The Proof for God - a short story

Late last Tuesday evening I was at my favourite coffee shop. As I sat down after ordering a latte, I noticed someone had left a well thumbed exercise book on the seat. I looked around for an owner but it was a quiet night and the few people at the coffee shop were heavily engrossed in their conversations. l sat down and opened the book, to see what was in it. On the first page in large land writing was written "Proof for God, Do Not Copy''.

One of the things that made the cafe kind of cool was that it was often frequented by colourful spiritual hippie types. Ordering soy latte was never a problem. Hence, l expected the proof for God I had in front of me to be kind of new agey in nature but, it wasn't. In fact quiet the opposite. It was almost painfully rational and logical. It started with a preamble that went through some historical proofs for God like Anselm's ontological proof and Aquinas’s causality proof, explaining their inadequacies.

Then the proof started. It's elegance and comprehensiveness was unlike anything that had gone before it. On more than one occasion I looked up to see if the author had returned. My coffee went cold as I gave all my attention to the proof. It was not just a proof God in the general sense but a proof explaining what God was like. In fact the proof started with some of the more particular characteristics of God before it moved to a more general proof. I must lave read the proof from cover to cover four or five times. The more I read the more I could feel the power of this proof. I could start not just a religion but the religion. At first I thought this would be the end of religions the end agnosticism & atheism but, as I thought about how this might all unfold, the picture seemed much bleaker. This was not going to be like a cure for cancer, something where no one had a vested interest in the status quo. This would be like the science of global warming or proving the earth was round. Too many people have a vested in the status quo. The result would not be peace but war. No matter what god is like there would still be fundamentalists for or against the proof. The proof for God would only heighten the religious fervor of descenting or agreeing parties.

l felt like Frodo with the ring. The more I thought about it the more I felt the power of it. It scared me. I picked up the proof put it in my pocket and walked out of the cafe. My mind was racing as I imagined the ensuing chaos that it could cause. A head of me I saw a homeless man standing by a metal bin with a fire in it, "Got a dollar mate?" he asked. "No sorry", I replied. " What about something for my fire?"

I smiled, in flick of my wrist my mind stop racing and a homeless man was warm for a moment.

The Future for Christianity in Australia (Synchroblog)

Yesterday I was supposed to be part of a snazzy syncroblog thing happening about Australian's and Xy. Instead of blogging I spent Australia day (and much of today) in the emergency ward (and then cardiology ward) at a hospital with a close friend with a heart condition. So doing a blog post on time was not a high priority.

If you have ever spent time in emergency you'll know it involves lots of nervous waiting. My friend had surgery on his throat the day before so he couldn't talk. This meant that instead of the two of us spending lots of time talking, I spent lots of time thinking. Every so often I tried to think about Xy in Australia.

If ever I did think about it I would tend to think of it in terms of my friend next to me, who is not a Xn. Which is kind of appropriate as when I do think about the future of Xy I tend to think about what non Xns think about Xy. The is because Xy is something that you opt into rather than opt out of so what non Xns think is important. My friend is a non Xn and today I was reflecting in on what he might think about Xy.

One of my favourite expressions of his is "bible thumper". As well as being a hilarious and accurate description of some Xns we both know, it also gives an idea of what his experience of Xy has been. I have said to some our mutual Xn friends that I think he gave up Xy for the right reasons. It seems like to me he gave up a Xy that made sense in Xn circles but just didn't cut it in the real world. Rather than spend a lot of time explaining this I’m going to recommend listening to this Dave Slusher's podcast. Not only is it great in it's own right, this "how I gave up Xy testimony" probably closely matches my friends own journey. I think all Xy offered him was a sheltered ghetto that just seemed ridiculous as soon as you stepped out of it.

My question is what does Xy have to offer people like my friend? Or, Why would any non Xn go to church? When I think of all the non Xn friends I’ve had, none have been the slightest bit attracted to Xy or church. They have often seen me as somewhat of an anomaly, an exception to the Xn norm. And they are definitely probably not ready to sign up to the cult of Chris. I don't think my experience is unique. There are plenty of people like me who just feel like they don't connect with regular church (be that mainline or larger evangelical churches).

I think the big question is "How do we outside the box Xns create a meaningful community?". To me this has to be more than a virtual community as I can't see a virtual community sustaining a new Xn. Maybe some kind of tech geek but not your average moderately tech savvy person. So, the future of Xy in Australia in my mind really hangs on the ability of Xns who don't fit into regular church to create meaningful communities. And not only in the crowded inner cities (where there are more of us) but also in small towns and suburbia. Figuring this out will be really important. Right now I'm feeling like I have no idea.

Happy invasion day.

This post is part of the Christianity In Australia synchroblog which a number of Australian Christians are participating in to celebrate Australia Day. For more on Christianity in Australia see:

• Matt Stone at Journeys In Between
• Ben Thurley at Ben’s Blog
• Rodney Olsen at RodneyOlsen.net
• Geoff Pengilly at The Healing Project
• Andy Porteous at Not Yet Finished
• Paul Robotham at A Christian’s Blog
• Chris Summerfield at A Churchless Faith
• Christina Aitken at Sojourn
• Heather at A Deconstructed Christian
• Geoff Matheson at Amateur Theology
• Andrew Hamilton at Backyard Missionary
• Deborah Taggart at The Bright Side
• Rob Hanks at Pump House
• Mike Carroll aka ‘Grendel’ at Sermons From An Atheist

Jesus vs The Bible

Recently Hamo had a great post about the Bible. He's reading through the Old Testament and has been struck by the "harsh way God seems to deal with his people." and that "he does seem to punish disproportionate to the offense on several occasions." They are some great thoughts and too often Xns tend to gloss over this kind of stuff. This is what I posted back to him...

