Sunday
24Feb2008
ATW Quote Of The Day
Sunday, February 24, 2008 at 10:38AM 
The real danger to Britain today is the spiritual and moral vacuum that has occurred for the last 40 or 50 years. When you have such a vacuum something will fill it. If people are not given a fresh way of understanding what it means to be a Christian and what it means to be a Christian-based society then something else may well take the place of all that we're used to and that could be Islam ..... Do the British people really want to lose that rooting in the Christian faith that has given them everything they cherish - art, literature, architecture, institutions, the monarchy, their value system, their laws?
The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, who again gets it right. Forget about Canterbury, can we make him PM?
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (105)
Pete,
Yes, many do, including me. If your Christian faith had not suppressed enlightened thinking throughout past centuries, all the above (minus the regrettable monarchy) would have resulted, and most likely better things besides.
BTW am I the only one who's noticed that Nazir-Ali is a portmanteau for two despicable organizations? :0)
Pete,
Good catch - fully agree.
Now, there's a shock :0)
Dawkins -
I'm not sure how Christianity suppressed great secular architecture. But in any case your future is rushing towards you, at 500mph from Karachi Airport.
Pete,
I know you're not.
Zounds, who's been blabbing about my mail-order Asian bride? :0(
Just in art and architecture ALONE, Christianity has added immeasurably to mankind's scale of creativity and invention.
Dawkins comment is akin to opening ones mouth and letting the belly roar.
Dawkins -
I'll have to remain ignorant then, until you decide to tell me how Christianity prevented great art. Then again you might be talking about Piss Christ and Jerry Springer: the Opera.
The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali also talks of: "The real danger to Britain today is the spiritual and moral vacuum that has occurred for the last 40 or 50 years."
The rush to stick a knife in someone before jumping on their head, simply for being asked to behave reasonably, seems to me a mark of what he's describing. Do you agree or is jumping on someone's head just one of those things?
Bernard -
Yes, well said. Just in Rome alone, where I lived for a couple of years, Christianity's artistic legacy is genuinely astonishing and breath-taking.
But then maybe Dawkins has a fetish for post-war concrete new towns.
Pete and Bernard,
You make two basic errors: thinking to know my mind, and confusing what is there in art and architecture with what might have been..
But don't worry: those are common errors. I forgive you.
"I'm not sure how Christianity suppressed great secular architecture."
Well, it's tricky to design a building when you're on fire.
Pete Moore.
Curiously enough I WAS thinking of Rome. Esp. Campo di Fiori, where my elder brother lived for 20 years.
"See Rome, then die".
No other city has such riches.
"I'm not sure how Christianity suppressed great secular architecture."
The vast resources that were spent on grandiose cathedrals were unavailable for other uses as a result. Building a cathedral was to a medieval city what hosting the Olympics is to modern cities, an enormous waste of money that gratifies the egos of those who get to take the decisions on how to spend the public's money.
Ross,
Eloquently put, and almost impossible to refute. But be assured there are those who'll try.
No other city has such riches.
Spot on Bernard, beautiful place. Good article, and good for the Bishop who has faced down threats and spoken out for what he believes in.
There is no way of knowing for certain whether what Dawkins et al assert to be true (that had Christianity never existed, great, and to us unknown, artists and architects would have created works of unmatched beauty) is in fact the case. Personally, I doubt it, but there's very little evidence either way.
By contrast, it is clear that many, if not most, of Britain's (and Europe's) greatest artistic treasures were created directly because of the influence of Christianity. Saying that, theoretically, in wholly different circumstances, greater works might have been created does not change this. Hence, Nazir-Ali is right.
The real danger to Britain today is the spiritual and moral vacuum that has occurred for the last 40 or 50 years
A sentimental view. We've certainly got less religious. But I don't think people necessarily act more moral to each other. I think, generally there is less abuse of children. In the olden days people would get abused but everything would be hush-hush.
One major difference is that every major immoral act is known about, world-wide, sometimes within minutes of it occuring. We have information overload.
We do appear to have more immorality now, but one fact we have to remember is that its just a lot more reported now
But we've always had rapes, serial killers, robbers etc. Islamic extremism is of course new to this country. That's an import.
