More on Islam – Sorry

Just been listening to Peter Hitchens and Ibrahim Mogra discussing whether Christianity or Islam is the way forward.

I am an enthusiastic admirer of PH, although I disagree with him on a number of issues. But I confess that I could not find it in me to shout, “Way to go, Peter!” while listening to this discussion. The whole affair was conducted in an entirely civilised fashion, with Justin Brierly in the chair.

Ibrahim Mogra, I regret to say, was somewhat disingenuous but Hitchens failed to take him to task. Mogra came across as very reasonable himself; but he characterised his co-religionists as being (for the most part) like himself, perfectly happy to concede that English secular law should take precedence.

I have said in the past that most British Muslims are lukewarm and that I, for one, am glad this is so. Most Muslims expend most of their energies on family and work rather than on Islam. But it is undeniable that recent generations of Muslims in Britain have contained an increasing number of what may be called ‘radicals’ or ‘fundamentalists’. Hundreds of young Muslims have gone to Iraq and Syria, prepared to sacrifice their very lives in support of the Islamic State. Their religion is political! Sharia law is its centre. When I was growing up there were far fewer Muslims in Britain and it was inconceivable that significant numbers would have been noisy radicals.

I always thought of Muslims as being more than ordinarily law abiding and assumed that the draconian Islamic strictures on theft were at least part of the reason. However, I had occasion, not so very long ago, to peruse the lists of criminal cases at the Magistrates Court in Manchester. To my surprise, the defendants with Islamic names were disproportionately numerous.

The shocking revelations about sex crimes in Rotherham and Rochdale perpetrated by young men of Pakistani origin seem to indicate that too many in the Muslim community are contemptuous of our indigenous population.

We have many serious problems in Britain: one of them is the attitudes and behaviour of too many people brought up as Muslims.

One of the glories of Britain is our system of common law, far superior, in my view, to the legal codes of Europe. Most American jurists and historians, I think, would concur and rejoice in their Anglo-Saxon heritage. Daniel Hannan is very good on this subject. The replacement of (bottom up) common law with divine Sharia would not be a smart move.

Christianity is still on the wane in Britain and has been since the end of the First World War. However, our tradition contains many elements that we should fight to maintain. The threat posed by those who would junk our tradition and replace it with Sharia seems to me to be very real. Theism, it seems plain, is hardwired. As Christianity declines, the attractions of alternatives (whether theistic or atheistic) appear to some to increase.

Christian churches in Britain are pitifully feeble in their evangelism. I cannot remember any sermon preached in any church I have attended which focussed on the imperative to grow our numbers. Any business which neglected sales and marketing to this extent would have dismal prospects.

Islam is not the only threat. Militant atheism is another. Socialist ideology is commonplace. Muslims, atheists and socialists have agendas and cadres. They know what they want. Western traditionalists are sleepwalking. The Western tradition has given us Arts, Sciences, Technology, Literature and Music unequalled outside the tradition. It has also given us Communism and Fascism. There is also the alarming politicisation of Science and the cult of Scientism. We are dozing.

I would resist to the death the imposition of Christian Theocracy – it is a blasphemous idea. It would be to sink to the depths of the opposition. Theocracy is, perhaps, the worst form of political organisation. It not only promises an earthly paradise; it claims divine authority. The results of political Islam around the world are comparable to those of Socialism. The promises are false and the consequences are deadly. However, Christians, like Peter Hitchens ought to be more anxious about the threats to Western Civilisation.

In short, brothers and sisters, these are ‘interesting times’, as in the old Chinese curse: ‘May you live in interesting times.’

Thinking people, especially thinking Christians, should wake up to the dangers of political blueprints – especially when these have religious or quasi-religious foundations. God bless lukewarm Muslims! Not all Muslims are lukewarm. Those at white heat have no difficulty justifying bad stuff by reference to Islamic texts.

Political Chaos – A Bad Thing?

Nine days from now the Scots will vote on whether or not to remain part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Those who vote ‘Yes’ will be voting to dissolve the three hundred year old Union. I hope they win. If I were a Scotsman I would vote ‘No’.

The first issue, as I see it, is the ‘West Lothian’ question. It is absurd that Scottish MPs should have a say on questions that affect the English but not the Scots. Scottish MPs, currently, can vote on Education in England. Westminster MPs (the majority of whom are English) have no vote on Education in Scotland. This is beyond absurd.