At the moment I’m tending see scripture less like the word of God, in the traditional fundamentalist sense, and more like the writings of people who have experienced God. If you don’t believe that God dictated the Bible it means that things are going be coloured sometimes quite heavily by the writers own beliefs and ideas. For me the ultimate revelation of God is not scripture but Jesus. So everything I read I try to interpret it through the lens of Jesus. So looking at my numbers I might say yer they’ve got the whole holiness thing right and the ease at which we can break our relationship with God but perhaps not the whole vindictive strike you down if you sneeze in the wrong direction kind of thing.

She was wiggling her butt!

This is hilarious and genuine answering message from Ship of Fools, where a concerned parishioner calls to complain about some serious problems in the church service.

Critical Child Rearing Mistake No. 7 - The Computer

Last week the computer superseded the washing machine as her favourite toy. This week she knows more about it than me.

Dad I just had to change your BIOS settings

Actually, she's listening to the excellent Baby Kareoke from Raising Children, who will post Australian parents out a free DVD on raising children.

Atonement - The Movie

How is it that we make amends for something that cannot be made right? How do we atone for what we have done and how we feel? Somethings can be fixed but the death of a child, disfigurement or even broken trust can be permanent. Whether we have directly done something, big or small or just stood idly by when, in retrospect we wished we'd acted, it makes no difference. Both have the same result, someone else has been hurt and I cannot take my action or inaction back.

Recently I saw the film atonement. A good film that I think could have been a great film if it focused less on being romance and more on the conundrum of atonement.

It strikes me that as a society we have not come up with any way of atoning be that a Xn or secular ritual. Now I realise atonement is the big thing in Xy. Jesus died for our sins etc... But this is about our relationship with god not with other humans. Further more sometime fixing a relationship with God is always easier. You have time on your side with an eternal deity. With humans we don't have that same luxury. I'd love to know what atheist, humanist or other religious and philosophical thinkers have to say about this issue? l have previously expressed my frustration with some Xn ideas about forgiveness. A reconciled relationship with one person or God) doesn't mean reconciliation with another human.

I think a relationship cannot be reconciled without the victim offering forgiveness. But this for good or bad reasons may not be available. How you atone shows how serious you consider your error and how much you value the relationship. The question is still how? After watching the film Atonement this question kept resonating in my head.

Atheists vs Christians a reflection on some comments

I'm used to having one or maybe two comments at the most to each post I put up. So It was a bit of a surprise to go away for Christmas and come back to find 15 comments on my last post. I originally intended on going through all of the comments on my last post and give my two cents to what I thought about some of the comments. I started writing about...

• the parallels between scientific skepticism and post modern doubt. That post modernism didn't occur in a vacuum, but cam e out of modernism and maybe we're too close to them both to see the similarities.
• the authority of status compared to the authority of content. This is quite important to the debate so I'll write about this eventually.
• the complexity and simplicity of the idea of "love God and love others" and that because Jesus was often counter cultural leading not always simple black and white responses it makes loving often gray & difficult
• that initially I chose to follow Jesus because of my morality/ethics rather than following and then getting ethics. Which is not to say that I don't learn from Jesus.
  
• there are a few ways to answer every moral dilemma, utilitarianism for example isn't always applicable, so there is something over and above this more simple formulas.
• the problem of much of Jesus' teaching is how to apply it. It is not always easy to know what Jesus would do.
  

As I churned through some of the lengthy comments from Paul and Arthur (thanks heaps for reading and commenting, I do appreciate it) I realised i was only up comment five of fifteen comments and it already started to look like a small novel so i stopped. And all from saying "I'm wondering if in fact doubt feeds compassion". I'll make sure I don't start sentences with "I am sure that...".

Anyway, I stared thinking what comes out of a debate like the one Paul and Arthur had? My guess is just two frustrated debaters who walk away not unconvinced of what they originally believed but, at best just unconvinced how to express what they believe to make it is as clear as possible to the other. It's perhaps even worth asking "Why Argue with a Xn / Atheist?" or ask "why would I have such a debate?" and "What are we trying to achieve?" Winning a debate doesn't necessarily mean the other person is wrong (they may just be a poor debater). Proving one aspect or way of getting to some conclusion doesn't necessarily dismiss that conclusion. For example, proving creationism wrong doesn't show God doesn't exist.

None the less, I think It's worth admitting that we all bring baggage to debates like this, including myself of course. We all have ideas of what a Xn or Atheist is like or believes before we talk to one, often because have been unfairly burnt in the past. I bet that rarely does anyone ever convince the other person or bystanders with opposite beliefs in these debates. There are debates to be had I think if they are best when about, specific issues like creationism or chaplains in schools. These more focused debates can be won and lost. The problem with a Nazi is not that they identify as a Nazi per se but that they deny the holocaust, hate foreigners etc... The same is true for Xns and Atheists. People end up not liking Nazis because they disagree with everything they stand for.

This quick reflection is not in anyway meant to be a chastisement of Paul and Arthur I do sincerely appreciate their contribution, and that they both realised the debate was going in circles before getting to grubby name calling. It is just a reflection on a trap Xns and Atheists alike often find ourselves in. The one thing that Xns and Atheists have in common is that we care how we live and we care how we treat each other. That I think is worth remembering if not even worth celebrating.