Comments on "signs and wonders"

The first one seems merely twee -- I'm surprised it made you particularly cross -- but the second one is astonishing. Are you sure you didn't make it up? Naturally I can only agree with it; in fact I'd have thought it would have made you more cross in your Bad Old Christian days than in your new enlightened sensible ones.

The first one makes me only moderately cross. Not because it's twee, but because ... well, I'm sure it's a very comforting sentiment to the likes of George Bush and Bill Gates, and a somewhat pacifying one to those less fortunate. That doesn't seem to me to be a good thing.

Indeed I would probably have been crosser about the second one back when I was a Christian, and indeed it may very well be true, but unfortunately the way Christians are liable to read it is "... and so much the worse for reason" rather than "... and so much the worse for faith". As I'm sure you realize.

And I guarantee that I didn't make either of them up. The first one was displayed outside the Salvation Army church in Histon; the second, outside Histon Baptist Church.

I had interpreted "place" as more like "circumstances of birth", but if it includes one's own achievements and their consequences, then it does become rather silly.

I do share Mark's surprise at the Baptists' brazen admission of irrationalism.

It may in fact have been "greatest" rather than "worst", incidentally. It doesn't make much difference.

but unfortunately the way Christians are liable to read it is "... and so much the worse for reason" rather than "... and so much the worse for faith". As I'm sure you realize.

Yes of course. But I suppose I've had a 20-year head start on you seeing that kind of rubbish from this side of the fence, and one can't keep getting as angry as one was once wont without turning into Richard Dawkins (in the least attractive sense -- of course if it enabled me to write a book like The selfish gene I should be delighted). Besides which, getting angry never did us any good; it just made you lot get, or at least seem, all the more smug, because it wasn't rational (or something). I'd be most interested to know what, if anything, we could have said that would have made you (personally) see the light (see the dark?) any sooner.

As for the Baptists' notice, I used to rejoice over such things, because I thought it might help the more sensible Christians see what brick wall they were banging their head against. It never did, of course -- they would cheerfully dismiss it as unsound theology that had nothing to do with them.

So nowadays I just try to see the funny side.

I agree; getting angry does no good. (I would distinguish between "angry" and "cross"; getting rather cross is quite compatible with being amused, whereas I don't think getting angry is.)

As for what might have led me to get a clue sooner: I don't know, though I suspect that polite but insistent discussion of the numerous "intellectual" problems with Christianity (the problem of evil being much the greatest, at least in my book) would have done it. But (a) I'm not sure, and (b) I'm almost certainly not typical.

Hi Gareth, I agree the first one is dreadful in an unthinking stupid kind of way, but the second is so bizarre as to warrant followup. The pastor of Histon Baptist Church says he plans to also put on "Faith in Christ is not irrational" to try to get people to think laterally. Now can you think in what sense he might have meant that reason is an enemy of faith that would square with faith being rational? I think it could be most relevant to your recent situation ;-)

So, you read it that way and condemn it as un-thinking and dismiss it as rubbish - well, that's your privilege. The discussion we had was far more beneficial: we did not take faith as 'a belief system' (a noun), but as 'putting your beliefs into action' (a verb). When you do that faith is one step beyond reason and when it is reasoned it can doubt the action or lead to no action. BTW, the same can be said for 'love' and 'hope' - if you examine the love you have what does it really consist of? How do you know you are loved? What is the evidence? If another person did the same things would they love you? Faith, hope and love are far more ethereal than they appear - in fact the closer you examine them the less substantial they appear - they are a bit like clouds in the sky. However - they still produce rain from their insubstantiality.

Hi, Ron. I completely agree that a *discussion* of that slogan could be interesting and productive and not-stupid. I think there's a difference between discussing a provocative statement and putting up a big sign making that statement.

You could have all sorts of interesting and productive and not-stupid discussions (given a certain level of good will and open-mindedness) starting with "Muslims are idiots" or "Laws and taxes should be abolished" or "Compulsory euthanasia at 75", and you could do so without adopting any of those extreme positions. But if you put a great big sign up outside your building announcing any of those things, then you shouldn't be too surprised if people think you mean them.

