Tom Frame :: Losing My Religion

the moore college library lecture this year was given by Tom Frame.

his lecture, entitled The Apologist's Anguish: publishing Losing my Religion : unbelief in Australia, was great. not only great, but heartfelt, and obviously tough.

the book (available here), looks at the history of Australia, considering who we are as a nation, and what our attitudes towards religion are. there are many great things about this book. there are many books written about the 'four horsemen' (dawkins, hitchens, dennett, harris), which he did do, but he also looked at outspoken australian atheists. the disappointing thing is that the australians are generally no better than the rest. in a empistemically humble manner, Frame carefully examines their arguments, and acknowledges fault where fault is due. however the atheists generally turn out to be nothing more than anti-theists, resorting to unfounded (and inaccurate) statements in lieu of an argued position. that is to say, where a discussion, or even an argument, could begin, there is no interest on their side.

as Frame shared the aftermath of publishing this book as well as his earlier one, 'Evolution in the Antipodes' (which, he said, incidentally came as a result of research connected with LMR), it was saddening, if not completely surprising, to hear of the metaphoric 'bucket of bile' he received in response. while i like feedback (any feedback!), what you receive when you suggest that unbelief isn't as reasonable as it may seem, or at least no more reasonable than belief, is a torrent of abuse.

i remember looking at a video put out by CPX once, and finding out that it had been linked to by a dawkins fan site. the unreasoned, abusive, bigoted messages ('comments') on youtube were appalling. listening to Frame, you saw the toll that these unreasonable anti-theists take on a man.

finally, it was good to read the last chapter of the book, and hear how, while not losing his religion, he definitely, like all of us, thinks long and hard, from time to time, about whether to lose his religion. this is not to say he has lost it, far from it. but as we seek to live in a world where respect and honest discussion are valued virtues, it would be nice to hear that sort of honesty from the other side of the ring from time to time.


warner brothers won't let me embed the clip, but the title of his book, said Frame, comes primarily from the film clip

fun with fitna

ever since Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilder's film Fitna was released a week or so ago, there has been a furore of anger, from those agreeing with his sentiments, from those arguing that Christianity is every bit as evil as Islam, from the atheists arguing that every religion is equally evil.

the film has been removed, replaced, removed, replaced, many times over. last time i looked you could still watch it here.

the first voice of moderation came from Richard Shumack's article, followed by CPX's directors' discussion of it:


these encourage the viewer to actually listen to a Muslim hermeneutic of their own text.

a Saudi blogger Raed al-Saeed responds with the following film, an interspersing of OT verses mainly about God instructing Israel to take posession of Canaan, with images of Gulf War II and the documentary "Jesus Camp".


there are plenty of other video responses, most of them having lost any sense of reasonability.

an article on jesus.de by Rolf Krüger, here, maintains the critique of Koran inspired violence is valid, whereas al-Saeed's twisting is not - yet his reason seems to be more emotive than hermeneutical.
for whilst i disagree that the US-led invasion of Iraq and their behaviour there as seen (heard) by the leerish voice in al-Saeed's film are in no wise representative of Christendom, and "Jesus Camp" is likewise a scary indictment on how not to do church, the fact remains that for some Christians they somehow do see these things as representing them, and are proud to be associated with them.

so in the same way as we may see the attacks on the west as the valid working-out of Islam - as doubtless there are some Muslims who do too - listening to these as representative is unfair, and unreasonable.

if one gives an answer before he hears,
it is his folly and shame
Proverbs 18:13

who said these words?

"Your words and the promises you bring are fair indeed. But because they are new and of uncertain import, I cannot give assent to them and abandon those things which I have for so long observed, in company with the whole XXXX people. But because you have come here as travelers from afar, and as I think I see your intention was to communicate to us those things which you think true and very beneficial, we do not wish you to be harmed. On the contrary, we are taking care to receive you hospitably and to provide you with such food as you need. Nor do we forbid that you should by preaching join to your faith and religion all whom you can."

the options are,

1. King Ethelbert to Augustine, as reported by Bede in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People (chXXV),
   
2. Australian PM to Greg Clarke and John Dickson at the launch last night of the Centre for Public Christianity
   
3. the president of Tajikistan to NGOs trying to help his people in the grips of HIV/AIDS

cast your vote NOW!