The Heart Of God

4th February 2010

(This follows a long conversation with Adriana about matters brought up in my Letters. She is as should be evident, a believer.)

Adriana. As we covered so much ground it may be useful for me to go through as many of the separate points as I can recall. This may help you.  In no order.  Just as they occur to me.

1. The 3 books I mentioned.

Francis Collins, The Language of God, Pocket Books, 2007 isbn-13:978-1-84739-092-9

Scientifically very imformative. Ditto too on the problems of the atheist/christian debate (if one can call it that: a lot of it is statement by each side of its beliefs without any or sufficient explanation – especially, it seems to me, by the atheist side – but I would say that, wouldn’t I  according to our atheist brethren)

Fern Elsdon-Baker, The Selfish Genius, Icon Books 2009. isbn 978-184831-049-0  Have only read half of it, so agood deal of interesting pages yet to read through when get time.

Fascinating read. Again very informative scientifically anddebate-wise. By a woman very qualified to write about Darwin and how he is treated by Richard Dawkins.  (As a male feminist, I  couldn’t help thinking that it has taken a good woman to put the Professor in context.)How he does neither Darwinism (as opposed to his version of it) and scientific debate a disservice. As a side note.  I found this book quite by accident in a local Waterstones.  Some days before this event, the question had begun to roll round in my mind: Could Dawkins not be more accurately described as ‘Professor of the Chair for the Mis-understanding of Science?’ … I had wondered if this was not me being a bit negative to a celebrity (who certainly encourages negativity by his abrasive and intolerant style).  It was a pleasant surprise to note that F E-B states that he has not been helpful to understanding science.  She points out that he talks as if his way of understanding Science is the only – and correct – way.

Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Condor Book Souvenir Press london 1973reissued 2005 isbn 0 285 64725 3

Need hardly say that this makes fascinating readijng.  Actually I was surprised to find that Albert E is so interesting in other fields – egsociety politics and religion. The man is impressive with a capital “I”. So broad. So committed to his three ideals: Kindness, Beauty, Truth.  (cf p. 9)  Isn’t that magnificent?  His tolerance of individual national cultural differences.

Dawkins would benefit from reading him.  The first 11 pages alone should be enough to show him how different a person Einstein was to himself.  In fact, it seems to me that AE would find Dawkins’ intransigent, intolerant, arrogant approach (ably abetted by Daniel Dennett, now departed, Chris Hitchens and Sam Harris) deeply disturbing and distatasteful. 

I was quite taken aback to see how Dawkins in The GOD Delusion has a sanitised version of the text (p. 11)he attributes to Einstein on page 19 of his book.   This re-write of Einstein (where did he get it from?  was it his own paraphrase? no reference given).

2…..Remember.  In understanding the Bible, interpreting whether words are to be taken as from God, we start with Christ and work backwards.  He is the perfect image of the God we cannot see.  His teaching gives the  truth.  Anything in the Old Testament (or anywhere else for that matter) that contradicts what Christ taught is not from God.

In understanding the OT we also have to take the ethos, ideas of the times into serious account.  Eg the behaviour of Joshuah and the captured towns.  When I re-read the book of  that name, as a result of the thinking the good Professor was making me do, I was totally shocked at the cruelty of his no quarter given methods.  It took me some time to see how it was only understandable in light of the ethos of the time.  You behaved that way or you went under then.

That is no longer how we can behave post Christ and his words to Peter in the Garden or, evenmore, his words on the cross.  Any Christian who uses cruel passages in the OT as spur to his/her cruel behaviour is not following God’s s

Spirit.  He/she is just showing what sort of a cruel heart they have.

3…What do we think of things like the Inquisition?  We agree. Not on, a million times not on.

What was Christ’s definition of a Christian?

This: “By this shall men know that you are my disciples: that you love one another. Genuine love which is  love in action. And what kind of love?  Again our Saviour spelt it out: Love one another as I have loved you. Anyone who does not live that love is not a Christian even if they are Pope Chief Moderator Archbishop or whatever. That is the plain conclusion of Christ blindingly clear words.