Didn't Theodore Dalrymple once remark: - "To regret religion is to regret Western civilization."
Is that the real source of your angst and ire?
Not content with trying to change the future, you also want to change the past, with your 'what ifs', 'buts and may bes'.
The world has never, at any time, been totally under the cloak of Christianity, and there have been many other orders and religions which have reached prominence and significance, some have done great things, but none have had the range of development, sustainability and influence across the spectrum of human endeavour that Christianity has had. All that was done from a basic core belief. I doubt very much that would be possible from an atheist stance.
No-one has said that it is, or has been perfect, and maybe the time has come for fresh thinking, but isn't that what humanity is all about - a work in progress.
Dawkins you suggest that all of the good things would have happened anyway, ("all the above (minus the regrettable monarchy) would have resulted, and most likely better things besides."
That is pure conjecture, and if it was true, which of the many religions or non-religions, the world has seen, would have done so much better than Christianity? - if they had been that capable, then would they not be the dominant force today?
Perhaps you are suggesting that Christianity reached it's influential prominence by 'enforcement' rather than by 'enlightened thinking'.
As I said above, it ain't perfect, but whether you are a believer, or an atheist, it is far and away the best that we have...
Fulham Reactionary,
No, of course it can't ever be proven that without Christianity science and art in the West would have prospered more than it did.
However, we can look at the issue from another angle, namely the manner in which Islam stunted artistic and scientific progress in the Arab world and elsewhere. Here's a blog post from a chap in Thailand calling himself Herakles, taken from the online Telegraph.
So although we had a Renaissance we remained under the yoke of the Church. We can but extrapolate. I'd pursue this line of thought further if I'd more time today. Alas...
Dawkins,
Isn't that just the point? Christianity has had a renaissance, and was able to survive to go on to better things...
Either Islam (of the aggressive or wanting more power variety) will go on to be come the predominant spiritual ideology in the UK or people will re-embrace Christianity. I'd be quite tempted in a way simply to stick the radical islamists in power and let them infuriate/horrify the current left-wing consensus just for the fun of it.
Bernard -
I lived a 5 minute stroll away from the Campo dei Fiori, in Trastevere. There aren't many greater pleasure in the world than strolling round the market there, in the sunshine eyeing up the Roman totty. What a civilisation.
... now that Dawkins has left the room we can talk about him....;)
Well put earlier Ernest. Dawkins has a hang-up about churches it seems to me, which is a tad simplistic.
Such buildings are a human, physical expression of a far greater Truth that Christ exploded on the world, and which changed for ever, the way our society behaved and thought.
Ross says they are a waste of money, which is such an old argument. People need a tangible reminder of the sublime, otherwise contact is lost.
While Europe enjoyed a Renaissance, we in Britain were building castles by the hundreds, and at massive expense. Most of them have gone now but the great churches and cathedrals live on...but only just.
Had Britain not had a Reformation it's art and architecture could well have rivaled Rome.
People often forget that public buildings can often have a greater significance than being 'just a building', they are often the focal point of a community, and thus could be considered the part of the 'glue' that makes for a great society..
Of course, to be considered in that way they have to be a bit more than just your poxy old town hall, a sure symbol of the subjugation of a community. :-)
Pete Moore. Well well. Small world. I know where you mean.
I defy anybody to walk around Rome and not be astonished at what humans can create, given the spark that Christianity ignited in the soul.
As for the girls.....! They know how to walk, talk and look lovely. AND they look back and smile at you as well.
Coming back to London and those sullen, frumpy faces.....
Ernest,
Christianity did not have a Renaissance, but a Reformation, which came later. The Renaissance under discussion was one which took place in the Christian world, a different kettle of carp entirely.
This was an upsurge in developments in the arts and sciences, and the beginnings of Humanism. It would eventually lead to the Enlightenment.
The Arab world never had one. This is the point. Instead of religious thinking and secular thinking existing side by side, Koranic teaching was allowed to monopolize thought.
Contrast this with pre-Islamic times when Arab scholars ruled supreme, brought mathematics to the world, and named half the stars. Truly a golden era, whose like we shall never see again as long as the religionists hold sway in Arabia and elsewhere.
"your future is rushing towards you, at 500mph from Karachi Airport."
