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

MKC '09

heard a great quote up at Men's Katoomba Convention (also known as 'man-con') from former National Party leader, John Anderson. it was in response to the Humanist Society's advertising campaign (see also Faith and Theology herefor some alternate suggestions).

he's saying there's 'Probably' no God? as Australia's longest serving transport minister, what if i had told australians the planes 'Probably' won't crash! people would say - so you mean there's a chance they will?
(roughly paraphrased)

his point being, that the chance there probably isn't a God means there is a chance there is - and if there is a chance that there is a God, then we DEFINITELY need to find out to our 100% certainty whether there is.

thanks for pointing that out Professor (of Botany, wasn't it?) Dawkins.


oh, and go to MKC - there are two weekends left to go - Al Stewart and Simon Manchester tag-team their way thru Daniel. it's great.

up for a bit of Dawkins-esque vitriol?

over at Lara's blog, i hear that Oxford University is looking for applications to fill Richard Dawkins' job when he retires later this year.

i was thinking about possible (and by that i mean improbable) applicants.

top of my list would have to be this guy, with his research into whether it is indeed possible to teach a grandmother to suck eggs.

it seems the successful applicant will display:

• (a) record of the highest quality of research, publication and teaching in higher education, in one or more fields of science (which could include history and philosophy of science);
  
  
• (b) evidence, for example in the form of publications, lectures or published work, of an interest in enhancing the public understanding of science;
  
  
• (c) experience in communicating with non-scholarly audiences, for example by means of writing or broadcasting, and using up-to-date methods of communication; and
  
  
• (d) an interest in the relationship between the worlds of science and those of public discourse.

i'm still trying to find the paragraph detailing the need for:

• (e)an irrational hatred of belief systems seen, at least in the successful applicant's eyes, to be incongruous with a scientistic view of science.

maybe it was in the desirable, though not essential, criteria, area...

... and still a Christian

the sequel to the prequel, ie the second of Greg's talks discussing Christianity and Atheism was again very helpful in understanding why, in the light of present (and past) debates around atheism and agnosticism, how a thinking person could remain a Christian. let alone a theist!

another talk, another list; this time, the reasons for still being a Christian:

1. it shapes you, but it's not a straight-jacket
   sure, you don't want to discount the influence your upbringing has had on shaping you, but even Dawkins has to admit that he's been able to break free of his memes (even though he's claimed the only reason anyone is a theist is because we're unable to break free of our history, see here for what seems to me to be a contradiction)
   everyone has to have a time when they're able to forge their own path, choosing not to blindly go where many have gone before, but opening their eyes, to discern where their foundations and assumptions truly lie.
   
   
2. just 51% possibility of the existence of the Other makes the resurrection a possible option
   it is to this 51% chance that we THEN bring any other evidence, ie the gospels, contemporaneous writings, archaeological evidence, sociological patterns etc
   
   
3. "living towards death" (c/f Heidegger) gives us meaning and hope
   with anything else, any meaning has to be injected from outside, creating one's own meaning. which is fine, it's simply without foundation.

come back at me if you want (mum and mark, unless there are indeed other readers out there - if so, GREETINGS!)