The Brothers Karamazov

A longer quote than usual to start with.  It is the first book I have given a 5 Star rating to so surely it deserves to be quoted (and indeed it often been quoted).

"Can you understand why a little creature, who can't even understand what's done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice?Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child's prayer to dear, kind God'! 
...
It's not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to 'dear, kind God'! It's not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no harmony. But how? How are you going to atone for them? Is it possible? By their being avenged? But what do I care for avenging them? What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don't want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price. 
...
Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it's beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It's not God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket."

An amazing book!  I hardly know where to start or what to say about it.  It is so dense, rich and engaging that my comments inevitably seem superficial.  There are so many thought provoking ideas crammed into this novel.  

The book is like a series of philosophical essays interspersed in a fantastic story full of fascinating characters.  Sometimes when authors try this you end up with a clunky, preachy, over-wrought mess.  But Dostoevsky manages to balance the plot and the philosophizing so perfectly that it never feels bogged down.  

The quote above is from Ivan, grappling with the problem of evil.  This passage affected me deeply when I first read it about 8 years ago.  I was still in the grips of religious fundamentalism at the time but the needless suffering in the world was steadily eating away at my faith.  I was shaken to find how strongly I could empathize with Ivan's declaration: "I most respectfully return him the ticket"

It is such a shame that Dostoevsky did not live long enough to write the sequel he had planned.  I would love to know how he would have unfolded the further adventures of the brothers, but also of Katya, Grushenka, Lise, Kolya and others.

So, which brother am I most like?  Which brother are you most like?  Is there some Karamazov in all of us?

Love Wins

"Does God punish people for thousands of years with infinite, eternal torment for things they did in their few finite years of life?"

"Not all Christians have believed this, and you don't have to believe it to be Christian."

"It often appears that those who talk the most about going to heaven when you die talk the least about bringing heaven to earth right now, as Jesus taught us to pray: "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."  At the same time, it often appears that those who talk the most about relieving suffering now talk the least about heaven when we die."

- Rob Bell  

Bell makes some astute observations and very good points in this little book.  So why are so many "Christians" gnashing their teeth and denouncing him?  One word: Universalism!

There has been so much furor about this book that my interest was piqued.  I just had to read it for myself - unlike many of it's critics who have slated it without bothering to read it.

Love Wins is an incredibly short book for one that has caused such a stir.  It could be read in one sitting.  However Bell has managed to stretch the printed version to a standard book size with his

annoying habit

of spacing out the text

so that a few sentences

cover one page.

And then,

he leaves gaps between paragraphs 

to make it clear where you should 

pause

and get all contemplative.

Grrrrr....  Annoying isn't it!

I felt like yelling "I'm an adult.  I can cope with a few sentences per paragraph!"  It's like he hasn't quite decided if he is writing prose or poetry.  How very emergent of him!

The sleeve carries a strong endorsement from Eugene Peterson (of The Message fame) which includes a description of the book as being "without a trace of soft sentimentality".  Rubbish!!  I can't remember the last time I read such soppy, sentimental and emotive writing.

Putting aside pedantic ranting about his style, how about the content?  Well I certainly can comprehend his point of view more than the opinion of the majority of evangelical Christians who want to cling to their view that many/most of the people they know will be punished infinitely and consciously for finite sins.   

I really like his treatment of the story of the Prodigal Son.   He uses the attitude of the older brother to confront the view of those who cling to the fundamentalist, evangelical view of hell. He shows the self-satisfied "them vs us" mentality for what it really is.

He claims that his father has dealt with his brother according to a totally different set of standards.  He thinks his father is unfair.  He thinks he's been wronged, shorted, shafted.  And he's furious about it.

The older brother has been clinging to his version of events for so long, it's hard for him to conceive of any other way of seeing things.

My question is: why haven't there been more Christian leaders in the last two centuries advocating for Universalism, or at least expressing that they hoped Universalism to be true.  As Bell aptly puts it "one has to admit that it is fitting, proper and Christian to long for it."  Support for this view in the modern church would have saved me a lot of confusion, angst and pain in my teens and twenties. 

The only evangelical theologian I know of, or at least theologian accepted by the evangelical community, who came close was John Stott.  But even he shied away from fully endorsing it:

Emotionally, I find the concept [of eternal conscious torment] intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterising their feelings or cracking under the strain. But our emotions are a fluctuating, unreliable guide to truth and must not be exalted to the place of supreme authority in determining it . . . my question must be — and is — not what does my heart tell me, but what does God’s word say?

And C.S. Lewis of course - but evangelicals are so selective in their Lewis reading that they often miss it.  Interestingly, in his acknowledgements, Bell thanks his parents for "suggesting when I was in high school that I read C.S. Lewis."  I will whole heartedly endorse reading Lewis to make the journey from childish (often idealised as "child-like") faith towards a more  consistent view of reality, with less delusion and denial.  

That's not to say I have embraced a belief in Universalism.   I am still at the starting point of questions.  Like: Is there a God?  Is there any form of existence after the death of our body?  If there is a God, then why the problem of evil?  Does God, or would God, reveal himself to humanity through any (or all) of the world religions?