>>Zounds, who's been blabbing about my mail-order Asian bride? <<
LOL! Superb riposte.
>>Curiously enough I WAS thinking of Rome. Esp. Campo di Fiori, where my elder brother lived for 20 years.
"See Rome, then die". <<
Great irony there, Bernard. The pretty Campo di Fiori was precisely the venue for the public burning, on the orders of the pope, of one of the most daring thinkers the west has produced.
See Rome and die, indeed.
Which also gives a dark edge to Frank's comment about not being able to do anything constructive when you're on fire!
On the other hand, there is no doubt that Christianity inspired and motivated great works of art. Ross is talking tosh when he says that the effort that went into building cathedrals whould otherwise have built something more useful. Cathedrals were a joint effort and no expense or effort was spared; it's said that even noble ladies used to help pull the stones up hills to the building site Can't imagine them doing that for the hospitals of the day, which were of course provided by the religious.
The good bishop, however, is making sweeping statements about things he obviously knows nothing about. He should stick to theology if he can. When he ventures into art, literature etc. he is talking through his mitre.
Bernard,
"Such buildings are a human, physical expression of a far greater Truth that Christ exploded on the world, and which changed for ever, the way our society behaved and thought."
Right, because Christ's Truth was that the apostles should go forth and amass riches and land and spend it all on art, armies, palaces and the diligent torture and killing of unbelievers, rather than give away everything they had to the poor.
As for Churches, where did he say one was necessary? Was it when he said you just had to gather and he'd be there? I don't remember reading about him specifying the need for big houses to gather in (but having them must have appealed to the primitive delusion that something big lived there). He even discouraged public displays of piety.
As for forever, wishful thinking. Larkin's poem 'Church Going' says it best.
>Islamic extremism is of course new to this country.
If you discount the Cornish and Irish that were seized from their beds and taken to the slave markets.
Its not new to Britain, and its not new to America. Some of the young country's first actions were against the Barbary Pirates, from Muslim North Africa. The demanded tribute, otherwise they harassed shipping and took slaves.
See (from wiki)
In 1786,Thomas Jefferson, then the ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from Tripoli. The Americans asked Adja why his government was hostile to American ships, even though there had been no provocation. The ambassador's response was reported to the Continental Congress:
That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.
[ The Americans decided not to pay tribute. The US Navy was strengthened and we, without the approval or consent of the United Nations even, brought the war to the Barbary Pirates. We sacked Tripoli, and freed what slaves could be found }
See (also from wiki )
In June 1631 Murat Reis, with pirates from Algiers and armed troops of the Ottoman Empire, stormed ashore at the little harbour village of Baltimore, County Cork. They captured almost all the villagers and bore them away to a life of slavery in North Africa.[10] The prisoners were destined for a variety of fates -- some would live out their days chained to the oars as galley slaves, while others would spend long years in the scented seclusion of the harem or within the walls of the Sultan's palace. The old city of Algiers, with its narrow streets, intense heat and lively trade, was a melting pot where the villagers would join slaves and freemen of many nationalities. Only two of them ever saw Ireland again. A detailed account of the sack of Baltimore, County Cork can be found in the book The Stolen Village: Baltimore and the Barbary Pirates by Des Ekin.
"Ross is talking tosh when he says that the effort that went into building cathedrals whould otherwise have built something more useful."
They presumably wouldn't have just sat on their backsides if they weren't building cathedrals, they would be doing something. The end of the age of great cathedral building age more or less coincided with the start of material progress. As these economists put it:
The Roman Catholic Church had an enviable monopoly for centuries, so powerful that it was able to engage in first degree price discrimination. Like all monopolists, though, it struggled with technical inefficiency and potential entry. The former manifested itself in excess capital investment in beautiful cathedrals and paintings. To forestall entry it practiced usual monopolistic techniques such as limit pricing, but also tortured and killed
competitors. By the end of the fifteenth century the Vatican's pursuit of ever larger monopoly rents against the background of technological progress (the printing press) set the stage for successful entry by an entrepreneurial monk named Martin Luther. Once
Luther's firm got a foothold, all hell broke loose. Actually, it was not all hell; it was all heaven. For as every student of economics learns, when monopoly gives way to competition consumer surplus expands. There were direct gains for consumers as the price fell from the breakup of the Catholic monopoly and, in addition, the entrants lowered real production costs.
