A Sermon

[I imagine that I am in a Catholic parish, that each parishioner has been encouraged to invite a friend, neighbour or relative. Bizarrely, I have been asked to preach a welcoming sermon.]

Good morning. It is good to see so many of you here. Some of you are here at the personal invitation of one of our regular worshippers. You are very welcome.

My remarks are very general – a mile wide and an inch deep (JR). There are many relevant topics that I could address that I do not address.

Christianity is under attack. Christians are persecuted in many countries where they are in a minority. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Christians are killed every year. We rejoice in the faith and fortitude which they display. The saints (and many were martyred) are our pride and joy. At the same time we grieve over every Nigerian Christian done to death or sold into slavery. We are appalled when Coptic Christians, whose tradition goes back nearly two millennia, are murdered in cold blood.

Christianity is under attack in the West. You will all have heard of ‘the new atheists’, hard core materialists who allege that teaching Christianity to our children is a form of abuse. It is about this attack that I wish to speak this morning.

The first thing to say is that in grand scheme of things these atheist materialists are in a tiny, tiny minority. This doesn't mean that they are wrong (though they are). But they swim against the tide of humanity. At all times and in all places, until very recently, nearly all human beings have intuited that their own sense of right and wrong and, indeed, the very existence of the universe are clues to a divine purpose. Even in the secular west this is probably true of most people, if they bother to think about it at all. If this is you, the new atheists despise you. Perhaps they ought to find more deserving targets for their contempt. Perhaps they should get out more.

Some of the new atheists have a belief in ‘scientism’. In other words, they proclaim that Science is the only way we have to know and understand the world. Matter, energy, space and time are all that exist. Science deals with matter energy, space and time. So, according to their assertion, Science is all we need to explain or understand the universe. This is, I venture to say, self-evidently false.

There is more to the universe than matter, energy, space and time. Think for a second or two. There is beauty; there are right and wrong. Science can tell us nothing about right and wrong, nothing about beauty.

I would go further and say that they are self-contradictory. That Science is the only way we have of knowing and understanding the world is not a scientific statement. Let me repeat: when a materialist says that Science is our only reliable tool for making sense of the world, he is not making a scientific statement – so when he says it, we have no reason to pay any attention to him. It’s not Physics, not Botany, not Geology, not Astronomy – it is pure dogma. I am not sneering at dogma – we have plenty of dogmas or doctrines that are not scientifically proven: the doctrine of Creation, the doctrine of Original Sin, the doctrines of the Incarnation, of the Resurrection and of Redemption. More than you can shake a stick at. Some doctrines are very hard. We do not claim to prove any of them by experiment in a laboratory. We believe that our doctrines are revealed to us by men and women whose thirst for God has enabled them to draw near to Him. The atheists say, ‘Only Science reveals Truth’ and they want us to believe this is True; but they neglect to give us a scientific reason for believing that it is True. Truths are revealed only by Science – except this one, which I made up.

I have been talking about Scientism, which I think is clearly false. It falls at the first fence. I would hate you to think that I am anti-Science. I am not. I am almost reverent about Science. The scientific method has allowed us to discover an enormous amount about the physical world. The astonishing technology we enjoy in this century is the fruit of Science. But Science does not come from nowhere. What we think of as the sophisticated (mind-blowing) Science of our time has developed at an increasing rate since the sixteenth century, with one discovery after another providing scientists with new questions, some of which they have succeeded in answering.

This not to say that people before the sixteenth century were dunces. They built astonishing cathedrals and they made rational observations about cause and effect. They knew what caused babies. Civilisations as different as Ancient China, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Babylon and Ancient Greece developed practical technologies undreamt of by even more ancient hunter-gatherers and even they invented the bow and arrow.

