Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Nick Clegg does God


What a pity.

When Nick Clegg came out as an atheist back in 2007, Cranmer was full of admiration.

His Grace said at the time that he would prefer to engage with an honest, self-confessed atheist than with a duplicitous hypocrite who professes to be Christian.

Mr Clegg appeared to be honest about what he believed.

Or, rather, what he didn’t believe.

But he seems to have an encounter with Jesus on the road to New Malden.

He was not quite blinded with scales over his eyes (except, of course, for the usual blindness which besets all Liberal Democrats). But according to The Daily Telegraph, he has written an article for The Church of England Newspaper in which he claims that Christian values are ‘central’ to his policies.

Unfortunately, the article is behind a pay-wall, so Cranmer is unable to fisk. If any readers or communicants are able to forward it, His Grace would be most appreciative (he is not prepared to waste a penny of his meagre stipend on a subscription to this rag).

Extracts quoted by The Telegraph include:

My objective is to make space in society for every individual to pursue their [sic] own beliefs, and to achieve their potential.
Unless, of course, they happen to want a Christian education for their children.

They point out that Mr Clegg’s wife is a Roman Catholic. Mr Clegg has previously said: "I have enormous respect for people who have religious faith, I'm married to a Catholic and am committed to bringing my children up as Catholics. However, I myself am not an active believer, but the last thing I would do when talking or thinking about religion is approach it with a closed heart or a closed mind."

This is such a fair, reasonable and balanced perspective that it is something of a wonder that he did not reiterate this point in the article.

Mr Clegg further writes:

We are proud to support specific campaigns organised by Christian groups. We are in no doubt that these are policies that will make our country fairer.
What campaigns are these? The right to life? Defence of the unborn? Protection of the elderly and vulnerable from encroaching state-sponsored suicide?

Despite voting in 2008 for abortions to continue to be allowed up to six months into pregnancy, Mr Clegg makes the quite astonishing claim that the Liberal Democrats could help right-to-life campaigners:

On 'conscience' issues like abortion and stem cell research, where no party has a united view, it will be possible for every elector to have their say about these questions by supporting candidates who share their views.
Given that he has Dr Death Evan Harris on his benches - who is the most rabid abortion-promoting, embryo-experimenting and euthanasia-inducing secularist in the House of Commons - it is difficult to see how Mr Clegg has the front to attempt to enlist the pro-lifers to the Liberal Democrat cause.

Apparently, Mr Clegg did not find space anywhere in the article to mention that he does not believe in God.

He is simply doing what Liberal Democrats do best: saying whatever you want to hear, U-turning and flip-flopping all over the shop, with no ideology, no conviction, and no core principles.

Take their policy on the euro. Before the global financial meltdown, they were vehemently in favour of UK membership. Now they appear unwilling to say anything on the matter.

On defence, they wish to abolish Trident on the grounds of cost, but refuse to say explain how the abolition of the nuclear deterrent will strengthen the defence of the realm.

On university tuition fees, they have back-tracked on the abolition, preferring now to phase them out ‘over six years’. Setting aside the inconvenient fact that a parliament lasts for five years, he has yet to say where the £7.5 billion cost of this would come from.

On economic matters, Nick Clegg said we need bold and even ‘savage’ cuts in government spending, which will be necessary to bring the public deficit (standing at £168 billion) under control. More recently, he warned of ‘Greek style’ unrest and ‘serious social strife’ if tax increases and cuts in spending were enacted.

Despite the fact we face a £168 billion budget deficit, Mr Clegg has only identified £10 billion in savings. And he says he is being honest with you?

On property tax – the Liberal Democrats wanted to abolish the Council Tax in favour of a ‘local income tax’. In 2009, they made a calculation that meant they now supported tax on property in the form of their ‘mansion tax’. Within a month, they had already fallen into disarray on the policy, and doubled the threshold for property to be affected by the tax. Such indecision is hardly a ringing endorsement for a party to wield significant power in Westminster.

On party donations, Mr Clegg likes to pretend that he is whiter than white. Their 2005 campaign was supported with a £2.4 million donation (at a time they said no party should take donations of more than £50,000) from a man later convicted of fraud.

On MPs’ expenses – in one four month period, Nick Clegg claimed a staggering £1,657.32 on groceries. When he was an MEP, he travelled economy class, but claimed for Business class, claiming the difference for ‘office expenses’. Not to mention the four Lib Dem MPs that were ordered to repay £16,500 for over claiming on expensive rent for Dolphin Square apartments near Parliament.

On immigration – they want to ‘naturalise’ around 600,000 illegal immigrants with British citizenship, and want no limit on inward migration. Instead, they simply want to move them around to different regions. There is no inconsistency or flip-flopping on this matter: Cranmer has included simply as an illustration of Liberal Democrat stupidity.

One would hope that no readers of The Church of England Newspaper are duped by Nick Clegg’s appeal to them as the party of ‘Christian values’.

Even as Anglicans are themselves enduring a time of crisis and uncertainty and without serious leadership, Cranmer wishes to point out that Nick Clegg is no anchor; the Liberal Democrat house is built on nothing but sand.

71 Comments:

Blogger dmk said...

Cleggs immigration policy is based on the work of Strangers into Citizens, a London network to which scores of churches belong
http://www.strangersintocitizens.org.uk/

From what I gather, it was Boris Johnson who first introduced Clegg to the idea. Maybe this is the kind of Christian campaigning he was talking about.