The latter welfare gains warrant explanation. What happened is that the entry of Protestant firms reduced the real cost of itch relief by doing away with ornate churches, daily masses, pilgrimages, sacraments, and middlemen confessors. This is a classic case of
efficiency gains from entrepreneurial innovation, not unlike the more recent case of Wal-Mart"
Dawkins,
"Instead of religious thinking and secular thinking existing side by side,"
I think we are both agreed that is the more preferable option. From your earlier comment (11.34), it appeared that you rather favoured the secular route alone.
"Coming back to London and those sullen, frumpy faces....."
Oh i think i know what you mean Bernard, scrolling through the thread and hitting upon another of your masterful comments.
Dawkins
Well said at 6.15pm. Islam is still stuck in the middle ages and likely to stay there.
Ross
Interesting comment at 7.45pm.
There's not a lot different from what Bishop Nazir-Ali is saying and what Pope Benedict said last year.
I just want to say this has been a very enjoyable and interesting thread to read with many good and thooughtfull comments from all contributors.
Colm,
I share your enjoyment! Only wish I'd had more time today to read and contribute.
Alison.
I defy anybody to walk through London and not be appalled at it's 1960s ugliness;..and the look of joy on the faces of people having to endure it.
1960s ugliness? What are you stuck in Croydon? You're kidding, i love it. You need to look again.
"Contrast this with pre-Islamic times when Arab scholars ruled supreme, brought mathematics to the world, and named half the stars."
al-Pythagoras, al-Leibnitz, al-Newton, al-Pascal, al-Napier, al-de L'Hopital, al-de Fermat, al-Euler, al-Euler: all arab mathematicians. We owe them so much, as Dawkins states.
Now Dawkins, tell me who they are, what they did, and why I, as a graduate in engineering have never heard of any of them?
Allan,
Do stop playing silly buggers. You know better than that.
Allan,
"why I, as a graduate in engineering have never heard of any of them?"
Is it because you're an ignoramus?
All good fun.
Even the picture of Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali looks happy.
It's bang on midnight. Goodnight.
^ LOL @ Frank
Allan, I do believe you've rumbled them !
Otherwise, I find FoD and Dawk's silence baffling.
Let me take a pop : Al-Euclid, Al-Archimedes, Al-Pappus, Al-Plato ?
I have it ! Bourbaki :)
Orlando,
You're just as bad. You're disappointing me now.
Allow me then to introduce you to the wonders of what we call a "search engine". Google™ is a good example of the breed.
All a chap has to do is key in some words, what we call "key words". In this case, they could be... oh... "arab mathematicians".
And lo! This page magically appears!
Ain't that something? I'll let you tell Allan. You can claim it's your very own discovery.
Orlando: Some find the silence of God Baffling, and now you want us to add Frank and Dawkins? Quite a trinity you have there. Perhaps some day I may join them and the four of us can have a divine poker game (Of course tough to bluff when God is all knowing).
In any event, religion has clearly inspired some of the great works of art (Christian, Islamic, Buddist etc). Does anyone really believe otherwise?
Mahons,
Don't think so. But that isn't the issue.
Here's one from my own field:
Abu Yusuf Ismail al-Kindi An Arab scientist who “authored a book on cryptology the "Risalah fi Istikhraj al-Mu'amma" (Manuscript for the Deciphering Cryptographic Messages) circa 750 AD. Al-Kindi introduced cryptanalysis techniques, classification of ciphers, Arabic Phonetics and Syntax and most importantly described the use of several statistical techniques for cryptanalysis. This book apparently antedates other cryptology references by 300 years. It also predates writings on probability and statistics by Pascal and Fermat by nearly 800 years.”
Even Allan has probably heard of Pascal and Fermat. As to why he hasn't heard of Al-Kindi, I will go with my first guess. Of course al-Kindi's work was completely useless and passed without remark, since it only began a field of endeavour that is fundamental to military security and the security of pretty much every information system on the planet.
(Indeed even Orlando probably heard of Pascal's wager, and is probably twit enough to consider it an impressive proof of the existence of God!)
Dawkins: I must have lost the issue as the thread progressed. Not the first time.