And the corollary is that any person who lives lovingly, caringly, even if they are not a Christian, be they atheist, Hindu, Rastafarian or whatever – that person lives in God and God in him/her. (Read the wonderful first letter of John on this.  He couldn’t be clearer.)  Those who think that God or Christ love only  Christians have a defective understanding of Christ or the Gospels, never mind the rest of the New Testament. If God went in for such favouritism, He would indeed by repulsive. He doesn’t.  In the prophet Malachi (last book of the Old Testament) there is the line, “God has no favourites.”  Could our God, speaking through his prophet Malachi, put it more clearly?

4…In your Bible reading start with the Gospels, then the rest of the New Testament. (Revelations is a unique book.  If you find it helpful, read on. It’s great stuff. But if it’s a problem for you, leave it. The time will come when you can get back to it.

Start with Gospel of John beginning at chapter 13: the wonderful washing of the feet. It so shows the humility of Christ.

The astounding thing, the most astounding thing in the whole wide universe of reality is this: it deserves to be in letters 100 meteres high and in blazing lights: THE HUMILITY OF GOD. Think on that till you see it, not just in your mind, but in your heart: the inmost depth of yourself where intellectual truths come alive as life and vitality and nourishment for your psyche.

 Then, when you’ve read the Gospels and letters, move to the OT.  With Christ’s teaching under your belt and remembering the criterion of  ”ideas of the times” you’ll be able to sort out for yourself, hopefully, what is of God and what is of the ignorance, the blindness, the vanity or cultural conditioning of men (mainly – as they had the whip hand in society – sometimes literally where the women are concerned!)

ONe exception to this is this.  If you have a Scripture with gives you references to similar passages in the OT,  and you feel like doing so, follow them up.  Useful.  But don’t do too much of this.  The main task is to get to know the teachihng and actions of Christ our Saviour and Brother.

5…And, KEY to the life of being a Christian: RELY ON THE HOLY SPIRIT. Written too in letters as tall as you can make them.  He has been given us – Christ had to go through everything that life can throw at us to win us the Spirit of God.  He is given us as our Counsellor. Personal one-to-one tuition fromGod’s very own Spirit.  The Spirit who is the power and the love of God. (This sort of talk makes some people a bit anxious.  It sounds to them like a recipe for becoming an enthusiastic over-the-top Christian who thinks he/she knows it all and will buck all authority. Not so. We must never lose contact with our tradition back as far as Christ.  Respect all that sincere committed Christians of all brands have learnt/been taught by God’s Spirit over the centuries.

Authoritarian Christian leaders do not like this doctrine. It cuts at their desire to run things their way, impose their will. Power lust, all too present even in churches.   

6… The two Creation stories are wonderful sacred stories – but not history. And Christians do great harm by hanging on to the outdated view that they are.

The greatest truth in the 7 day story is that God made us in his own image.  That is the astonishing revelation there.

In the other story – so real. That incorporates awarning to all: the temptation to a power struggle with God.  We all do it. Want to go our way. God knows all too well. He knows of what we are made. He should; He made us. If we are basically sincere, He will lead us to a better, wiser, more productive life-style than wrestling with him.

Finally the point about the unity of Christians and belief in Christ.

Look towards the end of Jesus’s talk with the Apostles at the Last Supper.  There he prays to his Father. (Quote from memory) ”Father, may they [those who believe in me] be one as You and I Father are one, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”

 See the logic here?  Our unity is the sign (the proof?) to the world – non-believers – that Jesus was sent by God.  If we are not united – and we are not – though moves have been made – thank God – to change this – if we are not united the world will not believe that God sent Jesus.

In other words we Christians are the main/crucial reason for the world’s unbelief. Not them! 

Isn’t that horrendous?  How many Chrsitian leaders do you hear telling that to their people and urging them to change things – being themselves the first to give the example of this change. To lead the way. Words without personal example are useless.

Have to stop here.  Sorry/. Not even time to go over and correct.  St Teresa of Avila  wrote reams of letters. She said that she simply had not the energy to correct them. She wisely said. “They can see what I mean anyway!”   If ever you get her life written by Marcelle Auclair -  and have the time – read it.  Great stuff. Com;prehensively documented all the way through.  An eye opener.  Teresa of Avila is one of the great women of history.