It is the worst kind of arrogance to belittle our forefathers. But my point is this: what we think of as the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experimental testing, as well as refutation), which took off in the1500s, gathered pace in the 1600s, moved through the gears in the eighteenth century and achieved warp speed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, happened in a corner of the Asian continent which we call Europe – Christian Europe. Brilliant men and women (from Copernicus to Marie Curie) worked tirelessly to discover true things about the universe. Why did this not happen in Japan? They are at least as intelligent as Europeans. Why not in India? We know that Indians have done some of the most spectacular mathematics in history. Why was it in Catholic Europe that Science with a capital S was born?

I am not alone in believing that it is Catholic doctrine (dogma, if you like) which provided the soil in which Science took root. Catholics believe that the Natural World springs from the mind of God and that it is therefore supremely rational. It cannot be self-contradictory. We also believe that God made us in His image. We believe that He has free will and that He has endowed us with free will. He is creative and has blessed us with creativity and reason. God creates ex nihilo, out of nothing. We can make no physical thing except with the materials He has provided but we can create hypotheses to explain the natural world. But, to match the real world, in other words to explain it, our hypotheses, our theories, have to be congruent (like two triangles with the same sides and the same angles) with the natural world.

This view, that our minds (which are rational) can make sense of the universe (which is rationally constructed) has not been held by all peoples at all times. Animists, who believe that every tree, every stream, every rock, every cloud, every breeze is endowed with a ‘spirit’ which bloweth where it listeth, are not likely to create the edifice of modern Science. According to this view, we ‘persuade’ things to happen by appealing to, by propitiating the spirits. Our Muslim brothers and sisters never refer to the future without a pious ‘inshallah (if God wills it)’. Some have declared that it is impious to (as they would have it) make predictions about God’s world. I applaud their piety but it is no wonder that modern Science did not take off in the Muslim world.

In my view and, I think, in the view of many historians and philosophers, a direct line can be traced from Catholic theology to modern Science.

People who take a different view from me allege that there was a huge conflict between Religion and Science and that Science won. This, I believe, is a narrative with not a shred of evidence. Bad Science is driven out by good Science; and, inshallah, bad religion is driven out by good religion. There’s the conflict.

So, without Catholicism you won’t get Science. For me, the case is clear. You may not agree; but I hope, at least, that you will grant a case can be made.

I am prepared to go further – much further. We like Science, right? What else do we like? I like Human Rights! If I, as a Catholic, believe that every human being on the planet is made in the image of God, I should tremble at the thought of placing my goals ahead of his – especially at the thought of cruelly exploiting him for my benefit. Universal human rights (specifically, the rights of non-Catholics) were first articulated by scholastic theologians who condemned the vile treatment of South Americans by Spanish conquistadores.

It was an atheist, Ayn Rand, who said that every man is an end in himself (can’t get more Catholic than that) not the means to the end of another. St Paul himself could not have put it better. It seems to me that the very concept of human rights makes the best sense in the context of Catholic theology. Curiously enough, egalitarianism cheerfully sacrifices individuals (on the guillotine, in the gulag and in the killing fields of Cambodia). Stalin made my case very eloquently: ‘Death of individual is tragedy; death of millions is statistic’.

What else do we like? We like Democracy. I confess that I have reservations about democracy. I agree with Winston Churchill that that it is the worst form of government apart from all the others which have been tried. CS Lewis, author of the Chronicles of Narnia and many other books and essays, put it best when he said, ‘Democracy is to be desired not because human beings are so good that their aggregate decisions will be good but because human beings are not good enough that any one should be in charge’. That is a paraphrase.

Catholicism has given us Science. Catholicism has given us Human Rights. Catholicism has given us (implicitly) Democracy. What’s not to like? Oh, and Salvation – the only free lunch.

I hope you will come back. I hope you will be a much better, more thoughtful Catholic than I am. And more charitable.

I will close by citing some findings that I think are relevant. There is no doubt at all that religious people are happier than non-religious people. In America, surveys show that the happiest people are orthodox Jews and Evangelicals. They stay married and therefore bring up children who are less likely to succumb to drugs and crime. They therefore contribute to the future. Religious people are healthier, as well as happier.

If you care at all about yourself, your children and society as a whole – be a Catholic.

God bless you!

