Articles and tips on writing, music, magic and composing, free downloads, game and movie reviews

The 'Redefinition' of Marriage (has happened countless times!)

6/11/2014

I heard recently about Bryan Barkley, the elderly Red Cross volunteer dismissed from the charity over his gay marriage protest. He is absolutely entitled to his views (just as the Red Cross is entitled to dismiss him), however, his placard 'No redefinition of marriage' raises a common misconception. Some people seem to think that marriage is and has always been an unchanging institution, a union between one man and one woman. But this is not the case.

For centuries marriages in England were strictly religious - between one man and one woman before God. This changed only in the 20th Century with the advent of civil ceremonies, when God was removed from the union.

And if we look at traditional marriage as outlined by Biblical law we can see the institution has changed many times. Men could have more than one wife (but of course women could not have more than one husband). Marriages were almost always arranged, and fathers could sell their daughters into marriage as slavers could sell their slaves. If a woman's husband died she was required to marry his brother (Deut 25:5). And if an unmarried, un-betrothed young woman was raped she was required to marry her rapist (Deut 22:28-29). Luckily marriage, like other institutions, has been reformed by superior moral standards. So marriage has been redefined many times, and for the better.

1 Comment

The Paradox of (False) Consolation

28/10/2014

0 Comments

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and atheist, recently tweeted the following question:

Which is worse of these 2 terrible reasons for believing something? A: "It makes me feel good." B: "It's what my family all believe."

I am a huge fan of Richard Dawkins, both for his contribution to science and his promotion of reason and rationality. But I would argue that there are times when it is not only 'okay' but also perfectly rational to believe A.

David Hume said "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence", and certainly on the face of it believing something without evidence just because it makes you feel good is irrational.

However, life is hard. Imagine a severely depressed man who is suicidal, who has found no relief through counselling or medicine - it would be perfectly rational for him to want to alleviate his suffering, would it not? And if he 'found God', and that gave his life meaning and purpose and consolation (albeit false consolation), lifting him out of his depression and literally 'saving' him - i.e. if believing in God alleviated his suffering, would that not be perfectly rational?

Believing in something just because it makes you feel good is irrational, but wanting to feed good is rational. A man can believe the most ridiculous things - that Joseph Smith found golden plates inscribed by God buried in a hill, for instance, or that an alien overlord Xenu threw human souls into volcanoes - but if believing ridiculous things makes your life worth living (and as an atheist and materialist myself, and a firm believer that this life is all we're going to get) well, you gotta try and live happy, right?

0 Comments

Dr Eben Alexander and his visions

24/10/2014

0 Comments

The Daily Mail recently published an article by Dr Eben Alexander - the neurologist whose 2012 book 'Proof of Heaven' topped the bestseller lists. Dr Eben Alexander wrote about how he had visited heaven whilst in a coma. He says he did so whilst his brain was "completely unplugged", and that his "inner self existed, in defiance of all the known laws of science." I realise he wants to sell his book, but why does he assume his vision happened when his brain was 'unplugged'? Isn't it hugely more likely that it happened as he started to regain consciousness, when his brain had been 'plugged back in'?

It's also very telling that he says he was "nominally a Christian", and that his experience of heaven is exactly what a Christian would expect. A luscious paradise filled with happy dead people. His vision sounds like a lucid dream, where "everything is more real - less dense, yet at the same time more intense."

And then he mentions how the woman in heaven turned out to be the sister he'd never known. Well, okay. Maybe he really did visit heaven and his sister Betsy. Or maybe the woman in his vision just happened to look a little bit like her. But remember it was four months after his vision that he saw the photo of his sister, so perhaps he just remembers the woman as his sister because he wants it to be true.

0 Comments

The Origins of Christmas

23/12/2013

1 Comment

Religious scholars generally agree that Jesus was not, in fact, born on December 25th.

The Bible never mentions the date of his birth, focussing more on the importance of his death. Although it does leave a few clues: we’re told that on the night the shepherds were “keeping watch over their flock by night” (Luke 2:8). This suggests that the date falls during the period of lambing when the flocks were kept in the fields, usually between spring and autumn. But certainly not mid-winter.