With love,

John

PS Remember, to speed things up you can put comments, ask questions on this web page.  The fastest way to get things to me.  Sorry it took so long for me to publish this letter here! It is now 8th February. When I tried to publish after writing it, for some reasonthe computer would not do what it was told.  Probably something I’d done upset it!

28th January 2010

Letter 26

Contemporary events: Young woman rescued from rubble 15 days after Haiti’s horrendous earthquake. Afghanistan London conference to make exit possible.

Dear Richard

Another interruption to the flow. But relevant. I spotted a book on my wife’s bookshelf: Chrome Yellow, Aldous Huxley’s debut novel.  i was caught by the initial publisher’s blurb on his life with its reference to his interest in exploring  ”the inner life”.  This led me to read the two introductions (one literary, one biographical) by David Bradbury and David Badshaw.

Some writers excite, stir one to one’s depths, light touch fuses to rockets that shoot suddenly into the sky and burst into bright, multi-coloured, fascinating lights.  Huxley is such a writer for me. Bradbury and Bradshaw have made me want to read more of him. It is this excitement that has forced  me to write to you.

This writer ,”descended from one of the great British intellectual clans”,was no stranger to personal tragedy.  His mother died of cancer when he was young.  At Eton an eye infection left him almost blind for a time and severely impacted on his vision for the rest of his life. His brother Trevenen, to whom Huxley was very close, committed suicide in1914. 

His concerns

Huxley gained a reputation as ”a debunker and an emancipator”. His focus was firmly on the significant values and ideas of the world he lived in. He was concerned that “the transition from the age of religion to the age of modern science might lead  not to utopia but universal anarchy”.

In the middle twenties he witnessed for himself what was happening in America. He wrote of it that it was  ”a revaluation of values, a radical alteration (for the worse) of established standards” in America.  It was “what he regarded as the vulgarity and perversity of mass civilisation…that made him so pessimistic about the cultural future of Europe.”  Was he off-beam? Or far-sighted? He was troubled by “the crisis -torn present of Britain” at the beginning of the 1930’s.

Bradshaw presents a writer in process of evolution from criticism to the search for solutions:”If Huxley had been intent on exposing the meaninglessness of life in the 1920’s, from the mid-1930’s he was preoccupied with searching for the meaning of existence.”  His perspective  was broad (unlike yours). He wanted to find the interconnexions between national and international politics,  war and economics, religion and ethics and their relation to “a theory of the ultimate nature of reality”.  This led him to focus on the area of mystical enlightenment – an area quite alien to you.

I love his comment “they also serve who only bother their heads about art”. Dead right. It would be equally right if, for “art”, one substituted the word “God”.

Many-faceted

Huxley was fascinated by the fact that the human being has many aspects: at once  “a mass of atoms, a physiology, a mindan object with a shape that can be painted, a cog in the economic machine, a voter, a lover, etc”.  It is this wide holistic nature of his thinking that draws me to him – and makes him a kindred spirit.  We all seek this, don’t we?  Other human beings who basically value as we value.  Not copies of ourselves. Not clones: that is OK for Dolly the sheep (though even she had problems) but not for us. Boring. Mind-numbing.  No.  People who from different angles, different sectors of life,  complement each other.  Whose thoughts and actions all feed, like sparkling tributaries,  into the one great sea of  infinite ever-changing and ever evolving life.

That’s the kind of human being I respond to.  Whether a religious person or not – that is the person I warm to.  That’s the kind of person who confirms me in my uniqueness, builds me up, enriches me. No truly, deeply human being is an island.

Your opposite

You Richard are an island maker.  You set yourself up as the arbiter of truth. ”Come onto my island or drown in your self-delusion” is the gist of your battle cry. You are a fomenter of prejudice. A self-promoter. (What a different tone is found in writers like Paul Davies and Francis Collins: informative, grounded, generous,striving to be objective.) A peddler of poor logic and tawdry analysis; of extreme and potentially violent ideas. (More of that later perhaps.) No thought is worth respect if not in line with yours.  You are apparently blind to your arrogance and naivete.