The Debate which Wasn’t

I thought that Cameron did less badly than Milliband.

My problem with political ‘debate’ in Britain is that there are no colours nailed to the mast. I blame the electorate more than the politicians. Sadly, I think that our electorate is dismally stupid. They have never, for one second, asked themselves questions like these:

Is inequality good or bad – or simply a fact of life?

Is taxation good/bad/necessary/a necessary evil?

These unasked questions make it impossible for me to engage with the so-called debate on our political platform.

The NHS features heavily in the ‘debate’. Brits are prohibited from questioning its provenance. It is our ‘national religion’. It sucks. The NHS is founded on the principle that no-one should ever feel the slightest anxiety about falling ill – duh?

Is it right that government should take from those who have and give to those who have not? Madison said ‘No’. Successive US governments have denied his principle: I cannot undertake to put my finger on that article of our Constitution which mandates provision for the purposes of benevolence (I paraphrase). He was right. Government is not about benevolence, though much of our ignorant electorate think it is.

Right government is about protecting us from tyranny. But they tyrannise us.

We are not given the principles by which our parties would govern us. They are easy to determine. The left has a single pernicious principle: government can and should ‘do good’ whenever and wherever it can. And they know? Who are the opposition? Perhaps it is not the job of government to ‘do good’ whenever and wherever it can. This is not a question we ever hear articulated.

The sickening consensus does not address any fundamental questions. We cannot have a meaningful policy debate without going much deeper than Paxman takes us. He is clever; he can make anyone look stupid. Paxman never challenges us to think about whether the NHS is a good thing. I think it is a very bad thing. And I’ll tell you why if you challenge me.

It is a horrid fact that first principles are almost never discussed. Programmes like Question Time are conducted on the assumption that you should be obliged to pay for any misadventure that befalls me. Perhaps we should talk about this assumption. Has it been established? I don’t think so.

In Britain there are two factions: Labour (and the Lib/Dems) accept it as a given. Conservatives (badly represented by the Tory party) are hesitant. Both major political parties are for governments doing stuff. Everything government does costs us.

We are approaching a general election. The outcome may be bad or catastrophic. Ever since 1945 we have had catastrophic Labour administrations, followed by anodyne Tories, which have (sometimes) improved our economic situation – a bit.

The problem has always been the electorate – you and me. The left always appeals to the individual’s self interest. The right (the inarticulate right) fails to appeal to first principles.

I would love to hear a politician who wants my vote appeal to my political principles. They characteristically appeal to (what they perceive) be my self-interest. And I am insulted.

My Internet Connection has Crashed

This happens more often than I would like; but not so often that it drives me away from the Internet.

I sometimes think that this happens to prompt me to think about my blog. Well, it often does. My posts often arise from what has happened during the day. Today Tony came to sort out a few domestic problems for me. My new washing machine was not working. Tony surmised that it was not working for the same reason my old washing machine was not working; namely that it was not draining – and he found the cause, a revolting lump of fat and fluff in the drain. He fixed it, as he fixes most things. I now have a washer-drier which is new and which works.

Tradesmen are problem solvers. Politicians are not – at least not to the same degree. You don’t call upon a plumber or an electrician unless you have identified a problem – eg my f**king washer doesn't wash. It was a real problem, which presumably had a real cause.

Politicians, on the other hand, identify problems for you and then, from the depths of their own philosophy impose a solution. There is too much inequality. There isn't. Too much inequality (they say) leads to a host of ills. The fact is that some people have enough and some people don’t. 

Progressives have one solution: take from those who have and give to those who don’t. They ignore the immorality of taking (it is theft) and they ignore the immorality of encouraging dependency. It is hard to say which is the more immoral. They choose to ignore the obvious reason that some people do not have enough. There is not enough wealth in the economy. People are not encouraged (by taking responsibility for themselves) to create wealth, by producing what others want. They are positively discouraged from creating wealth. The miracle is that entrepreneurs create as much as they do, in spite of absurd regulations and swingeing taxes.