Now, back to that interesting and productive discussion. It's clearly true that someone who adopts a policy of never doing anything without being able to prove it's correct is going to miss lots of chances to do the right thing. But -- precisely because of that -- I wouldn't describe that sort of policy as "reason". I'd describe it as "excessive rationalism" or something. And yes, excessive rationalism is bad.

I don't think love is so very ethereal. If someone loves you, it's generally not hard to find evidence for it. In fact, the evidence is usually clear enough that you don't go looking deliberately for evidence unless something's already wrong between you.

Clouds get less substantial when you look at them a little closer; then, closer up, they get more substantial again. I expect this is a useful analogy for things like love and Christianity, but we might disagree about how it applies :-).

Paul: Of course I can think of possible senses in which "reason" might be an enemy of "faith" without "faith" being "irrational". The scare-quotes are there because the only such senses I can think of require one or more of those words to be understood in a pretty non-standard sense; and it appears, from Ron's remarks, that he's using "reason" to mean something I'd never give that name to. (And also to mean something different from what it means inside the word "irrational".)

All of which is fair enough but, as I said to Ron, if you put something in big four-inch-high letters on a big sign in front of your building, you shouldn't be surprised if people think you actually mean it.

One other remark: while it's certainly true that excessive rationalism can be damaging to faith, it seems to me that perfectly ordinary rationality can be too. And *that* is the real problem, and I think it's because of that that it's possible to take "Reason is the greatest enemy faith has" at face value; there are people who really do think pretty much exactly that.

Incidentally: should I conclude that you're now based somewhere in the vicinity of Histon? If so, would you care to meet up some time?

The first sign seems to me to set out a genuine Christian point of view. I think it is now a minority position, but it was popular in pre-Modern times when it was used to justify the existing social order (the "divine right of kings" and so on). I'm obviously no kind of theologian, but it seems about as arguable a position as many doctrines that have survived (for example, 1 Samuel 2:7, "The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.").

So I'm surprised that you and Paul Dean should find it so obviously stupid. Can you say a bit more about why it was so annoying? Is this no longer a doctrine held by any groups of Christians? (But if it isn't, how did it get onto the sign?)

The second sign is quite funny. It rather gives the game away.

The church sign that I find most annoying is the one in front of St Barnabas Church on Mill Road. The text is an unexceptional Bible quotation, I think Matthew 11: 28 –30. But in copying the text, the sign writer also copied the italics that indicated words in the translation that were not present in the original Greek. It's very hard to resist reading the italics as emphasis, but this makes nonsense of the passage.

From the beginning of the discussion it seems churches can never get the right way of saying something - they're either 'twee' or 'outrageous' and as such can be dismissed without being given a hearing. Save me from 'twee', please! As for 'outrageous' I would prefer 'provocative' - which is what has happened in this case; this discussion would never have been started without the second statement! This has led to an opportunity to discuss semantics and move towards a common understanding of the language we use. In my circles 'faith' is not the same as 'religion'. Faith is putting beliefs into action, religion is 'stacking boxes' (usually in the form of prayer, duties, good deeds, acceptable behaviour, etc) to be good enough to get wherever the religion promises. As one who distinguishes between 'Christian faith' and 'Christian religion' to such an extent that I love the former and detest the latter, I want to say, and I have much evidence to bring to my defense, that faith brings life but religion brings death to the soul (however you may want to define that term). Most people reason against religion (rightly so) then dismiss faith (a case of the baby being thrown out with the bath water).
I have faith in many things - and they're all based on evidence - South Cambs District Council in collecting my rubbish; the Post Office in delivering my mail; the water company in providing me with drinkable water; text books describing experiments I have not got the equipment to do myself, etc. I put my beliefs into action by putting out my rubbish at the right time, posting letters rather than taking them to the addressee, getting a glass of water from the tap and drinking it and quoting the text book and even basing my hypotheses on their work. I have faith in Christ because I've touched the spiritual realm and encountered something beyond the 3 and 1/2 dimensions I'm bound by (Length, Breadth, Height and Time being the 1/2 because I cannot move through it freely) through Jesus Christ.
BTW I live less than 100yards from that sign.