21 April 2010 at 09:02  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Nick Clegg’s voting record:


Voted against the Second Reading of the Religious Hatred Bill on 21 June 2005
Voted against the Third Reading of the Religious Hatred Bill on 11 July 2005
Voted for the Lords amendments to the Religious Hatred Bill on 31 January 2006
Voted against keeping the presumption that religious charities provide public benefit
Voted against increasing the number of regional casinos from 1 to 8
Voted against requiring practitioners providing contraception or abortion to a child under the age of 16 to inform his or her parent or guardian
Abstained or was absent on the vote for the Sexual Orientation Regulations which restrict religious liberty
Abstained or was absent on the vote for the Termination of Pregnancy (Counselling and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2007
Voted against reducing the abortion limit from 24 weeks in 2008
Voted against a ban on creating saviour siblings in 2008
Voted against a ban on creating animal-human hybrid embryos in 2008
Voted against keeping the requirement to consider a child's need for a father before fertility treatment in 2008
Voted for providing information and offering counselling to women considering abortion for foetal abnormality in 2008
Voted for abolishing the blasphemy laws in England and Wales
Abstained or was absent on the votes for a free speech amendment to the 'homophobic hatred' offence in 2008
Voted against reclassifying cannabis to class B in 2008
Voted against a free speech amendment to the 'homophobic hatred' offence in March 2009
Abstained or was absent on the vote for a free speech amendment to the 'homophobic hatred' offence in November 2009
Voted for narrowing the existing employment freedoms of churches and religious organisations in the Equality Bill

21 April 2010 at 09:22  
Blogger David Wheeler said...

Well, 'Archbishop,' that was a pretty thorough hatchet job.
I am sure, that, if you put your mind to it,
you could do the same to the other two major parties
- and their leaders.

David Wheeler.

21 April 2010 at 09:24  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Your Grace's post seems to suggest that the Christian vote is united about all the same issues, which it isn't. Much to your frustration, there are Christians who will love the LibDems, and they probably subscribe to certain 'rags'.

Interesting to see Boris supporting this Strangers into Citizens thing, it would seem that there is quite a bit of sand under the Conservative foundations.

21 April 2010 at 09:26  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

I am surprised that you haven’t added Douglas Murray’s piece
Nick Clegg does not offer 'new' politics. I saw his true colours when I asked him about Jenny Tonge
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/nehttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglasmurray/100035586/nick-clegg-does-not-offer-new-politics-i-saw-his-true-colours-when-i-asked-him-about-jenny-tonge/

You are right to point out flaws and inconsistencies in any of the party’s policies. Unfortunately your beloved Tories are just as bad at telling the truth.

21 April 2010 at 09:34  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

The Church of England Newspaper is behind a pay-wall

Keeping their ”revelations” to themselves erh! At least they’re not withholding any intellectual property.

21 April 2010 at 09:40  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Will Christians swing the 2010 UK election?

"Elizabeth Berridge, chairman of the Conservative Christian Fellowship, thinks low turnout at elections means Christians play an important role, as they are more likely to vote than most people - with about 80% doing so.

'Political imperative'

She said: "It could have a big impact. In some seats the church meeting is the only one candidates are asked to attend.

"At this juncture, following the expenses scandal, Christians are going to be concerned with how someone comes across, whether they are genuine, what their character is like.

"They might disagree with the candidate's views, but if his or her character seems good, they might hold sway."

21 April 2010 at 09:46  
Blogger English Viking said...

Mr Davis,

Just been to the site attached to your screen-tag.
There is a picture of the Turin shroud, a cross inside a red warning triangle and a dig at the BBC being the media wing of the CofE. (You're joking, right?)

There is also a a mini-rant about executing apostates and a list of countries where 'religion' has caused numerous problem, all of them Muslim or Hindu.

I just wondered why you felt brave enough to launch snotty tirades against Christianity, which is the only 'religion' identifiable on the opening page, but don't quite have the cojones to mention Islam.

BTW, do you spend as much time on Islamic and Hindu websites, explaining why their 'sky-fairies' are a delusion?

21 April 2010 at 09:51  
Anonymous Peter Shields said...

Jared Gaites said... "Will Christians swing the 2010 UK election? ... At this juncture, following the expenses scandal, Christians are going to be concerned with how someone comes across, whether they are genuine, what their character is like ... They might disagree with the candidate's views, but if his or her character seems good, they might hold sway."

Sadly, it makes no difference what your individual MP's character is like - they're all just part of the party machinations. You don't vote for an individual you are voting for their party. You get the party's policies regardless of the charachter of the individual. I guess the only difference is if they have their fingers in the till or not whilst they ignore your wishes on everything else!

The ONLY time the character of the individual matters is with an Independent candidate - where they are free to speak their own opinions and vote according to their own conscience or according to the wishes of the local electorate.

Funnily enough, there's someone like that standing where I am!

21 April 2010 at 09:58  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

English Viking said...

Just been to the site attached to your screen-tag. There is a picture of the Turin shroud, a cross inside a red warning triangle and a dig at the BBC being the media wing of the CofE. (You're joking, right?)

Not my intention, must be an error, try this link:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/douglasmurray/

BTW, do you spend as much time on Islamic and Hindu websites, explaining why their 'sky-fairies' are a delusion?

No because there are no Islamic forums that allow comment. Let me know if you find one and I will be off like a shot, as for Hindus, too many arms to be taken seriously.

Presumably you would prefer it if my ilk did not “invade” your cosy club? I spent some time on the Dawkins forum “talking” to likeminded people but it got boring, surely you need a bit of opposition to fire the synapses?

If you feel like a bit of retaliation try the Cambridge Secular Society forum
http://www.camsecsoc.websitetoolbox.com/

21 April 2010 at 10:31  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

English Viking

Apologies, I read your post hurriedly. I thought you were having problems with the Douglas Murray link when in fact you had visited the Cambridge Secular Society. Once again you are welcome to post a comment

21 April 2010 at 10:38  
Blogger Preacher said...

Well researched Mr Singh, comments are irrelevant when faced with the truth of history. Rather like the ressurection eh? Admirable!