As I can't seem to get a convincing yes answer to the first 2 questions, it seems pretty pointless to bother about the rest at the moment.  And I think that anyone who claims to have a water-tight, uncontestable view on those two questions, whatever answer they arrive at, is deluding themselves.

But........, if there is a God, I sure hope they believe in Universalism.  I just cannot see how they could possibly live happily ever after with some, while imprisoning the rest of their human creations in eternal, conscious punishment.  Surely the double pre-destination inherent in that view would be as abhorrent to any kind of omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being as it is to me.  (Avoiding male pronouns sure makes for some awkward writing at times!)

One last favorite quote from the book to end my little rant:

This is why Christians who talk the most about going to heaven while everybody else goes to hell don't throw very good parties.

More than Matter: What Humans Really Are

The question of what it is to be a human person is the biggest intellectual question of our day.

I have enjoyed reading this book. I often paused, put the book down and thought. (Which seems like exactly what a good book should lead you to do.) Thought about things like the nature of reality, meaning in the universe and the value of human life. All with lots of question marks.

My one word response to the book is: unconvincing.
And yet I did enjoy it and I very glad I read it.

Ward presents an argument against a materialist view of humans (that we are purely matter) and advocates for a metaphysical view part-way between Idealism and Dualism, so called Dual-aspect Idealism. It is not easy going and would be pretty tough without a basic knowledge akin to "Philosophy 101". But it is still a very enjoyable read as Ward writes with a level of humour that had me chuckling out loud at times.

For me, the crunch of the book came in Chp 9: "In Defense of dualism". The book seemed to be building up to this point and, after reading his arguments against materialism/physicalism, and his "doesn't this sound nice" enthusiasm for idealism, I was looking forward to finally reading his arguments for dualism. However the chapter seems to be a tenuous pulling together of insubstantial strings of various pro-dualism ideas, none of which are convincing on their own, and together are no more convincing. So much for that!

In the final chapter "Can we still speak of the soul?" he alludes to his Christian views, though a lot of Christians would have trouble reconciling Ward's well thought out religious ideology with their own narrow view of the bible. He paints a beautiful picture of dual-aspect idealism which culminates, in distant space-time, in a kind of utopian future of super minds which "transfigure all the conflicts and suffering of our previous lives." (It sounds wonderful and reminds me very much of a Stephen Baxter Sci-fi trilogy that I thoroughly enjoyed!). Ward then goes on to say:

That is the dream of idealism. But is it true? It must be plainly said that there is no proof. Yet it is more than an ideal wish. It is rooted in the firm belief that mind is the ultimate nature of being, and that intelligent mind aims, as far as it can, at goodness, at what is worthwhile for its own sake. This dream is what mind would realize if it could, if it were at all possible. It does seem possible, since it contains no contradiction. Dare we then hope for it?

My response to this: Hmmmm, I think it probably is no more than an ideal wish, but yes, I do still feel that it is worth hoping for, especially if this leads people to living a more full and ethical life. I wholeheartedly agree with his beliefs in practice: that we should act as though mind matters, humans have special value and strive for goodness for goodness sake, (not just to avoid punishment or gain reward - as the lowest form of most religions boils down to).

After living most of my life believing that I had a "soul" that would continue to exist independently of my body after death, I now find it hard to see how any form of my personal consciousness can exist when my neurons stop firing. I still hope it is so, but I really see it as no more than wishful thinking. It seems to be contradicted by the increasing evidence from neurobiological sciences that our "thoughts" are accounted for by the function of our neurons. When neurons are interfered with, via trauma, drugs or direct electrical stimulation, it leads to completely different "thoughts", and thus personalities, beliefs, etc. The demise of my faith started long ago, Phineas Gage you did not help it. The questioning started something like: "But if someone believed in Jesus before an head injury and afterwards denied him, when they died did they go to heaven or not?". Thinking this through over the subsequent years (18 to be precise, now that makes me feel old), it now seems to me when neurons stop working we will stop "thinking", and therefore stop "being".

Descartes: I think therefore I am.
Me: When my neurons stop firing, I stop thinking, therefore I am not.???.
(Though Descartes would definitely not agree with me)

I do not warm to this conclusion, I don't want it to be true, but I can't seem to shake it. Professor Ward, I had hopes that you might be able to at least give it a little shake, but alas, you have not!

For more info on Keith Ward:
http://www.keithward.org.uk/about/

A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey

I have started reading 6 of McLaren's books, and now I have finally finished one.

"Started" because by the time I get about a third of the way in I shove the book away in disgust because his writing style drives me mad! He frequently and elaborately refers to and second guesses what the reader's response might be to what he is saying. And my main response is to think "Just get on with it". Anyway, at least he has found an outlet in his fiction to carry on the conversations he likes to imagine himself having with his readers.

At least now I feel I have some idea of what his ideas/position/theology are. I can identify with many of the points on which he differs from orthodox Christianity. Some of his ideas are both refreshing and challenging.

Now I need never read another Brian McLaren book in my life (though I am not entirely sure why I thought I needed to in the first place).