Gareth R:

Yes, the first sign expresses a view that's sometimes been common among Christians. That's part of why it's annoying: some people may actually believe it. I'll let Paul (assuming he's reading this) speak for himself; for my part, I've explained above why I dislike it, but I wouldn't exactly say that it's obviously stupid.

Yes, the StB's one has always bugged me for the same reason as it does you. It's also not unheard of for people reading from the KJV to emphasize the words in italics, which is annoying in exactly the same way.

Ron:

I don't agree that "churches can never get the right way of saying something". I've seen plenty of things on signs outside churches that don't bother me at all (although of course I often disagree with them). The fact that there are two different ways to go wrong doesn't mean that there's no way to go right!

Your use of the word "faith" to mean "putting beliefs into practice" is interesting; it doesn't seem to me possible to interpret "pistis" in the NT that way, but it can certainly be taken to mean something like "belief that is put into practice". (The distinction between this and mere "belief" is of course part of what's going on in the not-altogether-real inconsistencies between Paul and James.) Your use of "religion" to mean, roughly, "purely formal and external religiousness" seems to me quite untenable, though I'm aware that this is a common move among evangelical Christians. No matter; I'm happy to work with your definitions for the sake of argument :-).

My disagreements with Christianity are neither with the formal outward show of religion (which does, on the whole, little good and little harm) nor with the fact that (some) believers put their beliefs into practice; what I think is wrong is the beliefs themselves. Although Christianity isn't at all the same thing as assent to a bunch of doctrines, it *depends* on some of those doctrines, and many of them appear to me to be (not merely unproven by reason but) clearly contrary to a rational evaluation of the evidence. I don't think I'm throwing any babies out with the bathwater here.

As for provocation: Sure, the sign was provocative. You could have been even more provocative, and probably engendered more comment, if you'd put up a sign saying "Fuck the rich" (a sentiment with some NT support, though the language is perhaps not what one normally sees on church signs) or "We'll gloat over your dead bodies" (cf. Isaiah 66:24). Or a mosque could be provocative by putting up a sign saying "Jihad against America NOW" (and then explain that they meant: fight an inner spiritual battle against corrupt Western values). I wouldn't be impressed by any of those, and I dare say you wouldn't either.

Yes, we're having an interesting discussion now, and that's all to the good. But I bet such outcomes will be greatly outnumbered by three other sorts: Thoughtful and reasonable Christians cringi

Gareth Rees, now I've looked again at the first quote I think it's only stupid if one takes 'care for it' to mean that you should be happy with your place and not work to change it. Strictly speaking I suppose the quote is OK from my point of view.

g, unfortunately I'm not at all close to Histon, although if I was I would certainly meet up with you. Despite my aggressive disappointment when you deconverted, I do respect and care for you (if that doesn't also sound twee!).

I think you missed the point though. I don't know what Ron's view is, but how I took it was in relation to the truth that Aquinas points out when he says that the will is greater than the intellect because the will directs the intellect. Given there is not enough time to have every conceivable thought about a subject, we emphasise points of view and mostly-truths and overlook others, as guided by our wills (which in turn is guided by our desires). That's only one psychological framework, of course, and one with which we may not agree, but the underlying truth is that it's possible to use reason (even true reason) to turn away from truth because we only have time and inclination to look at a subset of the whole picture.

In my view, and obviously speaking from ignorance, it seems likely that is what has happened to you. I don't want or mean to patronise you, but I was so surprised that you hadn't moved beyond such a position. I understand you will see the position quite differently and hope you look upon my apparent arrogance charitably ;)

Well, certainly we none of us have the whole picture of anything. That's unavoidable. And certainly that means that sometimes people will come to wrong conclusions by reasonable means. That, too, is unavoidable.

But that isn't a problem with *reason*. It doesn't justify saying that reason is the greatest enemy of faith, or of anything else. No matter how you try to get at the truth -- reason, guesswork, reading the Bible, whatever -- you won't have the time and resources to do it perfectly, and you may have biases that make things even worse. Say, if you must, that lack of time and resources is the greatest enemy of faith, hope, love, truth, etc; you'll at least have a case. But you can't blame this on reason.