21 April 2010 at 11:04  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Oh Dear, sounds like YG is as guilty again of sloppiness in the research department as he was in his dodgy puff-piece on Zac ‘Loadzamahnny’ Goldsmith.

You will no doubt remember a few day ago saying:-

“The House of Commons needs more MPs like Zac Goldsmith- Perhaps, like his father - the late, great, much-missed Sir James Goldsmith”

This you said of a selfish megalomaniac billionaire and ‘French elected-MEP’ who used his wealth to buy for his own advantage, a campaign and one-shot Referendum Party that cost Conservative minister David Mellor, his seat to Labour. Others at the time, unlike YG today, were less bedazzled by his wealth and swagger, thought that:-

“Goldsmith undermined efforts by other British parties to garner support for participation in a European Union that supported free trade… His loyalty has always been given to individuals and not to countries or corporations”…
http://www.answers.com/topic/james-goldsmith

So much for YG’s apparent aptitude for evaluation of potential candidates, aspiring to control our Country. He then goes forth to state:-

…though there is no indication of whether she is ‘cultural’ or practising, or if their children are being brought up in that faith

The links YG provided revealed:-
Mr Clegg added: "I have enormous respect for people who have religious faith, I'm married to a Catholic and am committed to bringing my children up as Catholics.

"However, I myself am not an active believer, but the last thing I would do when talking or thinking about religion is approach it with a closed heart or a closed mind."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7151346.stm

Sounds like a pretty honest, balanced sort of man, making a clear statement to me. YG is clearly grasping at straws to find any verbal ammunition real or imaginary to whip the Faithfull into a religious frenzy with a bit of unsecure ad hominem negative campaigning.

It’s patently clear to me also, that The Cleggmeister really has rattled YG’s cage, what is this – the forth or fifth OP on the Lib-Dems in a row?

21 April 2010 at 11:37  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Dreadnought

Your own diligence is matched only by that of Mr Singh whose access to instant information is legendary.

21 April 2010 at 11:54  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Your Grace, do we know what the devout and intelligent Dona Miriam Gonzalez Durantes y Clegg thinks about the Lib-Dem education policy? Is there any recorded utterance?

And Dreadnaught, 'whipping the Faithfull' with two 'ells', would that be Marianne? Kinky, or what?

21 April 2010 at 12:29  
Blogger English Viking said...

Mr Davis,

I just wondered if you were consistent in your beliefs, that's all.

I mean, if you were a bit reticent to point out to a Muslim the deficiencies of his 'faith', simply because you fear he might try to cut your head off with a spoon, your argument here would lose weight.

If you cannot find Islamic websites on which to comment, you could always hold a placard aloft, detailing their faults, outside your local mosque, on a Friday. I hear that they are quite partial to a bit of placard waving.

21 April 2010 at 13:08  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Please MrG - Noooooooooooooooooo!

21 April 2010 at 13:18  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dreadnaught,

Thank you for the correction, but His Grace was referring to the article in question. It is a little unreasonable to expect him to recall the detail of every link from years ago.

He is happy to correct, and thanks you for pointing this out to him in a calm, reasonable, mature and non-judgmental fashion.

21 April 2010 at 14:12  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

English Viking
Perhaps I should wear this as well
http://www.cafepress.co.uk/cp/moredetails.aspx?productNo=390169924&pr=F&showbleed=false&colorNo=4&tab=1&Zoom=1

or an even better range here:
http://www.designalternative.co.uk/000_mottogrotto/

Dreadnought I think English Viking is thinking hmm, Fatwa?
That's one way of getting rid of him!

21 April 2010 at 14:33  
Blogger The Merry Man said...

Your Grace,

Clegg seems to be on the up and up,if the LibDems ally themselves with Labour the Torys will be finished for another generation,if not finished till the end of days!

21 April 2010 at 14:36  
Blogger English Viking said...

Mr Davis,

So you're not consistent then?

I wonder why?

21 April 2010 at 15:20  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Nick Clegg does God

Matthew 7:28
And it came to pass, when Clegg had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine

English Viking consistent to the extent that I think you are all bonkers, no offence!

21 April 2010 at 16:05  
Blogger English Viking said...

Mr Davis,

None taken, although the Lord God does not take kindly to parodies of His words.

21 April 2010 at 16:28  
Anonymous James Z said...

After his performance on the last live debate, he did appear rather god like!

Check out his lead in this poll:

http://www.10downingtweets.co.uk/

21 April 2010 at 16:45  
Anonymous PC said...

This comment thread has now got to a ridicolous, predictable stage. Someone posts a relatively intresting post, which is then followed by some attacking post from either Dreadnaught or Mr Davis, which is then followed by a counter attack from eith Mr Singh, English Viking, Anababtist, Not a Machine or Jared Gates. This then tends to carry on for the rest of the thread. Gnostic ,Lakester91, Len, Lord Lavedon, and Atlas Shrugged tend to have a relatively intersting comment somewhere aswell. These comments used to be interesting at one time, now it has just became slightly monotonous and boring

21 April 2010 at 16:47  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

PC: Politics and religion are a volatile mix. I understand the Test Card Society hosts a very restful blog

21 April 2010 at 17:13  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr PC

I am trying to turn over a new leaf: I call it ‘Love’.

Peace unto you Mr Davis and Ms Dreadnaught.

Peace!









Just a minor note: when I first began posting here there were about, if I recall correctly, 700 visitors a day. Now the average is edging towards: 2,000.

21 April 2010 at 17:15  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Graham Davis 10.31: There are a whole load of Islamic forums that allow comment; but with most you have to register your email address and other identifying details - which might NOT be wise! Unfortunately, at a certain level, every second person working in IT today appears to be muslim.

I recently tried to leave a few comments on Cat Steven's (Yusuf Islam) new web-site, regarding his 'thoughts and suggestions' upon the possible fate of Salman Rushdie (apparently he, Islam, now denies all!)....but decided 'discretion being the better part of valour' not to risk it!