Do you want to go to your death bed with that  as your list of achievements?  

AmI being a bit blunt?  I intend to be.  It’s not helpful  – or kind - to tell a man who has cancer that he has just got a head cold. Like you I am nearing the end of my shelf life.  I feel I have maybe ten years more of life “down here”.  I have felt for decades that my eightieth year  would be my fullstop.  Unless my Creator allows me a few extra years .  And , yes, I take it seriously because I am sure that this presentiment comes to me from my Creator.  I hope, want, I am determined to use the years remaining me in the most productive, positive way possible.That hope is my wish for you too.

Energies to new goals

There is much to be done in building a new world. This will take the co-operation of  determined, practical and inspired people from all sectors of society. Your sector included.  Arid and stultifying institutionalised religion (not the genuine, solid, caring, creative, real religion that one often finds on the ground and in small pockets of the higher echelons) has had nearly all the hammering and exposing that it needs . I stress the “nearly”. Some considerable work still needs to be done.

War needs to be outlawed. Not just wars of weaponry but just as much – more so in fact –  wars of the spirit and the mind.  The best energies of people of good will everywhere need to be turned to the arts of peace and  genuine human progress  I am not alone in believing that we are not just on a chronological threshold – chronology means little - but a cultural one of planetary scope, a step change, a quantum leap.

Time for yourself?

May I, as one who considers himself your brother in our world-wide human family, as one who would be genuinely delighted to see you receive a positive write-up and assessment as a scientist and a man in some future history of cultural progress in the 20th and 21st centuries- may I say this.  You have maybe only a few more years, a decade or two perhaps, to throw away the negative persona you have so far built up with single-minded energy. Age should bring wisdom.

Do what you have never done.  Get self-critical.  Take a good hard look at yourself. Look hard at the criticisms of you levelled by sensible, intelligent people,  people with no axe to grind,  scientists or non-scientists, religious or non-religious.   Ignore, however,  the adulation and worship some have heaped on you that can only pander to our vulnerable egos. 

A great way to begin would be this. Why don’t you write an autobiography?  Chart carefully, with as much honesty as you can muster, the development of your character and your ideas.  The external and internal influences that shaped and nudged you in this or that direction. The setbacks, the heartaches, the successes etc.With all the literary skill you possess.  You are undoubtedly a master of the written word. Such a book would be revealing for you and a fascinating read for us.   It could prove a life-changer.

It would give you  pause, time in which to get off  the evangelistic treadmill of your anti-God, anti-religion evangelism. To get away from this consuming passion of yours.Time for yourself.

I will be among the first to sign up for a copy.

Ideally  a signed copy.

Your brother John

15th May 2007

Letter 13

Dear Richard

I want to get round to discussing your opinions on the awe reaction to nature that is so common in human experience which you describe  (p 11) as “a quasi mystical response to nature and the universe”.  One  section of humanity believes this is a purely “natural” phenomenon.  It cannot be something connected with the Divinity because, they believe, no such entity exists. Another section of the human race believes that this is actually a real perception, intuition, feeling, contact (describe it as you will) with the Creator or the Divine. You are in the first camp.  I am in the second.

I have put “natural” in inverted commas.  The natural/supernatural  divide needs to be discussed further, but later. It is the cause of serious confusion.

We are all believers 

But before doing that there is one issue I think needs some discussion.  The question of belief. Atheists believe there is no God. Religious believers believe  God does exist. Agnostics believe that there is no way of knowing whether God exists or not so they have no opinion one way or the other. A fourth group believes simply that “there is Something out there”.  I met this last group  predominantly in discussions in RE lessons.

You and your atheist colleagues particularly despise agnostics.  A scorn I cannot  share. You may consider you have good reasons to do this. Are they simply confused atheists at heart?  Or atheists without the courage of their convictions?  However you think of them, your scorn hardly shows a respect for their right to hold what they consider  an opinion  justified by the evidence as they see it.  