As for whether it's "happened to [me]": sure, it's possible, but it doesn't seem likely. I put in a very great deal of time and thought and prayer (very intensely in the run-up to my deconversion, but it's not as if I'd given no thought to God in the years before!), and so far as I can tell the overriding concern of my will was to find the truth.

If you know of some means by which one can find out the truth without any risk of missing something important because of lack of time, or unnoticed biases, do please let me know. But you'll understand, I'm sure, if I'm skeptical.

Gareth: I also wouldn't say that reason is the *greatest* enemy of faith, only that it can be an enemy, despite ones best efforts. Knowing Christ is only in minor measure an intellectual thing. Most of it is truth in action, proclaiming with everything we do that Christ is our Lord, because Christ *being* Lord is what it's all about. You have to think about who or what is *your* Lord and what are the implications of that. If you're happy with the implications, then I have nothing to say about it :)

It seems to me that even if everything you say about reason and faith is correct then it would be just as, er, reasonable for the sign to say "The Bible is the greatest enemy faith has" or "The Church is the greatest enemy faith has" or "Reason is the greatest enemy financial success has" or, in fact, just about anything of the form "X is the greatest enemy Y has".

I fully agree that if, in fact, Christ is Lord then living appropriately is not mostly about accepting that intellectually. None the less, the whole thing is dependent on whether that's what he is; and, one way or another, that's a fact about how things are, and I have yet to find any approach that works better than reason-and-evidence for finding out facts about how things are. (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that you aren't about to go all postmodern on me and say: no, whether Christ is Lord *isn't* a fact about how things are, it's a matter of how you look at things.)

So far as I'm currently able to make out, no one and nothing is in fact "my Lord". As it happens, I have no problem with any implications of that that I'm aware of, but even if I hated them that wouldn't make Christianity right. Every halfway tenable position (including Christianity) has implications I don't care for; the world isn't obliged to be the way I'd like it to be.

Incidentally, if you aren't anywhere near Histon, how do you come to know the plans of the pastor of Histon Baptist Church?

Now here we could have a deep and meaningful discussion about how Paul got to know the plans of the pastor of that church: Was it creative thinking in which he put himself in his shoes and responded as he would in that situation? Was it something mysteriously telepathic to that being called a pastor, if he or she exists, and are you sure s/he is a pastor and not a minister or a priest or using some other term of reference? Or did he just ask me?
Ron Day

I was assuming it was the last of those, but curious as to whether he'd emailed you out of the blue, or whether he knew you already from earlier encounters, or whether he'd been visiting the area, or what.

I used the word "pastor" because (1) Paul did and (2) that's the word used on your church's website.

(It seems as if you're suggesting that my question was stupid or improper or rude or something. If so, I'd be interested to know why.)

The analogy of God with the South Cambridgeshire District Council raises many interesting questions, of which I will limit myself to two: how is God made accountable to the electorate? and what is the spiritual equivalent of the Audit Commission?

Not stupid, improper or rude, g, I suppose it's difficult to read tongue in cheek in a blog.
Using an example as an analogy and then discussing questions from that is where many misunderstandings arise Gareth.
Why should a 'creator' be accountable to his creation? Does an artist give an account to his painting? Is a painting free to choose the artist or did the painting come into existence because of the artist?
On your second question, of an auditor, there is no need if God is Absolutely Good. A more appropriate question might be 'who audits you?' Then ask what rights they have to do so.

Note that there are two Gareths in this discussion, and only one of them is me. But I'll hazard a guess that Gareth R's tongue was also in his cheek.

Hmmm, no accountability and no Audit Commission. So what you're saying is, that God isn't really very like the South Cambridgeshire District Council after all?

I'd follow this line of thought further, but I've been distracted by your last bit, where you make an analogy between me and God. Me! and God! Well, I have to say I'm flattered, but I'm not sure the resemblance goes much beyond neither of us having a legally-constituted body responsible for ensuring our financial propriety.

I checked several sources, and they broadly agree.

Faith: 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something; 2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

I don't think you should use highly unconventional definitions for words that you put up on signs if you want to be understood.

Perhaps the sign should have said "reason prevents you acting on your beliefs". I think that's what was meant, if I understand the above discussion.