It bears repeating that the (perhaps) necessary evil of taxation is staggeringly inefficient. In addition to the actual cost of providing the ‘service’ in question, taxes cost a lot to raise and a lot to disburse – dead money. This is a fact hidden from us. Just suppose that we could quantify the benefit to the UK public of, for example, the NHS. How much does it cost in addition to collect the necessary taxes and how much does it cost in addition to spend the money, in terms of bureaucratic salaries and other expenses?

Evangelisation

What is the Roman Catholic Church in England doing about evangelisation (aka the Great Commission)? As far as I can see, the square root of bugger all. Any commercial organisation which took as relaxed a view to ‘marketing and sales’ would have dismal prospects. I am told that my parish church, St Ann’s in Stretford, used to have seven masses every Sunday, every one packed out. Now we have three, with room for at least fifty more worshippers at each one. This is a fact which demands a response. Nobody is responding.

The situation in the C of E is worse. At least our clergy believe in God. I have known two C of E clergymen who don’t. One used to lie routinely about attendance figures.

The Salford Diocese website makes reference to ‘social responsibility’ and ‘child abuse’. All well and good; but what kind of influence will we have if we continue to haemorrhage members?

I don’t even know who to talk to about my anxiety.

It seems that a few years ago there were discussions about falling attendance. One suggestion was that there should be ‘greeters’ at the door who job would be to hand out missals and newsletters. Splendid – but not enough.

It seems that the Church has not reacted to the general culture’s loss of interest in religion. The First World War was a massive blow to religiosity, unsurprisingly. Catholic families provided a certain momentum and that momentum has been fading ever since. For a hundred years the Church authorities have neglected a crisis. When a priest is given charge of a parish, is he told that he has a responsibility to halt and to reverse any decline in attendance? It seems not. Salespersons are given targets and are rewarded for achieving and exceeding them. Virtue is rewarded – and it should be.

Virtue is the bedrock of society. Capitalism and Democracy require virtuous citizens. Christianity has been the bedrock of virtue in the West. Without Christianity virtue is not even on the agenda. We are in trouble.

Clearly, the clergy are not alone in being in dereliction of duty. Ordinary lay people should, of course, do more. But the clergy are our leaders. They should challenge us. But they don’t. Their sermons are anodyne. When did you last hear a sermon that challenged you intellectually?

Climate Change

I know I have made reference to this topic in previous posts; but I have been listening to lectures and debates on the subject recently and I think there are a few observations that are worth making.

The first observation is that the ‘alarmists’ are nearly all on the political left and that the ‘sceptics’ are nearly all on the political right. This is very curious because (superficially, at least) climate change is not a political issue. Left and right agree that clean water and clean air are good and that polluted water and polluted air are bad. It’s quite easy to determine whether or not the water in your well or coming out of your taps is dirty. You can readily tell whether you are breathing clean air or not. The easiest test is to blow your nose. We like clean.

We may note in passing that countries organised by leftist principles do not have a good record when it comes to clean air and water.

There are four questions we have to ask with respect to what used to be called ‘global warming’ and which has been re-christened ‘climate change’.

Is it happening? Is it bad? Is it our fault? What should we do?

Is it happening? Almost everybody agrees that climate changes. We have ice ages and interglacial periods. It is certain that we have been emerging from a cold period. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were cold – ice fairs on the Thames etc. The temperature since the mid-1800s has definitely risen. In very cold periods we are obliged to use artificial means to sustain life and this is expensive. We burn wood or coal and our dwellings are more costly to construct.

We know for sure that in some periods in the historical past have been warmer on average. Greenland is called Greenland because it used to be warmer and fecund. We also know that grapes, which like warm temperatures, used to be grown in the north of England. The Roman period was another warm period in the historical past.

So, the answer to question one is: Yes, we are coming out of a cold period. For all we know, the trend may soon be reversed, as some scientists prophesied in the 1970s.