The second issue is the fact that Scottish MPs can help to determine the colour of the UK government. Scots prefer left-wing governments; we English do not. Without Scots MPs in Westminster the Tories would have won an outright victory in 2010. I am no longer a Tory but, in my view, a Tory government would have been preferable to the ghastly coalition of Tories and Lib Dems. Another Labour government would have been as disastrous as all previous Labour governments have been. Tories with a majority might have been less spineless than Tories without a majority.

When I was coming to adulthood, the Scots seemed to me a bit old-fashioned and I admired them for it. Scottish Education, for example, was just better than English.

I do buy the ‘No’ claims that Scotland will be worse off for a myriad technical reasons if the Scots vote ‘Yes’. But I am an Englishman. I don’t want Labour to govern England – ever. If the Scots elect a socialist government, it will be a catastrophe for them (compare Detroit electing Democrats) but I am not a Scot. I will bravely endure their self-inflicted pain. I will hope that they learn from it.  I have no ambition to continue sharing it. Similarly, I have no wish to impose my politico-economic views on other member states of the EU. I just don’t want the Politics or the Economics of the EU being imposed on me.

The English love the Scots. To a man, we prefer Andy Murray to any Swede, Swiss or Croatian. Our affection is not reciprocated. ‘Anyone but England’ is an explicit Scottish theme.

The marriage is over. We may bitterly regret it; but it is. Alex, you have decided that it is so. We English should not regret (in the circumstances) that our common credit cards shall henceforth be invalid.

The Catholic principle of subsidiarity (all decisions should be made as locally as possible) is with the SNP. The EU proclaims it but hollowly. Jock, go your own way if you must. But don’t expect me to regret it if your decision makes life easier for me.

Theism, Deism and Atheism

To my mind, the choice is essentially between the above. I am a theist; but I am strongly opposed to some other theists – namely Muslims. I'm a theist; and I am opposed to some deists whom I admire – for example, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. As a theist I have to oppose atheists. I like some atheists but some atheists are so antithetical to everything I support in all religious contexts (and incidentally in most others) that they have got to be my opponents.

Perhaps some definitions are in order. A theist believes that the universe is God’s creation and that he sustains it from hour to hour. Muslims believe this and this is what I believe.

A deist believes that God created the universe but that he lost interest thereafter – at least, he ceased to be involved in it.

An atheist believes that the very concept of God is nonsensical. To me, this belief has no justification – which, of course, does not mean that it isn’t true.

We just don’t have a proof to support theism, deism or atheism.  Proofs belong to Mathematics. We do have, as David Berlinski says, arguments.

By default, the human race has been theistic. Perhaps this is genetically pre-determined. On the Darwin view our pre-determined theism has nothing whatever to do with Truth. Random Mutation and Natural Selection are not, even remotely, interested in Truth, only in survival and reproduction. But one of our default suppositions is that some things are true, whether or not they suit us. It’s very difficult to have a conversation, let alone an argument, with someone who denies that some things are true and some things are false.

Logical Positivism reigned for years in British academia, declaring that only propositions which had ‘scientific’ support could be regarded as meaningful. It fell apart when this declaration turned out not to be scientifically supportable.

Most of us have lots of default suppositions. We believe that there is a real world outside our minds. To deny this violates all our instincts. Some, I think, do take this position – not me and not, I think, most human beings. By default, we believe that there are minds other than our own. Solipsism says there aren’t. Have you ever met a solipsist? Is it his mind which is unique (and uniquely creative); or did he persuade you that yours is the unique mind? It can’t be both. I think I toyed with solipsism when I was about eleven. I gave it up before I was twelve.

Another supposition we nearly all share is our belief in the past. A philosopher could assert that our belief in the past is merely a construction of our minds. Hardly any of us believes this for a moment.

Our default suppositions won’t go away. One of our default suppositions is that the universe we live in (a life permitting universe) is not an accident. We can’t prove that it isn't. For me, even wanting to do so is perverse. It’s like wanting to prove that free will is an illusion. Even if you managed to prove that it is, you would still have to behave as if it isn't. It’s impossible to believe that there is no such thing as blame or responsibility. Try it when I poke you in the eye.

Am I declaring that our default suppositions are true by default? Not quite. But life is pretty difficult when you deny them.

The argument (not the proof) is that the universe has a cause. So we are theists by default. Deism is an unnecessary epicycle. Atheism doesn’t get a look in. Only Theism comports with our default suppositions.

I know that this is incomplete. Please do me the favour of pointing out any logical gaps that you spot.

Thomas Sowell and David Berlinski

Here are a couple of links to interviews between Peter Robinson and a couple of my heroes.

Peter is an excellent interviewer and chooses some excellent subjects. I shall let these videos speak for themselves.