21 April 2010 at 17:27  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

...and to you Mr Singh

21 April 2010 at 17:28  
Anonymous len said...

Mr P C,
Perhaps we should all agree to disagree? and go our separate ways.

Never!
While I have breath in my body I will preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to anyone who has ears to hear.

And love?
Speaking the truth in love..." I'm willing to spoil your day if telling you an unwelcome truth might save your soul.

21 April 2010 at 17:49  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

@PC
Your children will be next!

BTW, learn to spell and punctuate. And if you really had been following the threads you would know that D Singh has sent me to Coventry, and that I am an irritating bastard who seeks no approval.

21 April 2010 at 17:56  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Gaites

I pardon you.

Peace be unto you.

21 April 2010 at 17:59  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I should have thought LibDems were the embodiment of Church of England ideology...with a Greenham Common Archbishop in Lambeth who believes in Doublethink and can recite in Newspeak.

The incoherent sentimentality of LibDem pronouncements seems so at one with the feminised Zeitgeist as to be almost hymnal.

There is a bewildered inability to grasp that the world has sharp edges and deep pits as the Church of england has specialised in 'Good Feelings Jesus Cultism' dismissing the God of The Old Testament as if he had abdicated in favour of a thin pamphlet going under the soubriquet 'New Testament' but in Church of England La-La Land it is stripped of any Jewish references to make it seem like a New Age Therapist cum Escapologist in the Roman Empire.

I am sure prelates throughout The Erastian State Church will embrace Nick Clegg and his party especially if he promises to legislate and replace the 1662 Prayer Book with Homilies by Gene Robinson

21 April 2010 at 18:00  
Anonymous PC said...

Jared Gaites, "BTW"! I'm the one who needs to learn to write in proper english? Im sorry if I offended you, it wasn't directed at you in particular, just a general observation of the current situation of this comment thread. Also Len and Mr Singh I do enjoy your posts, keep up the good work

21 April 2010 at 18:05  
Anonymous PC said...

Ah no I forgot to mention Voyager!

21 April 2010 at 18:06  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Methinks the coruscant Clegg will soon dim.....does anyone recall the old 'Osram' light-bulb commercials; whereby one such shimmered, fizzed, flickered and burnt itself out?

I hope and suspect, that the Cleggles may soon be vo(l)ted out of existence.

21 April 2010 at 18:17  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I return Your Grace’s almost magnanimous compliments and commend His alacrity in furthering amendments to His first draft OP.
Obviously YG was teasing and merely playing directly to the sycophants in the gallery, in asserting today,(and contrary to His herein stated understanding of the truth of the matter) that Clegg had at some time ‘come out’ as atheist. If I may make so bold as to suggest that this smacks of nothing less than a naughty little falsehood aimed at the all too volatile of some of His Faithful – Naughty – naughty Cranny!.
Notwithstanding YG, nowhere on the record can I find any quotable evidence that the man Clegg ever ‘came out’ and used the words ‘ I am an atheist’. Perhaps YG is privy to more information than mere mortals and will enlighten me.
It looks more likely that he was asked (presumably) for a statement along the lines of ‘do you believe in (the Christian) God?’ and is then reported to have answered with an equally (again presumably) ‘No’. Even more puzzling when one considers the common accepted generalisation that - when did a politician ever give a straight answer?
As YG said at the time:- 20 DECEMBER 2007 16:19
[Cranmer said: (in agreeing with a communicant)]
“There is not (sic) such thing as an atheist - And if there were such a thing, his/her contempt for 'religion' would herald the Dawkins-type of invective, and would certainly not tolerate one's children being brought up Roman Catholic, whatever the faith adherence of the partner.

His grace I respectfully charge, is not only being dishonourably mischievous in now referring to Clegg as an atheist (a belief concept which He maintains does not exist but still employs as something He deems strangely derogatory) in today’s missive. He is I suggest, exposing himself to limited friendly criticism from a positive atheist as I am, as exhibiting a certain degree of journalistic if not personal inconsistency; having previously declared:-
…It is more likely that Mr Clegg is Agnostic…
I am at a loss as to why such an erudite and precise embodiment of faith personified, as Your Grace, should find it still necessary ‘brand’ if I may use such an improper expression, Clegg as atheist and not agnostic in the light of His previous assiduously examined assertions.

I kindly accept your representations Mr Singh and return the sentiments.
Peace indeed has been declared.

PC:-
by all means feel free to skip over all or any of my posts if you find them upsetting or irritating - it's only a blog - chill out dude.

21 April 2010 at 18:20  
Anonymous Tony B said...

"saying whatever you want to hear, U-turning and flip-flopping all over the shop, with no ideology, no conviction, and no core principles."

Er, now come on. This is true of all politicians and political parties these days.

21 April 2010 at 18:57  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

D. Singh said...
Mr PC
I am trying to turn over a new leaf: I call it ‘Love’.
Peace!

Good for you. However I wonder why you should have to turn anything over in order to do this.

Love is as they say THE ANSWER, and precisely why our establishment hate REAL CHRISTIANS with an unimaginable passion.

They have after all spend much of their time and energy slaughtering them in the most horrendous manners since Roman Times. Or indeed converting them to the Roman Empires Church using things such as burning at the stake or the cruellest of cruel tortures.

The problem people like Graham Davis have, are largely of their own making. They long since stopped educating themselves as to the real history of the Christian Faith, and a whole lot of other things.

Which is why they attack only straw men, with a confidence only found in the profoundly ignorant.

We should all know that the Bible was long since corrupted by pagan star worship. This does not mean that either Jesus was not what he claimed to be, or that paganism was not very much on to something very important.

The truth is, we don't know. Would it not be nice is so called scientist admitted they don't know one hell of a lot more often?

