In astrophysics, Hewish was indeed 'great' but Stephen Hawking was 'greater' and it is from him that I quote: “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ [in his popular book 'A Brief History if Time' - BV] is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”
I’ll put the record straight on a couple of things and then leave it to the “know alls” who are so sure their position is impregnable.
I have never claimed to be an admirer of the President elect - l just base my assessment of the respective candidates’ capabilities to do the job on their individual track records
Trump was elected for a second term based on his performance in his first term - one where he significantly outperformed most of his predecessors in the modern era. I’m confident that he will have made the world an even safer place at the end of this term.
Finally, a comment about my detractors’ position regarding the origin of the species.
Barend and others claim to be atheists - convinced that there is no God. Yet like those who profess to be Christians or believers in other Gods - he can’t prove it.
So, wouldn’t it be more honest to accept he is merely an agnostic and entitled to hold that view.
The writer of the above piece has rightly observed that the more information science uncovers, the more questions are left to be answered but proof one way or another appears to be a distant objective.
I’m content to get on with enjoying the evidence that some creative force is behind the evolutionary process.
For me, the evidence points to the Christian God but l’m happy that others think differently. That’s their choice.
Clive's thinking seems to be mired in the early 20th century in some ways.
To him, the "origin of the species" appears to be a god/no god issue. Two points: the species taxonomic level has long given way to the gene pool as the unit of evolutionary change. Species as clearly definable biological units based on interfertility simply don't exist. Secondly, the ways by which the diversity of life came about do not necessarily include a god or gods. It is not a matter of either/or. If we replace 'ways' in the preceding sentence with 'mechanisms', gods are excluded as a mechanism governing a material process is by definition material.
The term 'atheist' simple means 'without belief in a god', The so-called 'strong' position is the assertion that there isn't one but between many and most professing atheists hold the view that there is not enough evidence to support the existence of a god (this, of course, is where people like Clive jump in with their 101 logical fallacies).
The term 'agnostic' was coined by TH Huxley and refers to someone who does not consider the evidence for a god to be decisive i.e. a 'soft' atheist.
All this is more for the benefit of other readers as it is clear from the above that Clive either does not read my comments or does not understand them. I suspect the latter.
Others may say the same about you Barend - with justification!
Whatever, l have enjoyed the exchange of views .
It is refreshing to debate these important topics without resorting to inappropriate slander. We are all searchers of the truth.
In the meantime, I do sincerely wish you a very happy Christmas with those you love - unfortunately an opportunity only available to a mere fraction of the world’s population. We are truly blessed.
>"Others may say the same about you Barend - with justification!"
It would be fascinating top see what that was since I am the one addressing issues raised by the other party whereas you studiously ignore each and every one. There is a no 'debate' where one party seems incapable of cognitively engaging with points raised by the other.
Xmas available to only a "mere fraction of the world's population"? We must live on different planets literally as well as figuratively. It's not observed in North Korea but I am reliably informed it is widely observed in the PRC. Maybe they're 'truly blessed' too, although that rollercoaster ride they've been on economically is going to hit a series of judderbars soon when the demographic transition brought about by the 1980 one-family law catches up.
No Xmas for me or mine, thanks. It's we who are 'truly blessed' by keeping our money in our pockets!
Stephen Hawkins was truly a truly a great scientist but he , too , should have stuck to his knitting. Being more brilliant in science does not make you more eligible to make comments and claim the truth about theological or religious matters, than anyone else.
That's right, Gaynor, as I outline above. Neither Hawking nor Hewish were theologians. I'm quite happy to leave the hocus-pocus to them providing they leave the material world to us. As Stephen Jay Gould put it, science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria".
Clive says ""Barend and others claim to be atheists - convinced that there is no God. Yet like those who profess to be Christians or believers in other Gods - he can’t prove it.""
With respect Clive, you are employing the logical fallacy known as the Appeal to Ignorance; a claim that something must be true because it hasn't been proven false. In this case, it's not up to the disbeliever, be s/he agnostic or atheist, to prove God does NOT exist. No one can prove something doesn't exist. So the burden of proof is entirely on the believer to produce the verifiable evidence that God DOES exist. And frankly, expecting us to accept that what you see down on the farm is sufficient evidence is not good enough, It's just confirmation that you, like all of us, don't know what you don't know. Which brings us back to science.
And by the way, changing the subject, you assert Trump won a second term on the basis of his first term performance. Could have sworn it was his lack of performance in his first term that lost him the 2020 election. But I guess he did significantly outperform most of his predecessors in the modern era in a couple of ways. None were impeached twice, and none ever attempted to stage a coup d'état to stay in office. If that's what American voters value in a Presidential candidate in 2024 then God save America. Because on the basis of his first term performance, Donald Trump certainly won't.
Interesting isn't it that people so sure of their own beliefs or lack of them that they feel the need to sneer at and poke holes in mine while remaining anonymous.
Such strength of character is astonishing.
One could assume he or she or it would want to be personally acknowledged by those in search of such wise counsel.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.