Faith in ourselves (i)

I haven't normally and/or ever felt the need to defend the ABC;  its policies, its reporting and any  particular strengths, weaknesses, biases or general inadequacies.

Last night (Monday 6/10.14)  it was instructive to watch about 2+ hours of broadcast.

The 7.30 Report noted that the current Federal government  didn't really like the ABC. There was the suggestion that no matter what was reported the ABC would be opposed to the right wing government ...commonly called the 'Coalition'. 

But it moved on; the wonderful Australian Story, once again delivered a high quality story about Jack Rogerson, an autistic child who has been so loved by his parents; and so supported by friends, family and community (including the wonderful Jesuit school at Riverview....I think the Society of Jesus would be cautious about claiming particular credit for Jack....but they seem to have got their act together.)
The real people who got their "act together" were: Jack himself; Ian Rogerson, a former media person;  and the extremely impressive Nicole Rogerson. [This all begs the question about what happens to those kids whose parents don't have what the Rogersons had ..financial resources, intellect, insight and capacity...] .  But it was a profound insight about what might happen when faith is bigger than fear!
Well done ABC     more to come!

Religion and politics (ii)

Part of the debate that has been doing the rounds on this question is whether or not is desirable that people of religious faith should be allowed to also exercise secular power.
The anxiety about this seems to come (not unexpectedly) from those who declare themselves to be not-religious.. It seems to me that this anxiety is misplaced, and comes about from a fundamental misunderstanding about religion that it is a private pursuit.
To the person of religious persuasion nothing could be further from the truth. Religion is essentially about whole-of-life, it is not a hobby or an interest, but about the way you view the world.
Now there are many things that are like this, not just religion, you education, background, ethnicity, social class...all affect the way you see and do things. We do not say that people of a certain racial background, or type of upbringing have to put that to one side...or that if you happen to have been educated at a state school, a private school or at home...then you are not allowed to bring that to bear on your political perceptions.
Why then would we say that some how you should park your religious perspectives (as if you could)?
The answer is not to some how detach ourselves from these things which colour our perceptions, but rather to declare them.
The truth is it's good that K Rudd talks about his Christian faith, or that T Abbott can tell us about why Roman Catholicism has shaped him. If we actually try to suggest that these things are some how unimportant and therefore should be set aside (and I say it again...as if you could) then this is more disturbing in actually making a clear apologetic for your sincerely held belief.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY that religious views, or any others, should go uncritiqued.
Quite the reverse. Critics of religion are right to suggest that we should not just accept an argument "because the Bible tells me so", or because that is what my religion teaches.
The religious person should be challenged to defend their position. This, to my mind, presents no threat to organised religion. Rather it enables those of us who are religious to respond to the challenge to not only be faithful, but also to be artional, reasonable and intelligent.
Nothing less should be expected in modern society.

Faith footprint

I was quite impressed to read the national Director of the Anglican Church's mission agency (ABM-A) Linda Kurti's article in the latest Partners magazine. (Unfortunately their website doesn't yet seem to be up to date with an online edition of the same.) She introduces the idea of a "Faith Footprint".
This is a modernist terminology that is everywhere. We are perhaps used to the "footprint" language in relation to environmental issues. But it is a useful idea in a whole range of areas.
I guess the image (and one should be careful of explaining images, as that rather defeats the purpose) is what is the observable imprint left after all of the hoo-hah, the words, the shouting and the fighting , the lobbying and the intrigue are over and done with.
What sort of stamp does this actually leave?
Used, as we are, to the carbon footprint...what is left after we indulge our appetite for every possible power hungry gadget, after we spin around the globe on plane after plane, after we drive to work instead of walk or catch the train....and so on and so on? How does the footprint of the West impact on the rest of the world?
The faith question is what does the footprint of the community of faith to which I belong refelect back about priorities and activities.
Kurti rightly points out that the footprint of Westernized churches is very different from the partner churches we seek to support financially.
Footprints reflect back where we put our emphasis, how we spend our time. One not only suspects, but knows, that Western churches are in the area of material resources, a lot of time and effort is spent on buildings and money.
We are quite social, I often think after Parish Planning meetings that our main energies actually go in lunches and dinners, morning tea and Carol Services. These things are not unimportant. But you look at the footprint of our partner churches and see what are (to me at least) impressive programs of social empowerment like enabling poor communities to set up cottage industries which give an social and economic freeddom to the poor, women and the marginalised. A far cry from the next parish dinner!
I shall try and think over the next few days of what my individual footprint might look like. Reminiscent of a question of the seventies that used to intrigue me...If I were on trial for being a Christian would there be enough evidence to convict me?

Wagering for God

There seem to have been a number of references recently to Blaise Pascal's argument for belief in God often referred to as Pascal's wager.
Like most of the arguments for the existence of God it seems to be useful for believers but not for unbelievers, therefore rather pointless from a polemical point of view, though not from the point of view of building up the faithful.
Basically the argument states (and it seems pretty easy to follow): Adopting a neutral or impartial stance, if you were to wager on God's existence on the balance of probablility then you are better to bet that God exists rather than the fact that God does not exist....because the expected value of believing will always exceed the expected value of not believing.
This might be briefly stated like this .
Two possibilities exist-God exists or God doesn't exist and Two choices exist - You believe or You don't believe

• You believe in God.-
  • If God exists, your gain is infinite because the expected value (salvation) is so
    
  • If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.(ie.when you're dead you're dead) or
    
• You do not believe in God.
  • If God exists, your loss is infinite because you lose the benefit of salvation.
  • If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
  • 
    

In both cases you get better value from believing rather than not believing.

This is a curiously self-interested way of viewing belief in God and is not terribly satisfying. In the end it begs the question about the true nature of belief. I would want to encourage people to have a more relational approach to God, and I would trust God to honour that commitment. (Pascal suggests this too)

To be fair to Pascal he only seems to offer this as a way of supporting belief in God and encouraging those who waver to take the plunge. This is, I suggest, the only thing that philosophical arguments for the existence of God have going for them. It's a puzzle to me, too, while there has been suddenly an incxrease in discussion of Pascal's wager.

Now, Pascall's lollies...that's a different thing all together.