Perhaps it is significant as to when Jesus’ birthday was ‘decided’. The leaders of the Church chose the date of December 25th in the early fourth century, and the first Feast of the Nativity was held in Rome in 336AD. The Church at this time was one with the Roman state and Emperor. Constantine legalised Christianity in 313, making it the religion of the state in 324 after defeating Licinius. The Church became a political outfit backed by the Imperial patron. Before this time the date of Jesus Christ’s birth had never been of importance to the average Christian, who worshiped in secret in Church-houses.

Almost half a century before the legalisation of Christianity, Roman Emperor Aurelian inaugurated Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, “the birthday of the unconquered sun” in reverence of the sun god Sol. Naturally, the date of the celebration fell around the time of the winter solstice when the days were about to get longer again. Sol (and other solar deities, including the Persian god Mithras) celebrated birthdays on the 25th December.

This is hardly a coincidence; the Church leaders under Constantine thought long and hard about connecting Jesus’ birth with a well-established Pagan festival.

The reason appears quite simple. Christianity, already fast becoming the majority religion of the Roman Empire, could convert Pagans if their winter solstice festival became a celebration of Jesus’ birth instead. Christ was already being described as the light of the world by then anyway – it seemed a natural step. Of course, Christianity didn’t only adapt Dies Natalis Solis Invicti – Yule was a Pagan festival from Scandinavia in late December in honour of Thor, and this too was incorporated. Yule logs are still seen at Christmas time today.

It may seem ironic that Christmas is an amalgamation of Pagan festivals, though the evidence is strong. The Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1908 noted that the Sol Invictus festival has a “strong claim on the responsibility” for the date of Christ’s birth. Indeed, Jehovah’s Witness’s don’t celebrate Christmas at all for that reason.

But whatever its roots, Christmas is still a time for giving, for family, for love and peace. If anything, it only makes it more interesting to think that over 1700 years ago there were similar celebrations concerning the birth of Pagan sun gods.

Merry Christmas.

1 Comment

The Ending of 'The Last Of Us'

3/8/2013

0 Comments

The Last Of Us, a video game for the PS3 by Naughty Dog, really made an impression on me (as it did with many other people). Set in a post-apocalyptic world where the Cordyceps fungus (responsible for the real-life 'zombie ant') now infects humans, the game's protagonist, Joel, encounters a 14-year-old girl, Ellie, who is immune to the infection. He is charged with leading her across America to some scientists so they can try and develop a cure.

Joel lost his daughter at the start of the outbreak, and doesn't want the responsibility of escorting Ellie. Indeed, he tries to pass her off on his brother half way through their journey. This is where The Last Of Us really excels - the plotting and characterisation is simply sublime. Along the journey Joel grows to love Ellie and cannot give her up. So when the scientists reveal that the neccessary surgery will kill her, Joel kills them all and rescues her.

And so the first moral dilemma. Did Joel do the right thing? It's a tricky one. The scientists themselves surely thought they were in the right; killing one to save mankind is the ultimate in utilitarianism, and who can rationally disagree? And so was Joel wrong? I don't think so. Ellie never agreed to sacrifice herself, and there was no guarantee the scientists would even find a cure. And Joel didn't even really have a choice - he'd already lost one daughter, he wasn't going to sit back and lose another. A rational part of me argued, "Just look at the stats - one death to save millions..." whilst the emotional part of me punched the air when Joel rescued her. People aren't just statistics when you know and love them.

The second moral dilemma, The Lie, came when Ellie awoke. Joel told her the scientists had worked with hundreds of immune people, that nothing had worked and so they'd given up looking for a cure. Even when she displayed signs of Survivors Guilt Joel swore he was telling the truth. Why did he lie? Because he was scared of losing her. He was scared she'd choose to go back and give up her life, and so he took the decision away from her. It was selfish of him, and lacked the poetic scenes of self-sacrifice I'd been expecting, but it was more real. Joel is a survivor, and he decided he couldn't survive without her. It's the only thing he could do.

And hey, hopefully it'll mean a sequel.

0 Comments

The 'Redefinition' of Marriage (has happened countless times!)

The Paradox of (False) Consolation

Dr Eben Alexander and his visions

The Origins of Christmas

The Ending of 'The Last Of Us'

Archives

Categories