Personally I find that an agnostic like John Humphrys, in his In God We Doubt puts his case in a far more interesting, enlightening and well-argued manner than you do in The GOD Delusion.

 Your position (God does not exist), just like mine (God does exist) or the agnostic’s (We can’t know if he exists or not) or that of the “Something out there” group are just that: beliefs. We could substitute the alternative terms “assertions”  or “opinions” without any injustice to any party. Your assertion or opinion is…My assertion or opinions is… 

On this level of belief, assertion or opinion all positions have equal value. 

A rational person (which to my observation is not synonymous with “a rationalist”)  cannot decide between them.  To come to a decisionn on which seems the most appropriate, we need to know the reasons put forward for them. Agreed? 

It’s all in the reasons

The only alternative to evaluation based on the cogency of the reasons given is  to opt for personal infallibility: “My opinion is right because it is my opinion”. Not the language of a reasonable/rational/reasoning person. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to ally yourself with that stance; though, I  have to confess that, from what I know of you so far, in practice you strike me as being of that persuasion.

Your position on belief seems inconsistent. On the one hand you seem to accept that your opinion is a belief.You show this when you quote, with approval, Julian Baggini’s description of  an atheist’s commitment to naturalism.  This begins:”What most atheists believe [my italics]…” (p 13).  On the other hand you quote Dan Dennett’s disapproving observation against the “confused and confusing” atheist Jewish intellectuals of page 14 that “they believe in belief” as if  that were a terrible intellectual sin.

 You confuse me.  You can’t have it both ways. Either belief is OK or it is not.  Which is it?  The answer that emerges implicitly but resoundingly from  your writing is quite simple.    Belief (atheist) is most definitely OK.  Belief (religious) is most definitely not OK.  What are your reasons for this?  Basically the assertion (belief?) that all the arguments made or proofs given by believers are false. The result of delusion. QED

So  I know where I stand in the pantehon of intellectual discourse.  Pretty low down, under the carpet.  It’s OK for you to believe what you want – but not for me – or anyone else who differs from you.

The most blindingly clear foretaste of your case is given by the initial dedication of The GOD Delusion” :

In Memoriam

Douglas Adams (1952 – 2001)

‘Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to

believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?’

I though his “Hitchhikers Guide…” was brilliant, but the above quote is the pits. As far as I know you have never stuck the label “Simple-minded” on believers . I suppose it’s a bit brass-necked even for you to call someone like ,  Thomas Aquinas, Teresa of Avila, Cardinal Newman, Edith Stein, “simple-minded”  but, in fact, that’s what we and they are charged with. 

However, I can live with the acccusation.  As a wise Irishman said,”If they don’t get you right – they get your wrong.”

I believe in the power of reason and reasoned discussion so on with our dialogue. 

I wouldn’t dare predict  your death-bed conversion as “Lady Hope” (p 98) did,  but  death-bed conversions, history tells us,  do happen.  So, let us all hold your breaths and  do you have a tape-recorder ready. Historians will thank you for the extra evidence, though  I suspect some of your enthusiastic followers might be severely tempted to question such a tape’s authenticity.

Arrogance unquestioned

Can you understand why many of those whom you choose to criticize (not to say excoriate) squeal a little about your arrogance?  Your video “The Four Horsemen” is revealing . As acting chairman  you ask the other three Horsemen ( Dan Dennett, Chris Hitchens and Sam Harris) to consider the accusation levelled at you all that you are “strident, shrill, arrogant and vitriolic”.  When I heard you say that, my ears pricked up.  “Ah,” I thought,”This will be interesting!  Let’s see how they answer the arrogance charge!”

Disappointment lay in store for me.    Not one of you tackled that crucial issue.  Nor did you as chairman  stop them and make them face the crucial charge. Why not? You all carried on blithely cascading your habitual long list of criticisms  of believers,some of which I heartily endorsed.

 Completely absent in your “discussion”:  any desire or ability to be self-critical. 

The funniest statement came from Dan Dennett.  He said something along the lines of, “Don’t believers ever wonder whether they could be wrong?” I nearly fell off my seat. Something about the kettle calling the pot black?