Thomas Sowell on The Vulgar Pride of the Intellectuals

David Belinski on Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

A New Feature

I spend altogether too much time listening to YouTube videos: not of pets doing cute things but of talks, lectures and debates.

My other hobby is keeping this blog. So I have decided to combine the two. I am going to include in each post at least one link to a video or videos I think worth viewing. I hope you will think I have chosen well.

For my first offering, here is a link to one of my all-time heroes, Jay Richards. He speaks on a variety of topics which interest me: Intelligent Design, Economics and Climate Change, to name but three.

In my view, he speaks very well. He is clearly intelligent and well informed and he is a contrarian, though a well-mannered one.

Enjoy.

Here is a video in which he talks about Money, Greed and God. It is not densely theological. Indeed, it is concerned with ethical issues which might easily interest those of an entirely secular mind-set:

Jay Richards on Money, Greed and God

And another:

Jay Richards on What Should Christians Think About Global Warming?

 

 

In Defence of History

But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page

Rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll;

Chill Penury repressed their noble rage,

And froze the genial current of the soul.

 Gray’s Elegy

When I was a kid I liked History. It seemed more likes stories than any other subject. Very occasionally I would hear people wondering why we spent so much time on History. I don’t think I paid much attention. What is the point of History? I dunno.

It is a commonplace to hear that History teaches us nothing. But that is our fault. If we don’t learn from History, that is not because History has nothing to teach.

I suppose old people are more driven to think historically. Is this just because our personal lives stretch further back? Perhaps.

The Truth is that History has much to teach us – if we are prepared to listen.

Our current age has more to teach us than ever before. The twentieth century is the ghastliest century in History. Its lessons are clearer than ever. God forbid that the twenty-first should be worse. To avoid this we need to learn History.

We need to learn from the baddest of all time – the ideologies of the twentieth century. What did they have in common? Each and every one had a plan for the perfection of human society. Marx’s was the most obvious. It was cack. Every prediction Marx ever made failed. Every one.  Marx and Hitler (and Mao)  had their plans. They had a fantasy that in the fullness of time a new humanity would arise, with their help.  Dear God! How do you extirpate everything that prevents the inconvenient old humanity from interfering with our perfect word? Easy! Kill them whenever you find them – hundreds of millions of them.

The twentieth century had one solution – death. Islam has the same solution. One death century should have been enough!

We know what Marxist ideology has given us in the past. We know what it will mean to follow Hitler. We know! We have seen it happen.  Mohammedanism has given us what we see happening in the Middle East.

Embrace Life. The likes of Hamas explicitly reject this. They embrace Death – and proudly.

Whose side are you going to be on: the communists, who killed hundreds of millions, or the fascists, who killed tens of millions? The Islamic State kills hundreds a day. History hasn’t stopped.

More Thoughts about Islam

I have recently watched a videoed debate whose motion was: Atheists are the new fundamentalists. Dawkins featured.

I am sure that atheism has become more strident and more sneering since 9/11. This raises my blood pressure. That murderous bastards flying into buildings should be used as an excuse for attacking Christianity is not just unfair: it is stupid.

It seems to me self-evident that right thinking Christians should oppose Islamic thought even more energetically than atheists and partly because this bad brand of theism gives an excuse to those who would tar us with the same brush.

A video series you should watch on YouTube is The Catholic Church, Builder of Civilisation. It is presented by Tom Woods, always worth a listen. In 13 parts he describes the countless contributions of the Church to western civilisation: in Art, Science, Technology and Education.

I am prepared to admit that Islam has had its moments but I deplore the stultifying effect of Islamic conquests. It is hundreds of years since Islamic civilisation has had anything to offer the world. It is so far behind the west in Science, Economics and Technology as to be a joke. Most Muslim majority societies are politically benighted. Is this a coincidence? The arrogance and complacency of Muslim apologists are unjustified and deeply disturbing. The plight of women and minorities in Muslim states is a nightmare. Terrorism is the only area in which Islam leads the world.

Christian churches in the west, certainly in Europe, have been far too accommodating to Islam and, as I attempted to show in an earlier post, this is because we mistake it for a religion in the same sense that Christianity is a religion. It is not; it is a social and political system with an admixture of religion. It preaches hatred of Jews, Christians and polytheists; it contains precious little actual theological content. To call it a religion of peace as Bush and Obama have bleated is ludicrous.

I am certainly not calling for a renewed Crusade. But we should not be afraid to condemn the bad things that come from Islam and we should not give aid to counties which oppress women and call for the destruction of Israel.

It is almost inconceivable that an anti-Islamic sermon should be preached in a Christian church. Most churches would rather attack global warming or income inequality.