The more spiritually minded know something did go on, and is still going on, which is evidently not of this realm. Is indeed God like, extra terrestrial, and not a lot if anything to do with pure chance that would make winning the national lottery 100 times in succession look like a forgone conclusion. In other words not much to do with Darwinian green slime naturally turning into Einstein or anything over close, all by itself.

The Bible is as crammed full of Science as much as anything else. Religion started as and still is Science.

The thing about modern day science in particular, is that the people who controlled it do not generally have much of an interests in sharing their discoveries/knowledge with the ordinary people. Wars usually being an exception, but only when they get around to starting one.

Knowledge is indeed POWER.

Which is certainly not the sort of thing established religion or the establishment it is wedded to would ever allow themselves to even slightly loose.

Which was why in the not so distant past Roman Catholics were not permitted to read their own bibles in case any of the great unwashed sussed out what it was really all about. The same reason why30 years after their invention we are still not driving around in hydrogen fuelled pollution free cars for example.

The Bible was mainly a very cleverly encoded general science, history, astrology. and science-prediction text book designed for only the elite class to understand. A sort of infinitely better written former day Atlas Shrugged.

Rather then a partially disjointed collection of rather silly fairy stories. So deviously and deliberately encoded, corrupted therefore occulted that it needed a priest simply to read and explain it on only the lowest of levels of understanding. Which is evidently the only sort of levels the likes of Graham Davis are capable of understanding.

21 April 2010 at 20:13  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Atlas shrugged said...

The problem people like Graham Davis have, are largely of their own making. They long since stopped educating themselves as to the real history of the Christian Faith, and a whole lot of other things.

Hey I think he means me!

Religion started as and still is Science.

Not so; it offered an explanation to what is the distant past, were mysteries. Science has displaced religion with explanations that can be tested, with calculations that can be verified and experiments that can be repeated.

Religion now can offer only solace to those who warm their hands on the last rays of the sun before it sets.

21 April 2010 at 20:48  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I'm rather scared that they let people such as Evan Harris become doctors. He seems a little unstable and the vast majority of doctors don't share his views. I have yet to meet a real (read medicinal) doctor that is not shocked and appalled by the very idea of euthanasia. Even of those that do support abortion in principle, there are very few who are willing to participate in it; so few that I believe that part of the HFE bill 'allowed' nurses to carry out early abortions (pills to induce miscarriage), despite the fact that even fewer nurses are happy with abortion than doctors.

It's nice to see you make a start on de-constructing the Libs here YG. For too long you have cast them off as no hopers, when they are really the biggest protest party.

A number of my young Christian (evangelical even) friends are LibDem supporters and this needs addressing if we are to avoid becoming the authors of our own destruction.

GD says...
'Science has displaced religion...'

I can only assume that you are having a laugh here. There's no way you can actually believe such a thing. They provide answers to completely different questions therefore to replace either with the other is not only the height of folly, but is also very un-scientific. Neither the Catholic, nor Anglican Churches have made arguments based on faith that have ever been disproved with scientific reasoning, so there is no basis for your claim.

Perhaps you mean that 'science' has replaced religion as a faith? Considering as true followers of science understand that it and religion are complimentary and not opposed, whereas those who know nothing about it claim that science can replace religion, I can understand your argument.

Anyway I grow weary of your tired old atheist cliches. I'm surprised you haven't simply started spamming 'sky fairy' over and over; it'd be no different to what you're doing now.

21 April 2010 at 21:21  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

BTW, as part of my preparation I have read the Hippocratic Oath. Interestingly it has quite specific proscriptions on both abortion and euthanasia. No real doctor should therefore have anything to do with either. Any Government that forces them to should be ashamed.

'I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.'

It's really quite clear actually.

21 April 2010 at 21:25  
Anonymous len said...

There is no such thing as an atheist because no person knows everything and has all knowledge. Neither can any person be everywhere at the same time. For a person to be able to confidently say, "There is no God," he'd have to know EVERYTHING that existed EVERYWHERE--and no person fits that bill. There is no atheist. At the very BEST a person can say, "I'm agnostic".

21 April 2010 at 22:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've never heard of Doctors being "forced" to carry out abortions by government ministers. Someone's carrying out abortions, perhaps it's gremlins

21 April 2010 at 22:11  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Anonymous, quite hilarious but I said participation not carrying out. The doctor that signs it off is just as bad as the one who carries out the killing.

I think you'll find that GPs have no opt-out at all. Even referring to another GP is participation in my book. Christ knows how I will cope if that is my future.

The fact is that there really are a shortage of doctors that wish to carrying out infanticide (I can't think why). The Ministry of Health expects the NHS to provide abortion services so they have to 'encourage' participation. Failing that, getting nurses to do the deed is one of their options.

Perhaps there is no explicit requirement of doctors to participate in the farce, but if the hardcore feminists get their way, then no one will be accepted onto a medicine course without stating his support for abortion. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw that within my generation.

21 April 2010 at 22:28  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Not so; it offered an explanation to what is the distant past, were mysteries. Science has displaced religion with explanations that can be tested, with calculations that can be verified and experiments that can be repeated.

Rubbish science would like to believe it is such a thing but it is not, and at its cutting edge especially can never be.

Quantum physics, relativity, and Darwinian evolution to name but a few, are just theories. Nothing more and nothing less. But even if they were not, none of them disprove the existence of other comic forces, nor can they.

In fact if anything they actually confirm this existence. You are clearly not a scientist yourself, neither have you read any cutting edge science.

Quantum theory dictates that virtually everything that seems to exists does not actually exist at all, but is simply vibrational light waves capable of existing in many times and in many spaces. This makes just about anything possible including time travel in both directions, as well as the clear possibility of an intelligent creator, as well as alien interference during mans past as well as present and even future. The Bible was the best they had at the time. The point was they encoded within a story because this was the only way people understood a simple message. Like all good books it works on various levels. You find in it what your will along with your intelligent allows you to find it it.