I always approach discussions on the obviously basic, rational, reasonable, intelligence and honesty driven principle that, if you  set out to be rigorously critical of the beliefs of others, you must , equally be and show yourself just as rigorously critical of your own beliefs. You clearly do not. Not a good example to the many who follow you.   The unspoken addition to your OUT List is “OUT with self-criticism.”

Is this letter doing anything to foster real discussion between us?  I’m not really interested in parallel monologues.  Boring in the extreme.

Interested in your response to all this.

Kind regards  in our gloves off debate.

Your brother John

8th December  2009

Dear  Reader

Another interruption to these Letters.  This time over the Copehagen meeting.

rom the time i was a young priest I learnt to put a great deal of trust in the power with God of the prayers of children and young people.

Just as we are affected more by the appeals, concerns and dangers of children and young people – so is the Creator.

So, for believers, of whatever religion, the first need in any emergency is to  appeal to God.  For His help.  For His blessing.  For His inspiration. First prayer, consulting God.  Then action, getting down to the job.

CHILDREN. YOUNG PEOPLE   You are probably doing this already, praying to God, but let us do it together.

Perhaps you are not a believer, or are not sure. It does not matter. Please join us too.   You HOPE for the same things that we do. We will pray.  You will hope.  It’s all the same with God.

If  He exists – and He does – and if He is fair – and He is – your hopes are as important to Him as our prayers.  You are as much His children as we are.  We are not more children of His than you.  We are equally his children, you and us.  That is why I sign myself as “Your brother John”. All one worldwide family.

Get your good friends and other family members who are interested in saving our beautiful planet to join you, to join us.  So that we feel and know that we are working as part of a planet-wide group.  Let’s call ourselves 

Friends of the Planet: Hope and Prayer Campaign.

Of course we want adults as well.  They are crucial too. But the focus here is on getting the young ones praying and hoping.

It’s not a snappy title,but it’s the best I can think of at the moment.

If you can think of a better one, leave a comment.

*** God wants to help us.  It’s His world as much as it is ours.

***He has given us the brains to do the job

***He has inspired the technologies we need to do the job

***All we need is the will to do the job.

“Dear Father God. Put a rocket under the conference members.

Shake them to the very core if they need it.  Support the ones who are thinking straight.

Control the ones who have got it wrong.

Help us, please.  We respect You. We love You.    We hope in You.”

We need to speak to God exactly as we feel.  He won’t get upset if we are too direct.  That’s the way He likes it.

Ask Him in your own words to guide the Copehagen Conference members, to make them listen to what He is saying to us by the terribly damaging changes in climate, by the warnings scientists have been repeatedly giving us, in  the warnings common sense gives us.  Everything points to this: we must be wiser, more respectful to Mother Nature.

Already, on only the second day, a worrying problem has arisen.  Here’s photo from the internet:

It looks to me as if the dear woman is praying.  Or is she just desperate?

Here is the first para of the report:

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN’s role in all future climate change negotiations.

The big powers are trying, it seems to steal the show and run things their way.  This must not happen.  Put this too in your prayer: “Please God, Creator of this amazing world of ours.  Don’t let divisions start up.  Keep the chaos out of the conference. Bang heads together if need be.  I’m sure You know how to do this.  Please  dear Father/Mother God.

My best wishes to you whoever you are and wherever you are.

Your brother John

Letter 25

21st November 2009

Dear Richard,

Today, finally, through the letterbox dropped a book I have been waiting for quite some time. It is Vita Sackville-Wests’ The Eagle & The Dove, A study in contrasts: Saint Teresa of Avila Saint Therese of Lisieux published 1943, Qaurtet Books paperback.  I want to  make some observations which are relevant in a not too roundabout way to the central focus of  these letters.  Once more I will interrupt their normal flow.  I seem to make a bit of a habit of this.  Apologies.  

Are you capable of reading a book with an open mind?  Carefully?  Giving it thought?  Not simply dismissing it a simple-minded nonsense because it deals with a religious topic?  From my experience of you to date, I actually doubt this.  However: hope springs eternal.