Is it bad? Most of us like warm climates, which is why we choose the Seychelles or Andalucía for our holiday destinations over Finland or Mongolia. Statistically, it certain that cold weather kills fragile human being in vastly greater numbers than warm weather. Obviously, very very high temperatures would be bad for us. We could not live on Venus, even if the atmosphere were conducive to human flourishing.

The answer then to question two is: No, warm periods are better than cold periods. Food is easier to grow and we don’t need to spend so much on hypocausts and central heating.

Is warming our fault? Indubitably we make the environment warmer. Cities are always warmer than the surrounding countryside. We do produce carbon dioxide by exhaling, by burning any fuel, by keeping livestock. Physicists tell us (reliably) that CO₂ does trap heat in the atmosphere, as does methane. They also tell us that nearly all the CO₂ in the atmosphere comes from natural sources – volcanoes, ants, etc, etc. Our contribution is vanishingly small.

Is it our fault? No, not noticeably. Temperatures and carbon dioxide have fluctuated wildly in the past, when our contribution was negligible.

What should we do? The obvious answer is: Nothing.

We in the West live lives of unparalleled comfort, thanks to cheap energy obtained from coal and gas (plus hydro and nuclear). We are very lucky. I am very grateful for my warm, comfortable life. To deny this comfort to the ‘third world’ is as wicked as progressive politicians who succeeded in life as a result of grammar schools and then denied this ladder of success by destroying those very same grammar schools. Cheap energy has given us refrigeration, which preserves not only food but life-saving drugs. A revolting parallel is the denial to the third word of DDT. We used it to free ourselves of death dealing insects. We now deny it to Africa, where thousands of children die every year from malaria, borne by anopheles mosquitoes.

And it is here that we come up against the left-right divide. The leftist perceives a problem (which may not exist). He uses his political power to implement a solution. Almost always his solution means that people die. Leftists always claim the moral high ground; they feel good about themselves. Their victims are no less dead.

Corkage

Not many restaurants do this nowadays; but there was a time when it was common for restaurants to allow you to bring your own wine and to charge you a modest sum for opening it. Needless to say, if you objected to this system, you didn’t go back.

I was listening to a bitter complaint from Kevin about the price of wine in restaurants. He had encountered a restaurant which charged 5 times the off-licence price for a bottle of Chateau Plonque. He thought this was ‘unjust’. I see no injustice here – perhaps a certain commercial ineptitude. The restaurant has no means to compel me to buy their wine.

People like Kevin are very quick to associate injustice with commercial enterprises. But it would never occur to him to suggest that it is unjust to force us all to pay for inflation-proof pensions for sometime government employees, simply because they are sometime government employees. To me this is iniquitous. The injustice is plain.

I once needed an electrician. The guy who turned up charged me £40 simply to reset a fuse. In my opinion, he was a greedy bastard; and I shall never use him again. Do I accuse him of injustice? No!

Yemen

What a sad country. Today over 100 people were blown up in their mosques by a rival Islamic sect. What can you say? Stay away from Yemen. IS have this week murdered over a dozen tourists in Tunis - and a policeman and a cleaner in the national museum. Stay away from Tunisia. We in the West are dismally ignorant of economics. In the Muslim Arab word things are beyond dismal. They are totally dependent on the West’s need of oil and the West’s desire to holiday in their countries. Without the West they would be in the toilet. Fracking offers us the opportunity to be independent of middle eastern oil. Let’s take it. Pull the chain.

The Crooked Timber of Humanity

I asked in an earlier post if Jonah Goldberg was quoting when he referred to “the crooked timber of humanity”. Well, it was the title of a book of essays by Isaiah Berlin, who had the phrase from Immanuel Kant: "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made."

Despair, right? As a properly introspective human being, you know that you are imperfect, that you fall short of the ideal? Of course you do. But you also know that not every deed you have ever done was wicked, or done from wicked motives.

It is an evocative phrase. It evokes for me half-timbered houses, some of the loveliest of buildings in Britain. Indeed, it is the approximate symmetry of these structures which gives them their beauty – one bent timber is laid against another.