Just like a work of art. You either just see 12 guys sitting at a table have dinner, or you see the cosmos represented in a masterpiece.

Get with the beat Baggy, you are way behind the deal.

22 April 2010 at 02:45  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Graham

Could I ask you to at least accept the possibility that maybe just maybe that those that were very intelligent people, who lived a very long time ago, might just know something your beloved scientist either don't know, or are determined not to tell you under any circumstances?

Is it possible that the people who do the real science and their employers simply don't think small minded individuals like yourself could handle the truth if you were simply told it?

Very much for the same reason our forefathers could not tell their people thousands of years ago.

For there are many secrets of this planet that have been kept from you and most of the rest of the population for as long as these secrets have existed. Which was around the time of the dawn of civilisation itself.

I can not tell you what they are, and I also do not ever intend to tell any one else. They are secrets that only those willing and able to receive them should ever be able to know.

I only ask that you start to think for yourself, because at least you have then made a start in the right direction.

22 April 2010 at 03:09  
Anonymous William Wallace said...

We must pray for Nick Clegg, that he might come to understand Christ's message and embrace Our Saviour.

With a Catholic wife and children there is some prospect of that, and conversion to the Church in which the fullness of Christ's message subsists. Did this not happen with some other politician chap?


Nick Clegg's immortal soul is much more important than a General Election.

Which election you Toryboys are going to lose anyway

22 April 2010 at 05:47  
Anonymous Cotton Yarn Manufacturer said...

with chairman Nick Griffin saying that the party will now "accept ... stone Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg has described. thanks for the information...

22 April 2010 at 10:02  
Anonymous Motorcycle Clothing said...

To laud and praise God upon my knees, and most humbly to render unto. Notable residents : Nick Clegg leader of the Liberal Democrats. thanks for sharing with us...

22 April 2010 at 10:17  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Sorry len I have to disagree with you.

To be an atheist all you need is to lack belief in god.

The theory of god is presented to you, there is no verifiable evidence to suggest the theory is true therefore the atheist accepts the natural position that it is not true. Just like any other mythological supernatural claims (dragons, fairies, unicorns).

This is the position of the atheist.

The position of the agonostic is the same in some respects in that he can never prove or disprove the existence of god without a complete knowledge of all existence. The difference between the atheist and the agnostic is that the agnostic gives the lack of any verifiable evidence equal weight to both prove and disprove the existence of a god.

Which to my mind isn't a very honest position to hold since it means that anything that is claimed but lacks the evidence to prove or disprove the agnostic to be consistent must accept it as a possiblity. But they don't so I don't understand why they should give an unfair advantage to the claims of religion, unless it is just so they don't upset the believers.

22 April 2010 at 14:37  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

I am sure I am mistaken, but that photograph of Mr Clegg looks as if he is sharing the highlights of a night out with Signora Neroni at the Barchester Arms. Ample bosomed she may be, but I fear Mr Clegg doth exaggerate a little...

22 April 2010 at 17:25  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Glovner said,

'The theory of god is presented to you, there is no verifiable evidence to suggest the theory is true therefore the atheist accepts the natural position that it is not true. Just like any other mythological supernatural claims (dragons, fairies, unicorns)'

When I said about spamming atheist cliches I think you'll find I was talking to Graham Davis not you.

Your position would be far more acceptable if Judeo-Christianity was developed yesterday without any revelation from God. To consider that 5000 years of historical evidence is no evidence at all is surely ignoring evidence that you don't like. Now that's not very scientific is it? That all of the greatest societies have believed in God/Gods that were developed independently of one another is evidence for the existence of God in every man's heart. It is true that it may be an interesting evolutionary anomaly, but it shows that God is not an idea that is made up to entertain (like fairies/dragons/unicorns) or dominate (like atheistic philosophies).

Of course, the 'theory of God' that you mention is not a scientific theory, it is a spiritual-philosophic theory. Therefore it cannot be scrutinised by scientific evidence; neither to prove nor disprove. God exists independently of the natural Universe; he existed before it and will exist after it. He is independent of space-time, so has no physical limitations. He is limited only by what is logically and implicitly impossible (I think).

22 April 2010 at 18:48  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Here is a simplified proof of the existence of a creator. There is one assumption made, which is based on scientific theory; all other conclusions are logically absolute.

Assumption: Entropy is a correct scientific theory and all chemical and physical reactions act to increase entropy.

Reasoning: If the Universe had existed for an infinite amount of time, then entropy would be infinite. There would be no net chemical reactions as all chemicals would be in equilibrium. There would therefore be no net movement in energy and therefore no movement of masses.

Conclusion: The Universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time.

Logical Absolute: Nothing can bring itself into existence.

Reasoning: For something to bring itself into existence it must already exist. As it is logically impossible to exist and not exist at the same time, the logical absolute above is truly absolute. Therefore to exist, something has to have existed for an infinite amount of time or have been created.

The Universe cannot have existed for an infinite amount of time.

Conclusion: The Universe must have been brought into existence by an outside power.

22 April 2010 at 19:03  
Anonymous len said...

“I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heavens and say there is no God” Abraham Lincoln

22 April 2010 at 19:36  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Brilliant quote Len!

I also think it interesting that, when Lincoln was a boy, he had a truth-revealing experience. He seems to have developed a seed of faith by learning to tell the truth. He didn't nurture a kernel of distrust by condemning his elders as liars.

You've also mentioned our limited capacity for discerning truth: every individual experiences and perceives the world differently. Only an omniscient and omnipresent Creator could encompass it all. I appreciate Lakester's posts for explaining the scientific rationale behind this perception.

I see an image of something similar in The House of Fame, by Chaucer. There, his dreamer watches a cosmic image, "Fame," as it processes all the words -truth and lies- that ever were, are [and, probably, ever will be] in the eternity of the neo-Platonic universe. From an imperfect recollection of his experience, "Geffrey" concludes that our interactions in this world reveal much about Truth to the fallen individuals who try to find it.

Lakester shows us something of the 'scientific' journey to that end: which is "Knowledge" - as the etymology of 'science' reveals. Our great artists sought to explain and reveal our searches through philosophy, and through arts, spectacle and imagery. Our great schools nurtured the quest and produced the scientists and artists; and those institutions developed from Christian monastic roots.

Surely, before it's altogether too late, we are right to ask: "What happens when you take Christianity out of the equation?" Surely the signs and symptoms are not promising?

22 April 2010 at 23:20  
Anonymous John Knox said...

Sounds like Tony Blair all over again, including the RC wife.

23 April 2010 at 00:41  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Lakester.

Your logic is flawed and you seem to be a little two faced with your evidence to support your claims.

SO because some people have believed in something without evidence for a long time that gives it weight? Don't think so. But it seems you do.

"Assumption: Entropy is a correct scientific theory and all chemical and physical reactions act to increase entropy."

Curious that this is a correct scientific theory, but others such as evolution are considered to be incorrect. Could it perhaps be double standards as one (you think) supports you flawed logic and another doesn't?

Besides with it being a theory what it does is give a theory on that one thing, it doesn't seek to answer anything else without the required verifiable repeatable evidence needed to form a theory.

"Logical Absolute: Nothing can bring itself into existence."

Funny that although you seem to think this a logical absolute you don't apply it absolutely. If you did then you would apply it to your notion of a god and you would agree your creator needed a creator and that needed a creator and so on.

If you are going to apply an absolute law to your logic you can't stop applying it where it suits you.

23 April 2010 at 13:24  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Glovner,

'SO because some people have believed in something without evidence for a long time that gives it weight? Don't think so. But it seems you do.'

I'm referring to (relatively) objective historical records, not people's beliefs. This includes both Old and New Testament as well as independent records taken from Jesus's era by Roman historians such as Tacitus. You can argue that they may be biased, but you can't argue that they are not evidence.

'Your logic is flawed and you seem to be a little two faced with your evidence to support your claims.'

You really oughtn't get so aggressive; it seems that you have really misunderstood the concept of logical proofs. My logic is not flawed at all. I have openly stated the limitations of logical proofs, but if I have to repeat myself then I will. 'There is one assumption made, which is based on scientific theory; all other conclusions are logically absolute.'

'Curious that this is a correct scientific theory'

Not really, it's an assumption (i.e. could be true or false but is considered true for the purposes of the proof). Almost all inductive logical proofs require assumption. I'm not saying that the theory of entropic doom is absolute, or else I would have stated it. For a logical proof one can make any assumption; if one disproved the assumption, then the proof would not be absolute.

'but others such as evolution are considered to be incorrect'

By whom? This has nothing to do with my proof, nor is it a position which either I or the Church hold. I can't understand why you included such a statement.

'Besides with it being a theory what it does is give a theory on that one thing, it doesn't seek to answer anything else without the required verifiable repeatable evidence needed to form a theory.'

Erm, what?
This is a logically inductive proof. I can use any scientific theory for it, whether it was designed for the purpose of the proof or not. Because it's a logical proof, it doesn't need any repeatable evidence. You don't understand the difference between logic and science. They are separate and independent.

'Funny that although you seem to think this a logical absolute you don't apply it absolutely. If you did then you would apply it to your notion of a god and you would agree your creator needed a creator and that needed a creator and so on.'

Sometimes reading the post helps avoid embarrassment but I will help you.

'Therefore to exist, something has to have existed for an infinite amount of time or have been created.'

I'd like to assume that you could get it from that, but as you have yet to show such critical analysis I will oblige. The absolute is absolute; nothing can bring itself into existence; God was not brought into existence. He is BEGOTTEN not made: he has existed for an infinite amount of time, therefore he does not need creation.

Try again Glovner. If you want to argue logical proofs you have to argue the assumption, as (so long as the logic is applied correctly: in this case it is) that is the only fallible part.

23 April 2010 at 17:28  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Len,

It is truly heartening how strong the Faith is amongst physicists even though it is not as prevalent among biologists. Your quote sums it up perfectly.

23 April 2010 at 17:34  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy: shut yer gob.

23 April 2010 at 17:37  
Anonymous len said...

A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.
Francis Bacon

23 April 2010 at 17:55  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr len

Wonderful post!

I needed to be reminded of that.

Thank you.

23 April 2010 at 17:57  
Anonymous len said...

I would think Mr Glovner would have liked Frances Bacon, Frances Bacon Lord Chancellor of England, is usually considered to be the man primarily responsible for the formulation and establishment of the so-called “scientific method” in science, stressing experimentation and induction from data rather than philosophical deduction in the tradition of Aristotle.
Bacon’s writings are also credited with leading to the founding of the Royal Society of London.
Sir Francis was a devout believer in the Bible. He wrote: “There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power..
He also said;
"A little science estranges a man from God. A lot of science brings him back."
— Francis Bacon

23 April 2010 at 18:24  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Mr. Singh,

I doubt Glovner will be able to make any real response now. S/he hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Mr. Len,

I wish I had the knowledge of classical philosophy that you have.

23 April 2010 at 18:26  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Lakester91 and Mr len

It is wonderful to see you both contend for the Faith.

Wonderful!

23 April 2010 at 20:31  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

D.Singh.

As I have said many times I really can't be bothered with your rude and arrogant attitude. It would be better for all if you just stopped posting anything directed at me.

Lakester

I take your points (and would also like to add that it was never my intention to sound aggresive and if I did then for that I apologise, however it is strange, after pointing out that impression, that by the end of your post you have descended into some thinly veiled jibes).

So to argue your assumption, we don't have difintive proof that the Entropic theory is complete and true. We have a theory and like all theories it is always open to the introduction of new evidence. So you can make all the logical abosolutes you want from that but this still doesn't provide any proof for your particular version of your god.

Likewise with the evidence you claim supports your particular take on your version of god. There may have been believers for tens of thousands of years (just as there has been those that have lacked belief for that long or perhaps even longer given that the atheistic position is the natural one and the relgious is the learned one). But there have not been believers in your particular brand of religion so to use them as evidence but then dismiss their claims as untrue and your religion as the truth seems a little liberal with the evidence and how it supports your position.

And you don't make one assumption in your logic, you make two. Although the other his hidden in words.

"Conclusion: The Universe must have been brought into existence by an outside power."

I would agree with your conclusion if it was brought into existence then I suppose logically given your earlier assumption then this would have to be from some power outside the universe.

However, you aren't just leaving it there if we are being honest, what you are doing is implying that the outside power (which your logic supports) is actually a god, funnily enough the same god that you worship and heads up as the boss of your religion. A god that seems to take interest in human affairs that is a thinking being.

Your logic does not support that.

24 April 2010 at 09:41  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

'So to argue your assumption, we don't have difintive proof that the Entropic theory is complete and true. We have a theory and like all theories it is always open to the introduction of new evidence. So you can make all the logical abosolutes you want from that but this still doesn't provide any proof for your particular version of your god.'

Yup, that's pretty much the point of logical proofs. They don't provide an absolute proof if there are assumptions. As it is an accepted scientific theory, you'd have to argue that the actual theory is wrong before you could discredit the proof though.

'I would agree with your conclusion if it was brought into existence then I suppose logically given your earlier assumption then this would have to be from some power outside the universe.'

Yup, that's right

'However, you aren't just leaving it there if we are being honest, what you are doing is implying that the outside power (which your logic supports) is actually a god, funnily enough the same god that you worship and heads up as the boss of your religion. A god that seems to take interest in human affairs that is a thinking being.'

Unfortunately that is where you're wrong. I never implied such; it was your own inference. I provided it as the logical proof of a creator, but didn't state that it was a thinking being or that it was the Christian God. There are other proofs that do imply a thinking (and even Judeo-Christian) God, but they're rather long and complicated.

Good to see that you're willing to understand where you went wrong; that is further than most people will go. I didn't mean to be brash, but I had got the feeling that you were being obtuse rather than properly critical.

24 April 2010 at 12:55  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

'Likewise with the evidence you claim supports your particular take on your version of god. There may have been believers for tens of thousands of years (just as there has been those that have lacked belief for that long or perhaps even longer given that the atheistic position is the natural one and the relgious is the learned one). But there have not been believers in your particular brand of religion so to use them as evidence but then dismiss their claims as untrue and your religion as the truth seems a little liberal with the evidence and how it supports your position.'

My conclusion was that belief in God (though not necessarily YHWH) is therefore the natural position. What we know about God (i.e. his nature; his will; is he omnipotent/omnicient/benevolent; are there more than one of him; is he complex or simple) is most likely something that we had to learn from experience (i.e. appearance to Abraham and the Israelite prophets; appearance to man in the form of man; appearances to saints; logical conclusions).

The idea that the position of Atheism is the natural one is false, and you give no evidence to support that it is: each civilisation has developed independently, but they all have their God/s and spiritualist philosophies. It is something that is natural and intrinsic to man. As I said before, you may attempt to argue that knowledge of the spiritual world is an evolutionary trait, but you may not say that it is a learned behaviour. There have been no naturally Atheistic (in your sense) civilisations; they have all believed in the spiritual world.

24 April 2010 at 15:32  
Anonymous no nonny said...

I agree with Lakester, that recognition of the spiritual and supernatural, not atheism, is our ‘default' (anachronistic terminology anyway). "Before Computers (the neu BC? :))" people fought for survival in a world full of influences they didn't understand. Every time something ‘happened' to them that they couldn't control they necessarily wondered why, whence, or how. We know from books like the Bible that they sought to explain the origins of ‘life,' and of abstract concepts: ‘love,' ‘truth,'‘will,' ‘goodness' or ‘beauty.' They recognized the bipolarity of the concepts, and the variations that lie between them.

The influences included their own minds; and they saw that the ‘words' they spoke mediated between the physical world and unknown. Words, however, only partly reveal those other intangibles: thoughts; and when script was developed for materializing and preserving words, it also became a means of partially revealing unseen powers. Perhaps that's why literacy has been developed by religions, which mediate between the known and the unknown. In specifically adopting Christianity we aspire to learning truth about the supernatural through its manifestation in the natural; and, ultimately, to taking our places with Truth.

People whose education included thought along these lines gradually increased knowledge of things that are invisible to our limited senses - of the ‘supernatural.' Some thinkers mediated by turning their understanding toward development of medicine and computers, for example. But I fail to see how ‘secular humanists' can discover anything when they spend all their energy in denying the existence of the unknown. They seem to think they already know everything: like those boys who refused to learn. Surely they're the last people who should govern anyone's education.

26 April 2010 at 13:14  
Anonymous Ratty said...

"However, I myself am not an active believer, but the last thing I would do when talking or thinking about religion is approach it with a closed heart or a closed mind."

## So why was Clegg preaching in a church ? Or is God optional for the C of E these days ?

From the article, with my emphasis:

"Clegg, whose wife, Miriam, is a Roman Catholic, gave the sermon at an Anglican church in Surrey on Sunday. "We are proud to support specific campaigns organised by Christian groups," he says. "We are in no doubt that these are policies that will make our country fairer.""

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/nick-clegg/7611480/Atheist-Nick-Clegg-discovers-religion-in-time-for-polling-day.html

11 May 2010 at 01:48  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older