It will be enough to read just the first two sections.  Ask yourself this: does the content of those few pages reveal what  Sam Harris disparagingly classified as a “labile” mind?  Or does it rather reveal a strong, broad intelligence, mentality and culture? 

Ie, is Vita a woman, a writer, you can easily dismiss as of little importance, as a trivial lightweight, as not worth wasting time on? Again I fear that you will answer yes, if your attitude to C S Lewis is anything to go by.  However.  Again.  Hope springs…  I do feel you could benefit from her approach.

The second book is Fern Elsdon-Baker’s The Selfish Genius, How Richard DAwkins rewrote Darwin’s legacy, (published 2009 Icon Books Ltd). Strict self-analysis is not your strong point.  If Fern cannot convince you that you may be just a wee bit off beam, no-one will.  Her thoroughness, her competence and  her knowledge of her field, her clarity are every bit the equal of your literary magic. But.  I repeat.  Read slowly. With an open mind.  She deserves it.  She is a courteous but devastating expositor of your weaknesses, as well as of your positive achievements.

My final summary after reading Fern’s book was, It has taken a good woman to really put you in your place.  Am I right?  Or am I wrong?

Hoping this finds you in a reflective, self-analysing mood.

Kind regards,

Your Brother John with his gloves off as we agreed.

It struck me today

If her biography of St Joan of Arc is anything to go by, her accounts of the two women who are the focus of this book merit attention.

8th May 2007

Letter 12

Dear Professor

The very first page of your  first chapter, Deserved Respect, (p 11) illustrates what a magician you are with words – how you can lead  the unwary, the uninformed, to the conclusions you wish them to accept. The flowing poetical prose carries the reader along on its almost mesmeric current.  But what of its content?  Poor Padre.  He serves your purposes perfectly. Grist to your atheist agenda.

 A dubious thumbnail sketch

Firstly we only have your thumbnail sketch of him.  How accurate is it? Anyone’s guess. The young boy lying “prone in the grass”.  How well this description suggests sympathy with your character. You say that “a heightened sense of awareness” suddenly transforms the scene in front of him and merges it as one with the universe and with the boy’s mind. Is the heavy pantheistic spin true to the boy’s experience? We don’t know.  You clearly do.

 Rather more blatant verbal trickery in  your next statement: “He interpreted [my italics] the experience in religious terms and it led him eventually to the priesthood.” As simple as that. Cause – the boyhood experience wrongly interpreted as a religious one ; result – eventual ordination. His ordination is therefore the result of a mistake.  His whole priestly life based on the simplest of errors. You are a master of oversimplification.

Not a word of the 10, 15, or more years between the boyhood experience and priesthood. Clearly not important – in your opinion.  You expect your reader to share your assumption that he gave no serious thought to that initial experience. (An assumption that needs biographical research to back it up – which you dispense yourself from.) That he did not reflect on it. (Ditto) That he did not test it (ditto), or seek advice on it(ditto).  Your thmbnail sketch is ot scoring highly.

Even benighted religious folk (we believers are benighted by definition in your book) know the difference between the products of their own imagination or emotions and a valid experience of something extrinsic.  They know very clearly the dangers of self-deception in such matters. 

If, as you imply, that quasi-mystical but purely natural event was all that there was to his vocation, then the man would have had no vocation to the priesthood.  He would simply have been misled by religious naivete and enthusiasm. 

The priesthood is no place for the religiously naive. A calling to the priesthood is a  radical affair, involving every level of one’s being and life.  At its heart must  be a tested conviction that the calling comes from none other than God.  It demands  testing by consistent prayer, self-examination and wise spiritual counselling which, though not absolutely essential is extremely helpful in avoiding pitfalls.

This calling  has to be allied to a committed genuine Christian life-style.  A flimsy “quasi-mystical” experience is neither here nor there. Any wise spiritual director would have told him that and set the real challenges before him. That there are priests the validity of whose callings must clearly be a matter of grave doubt is a concerning fact.  This however is not the result of such callings being be definition delusional, as you would have it.  They are the result of the present dearth of spiritual enlightenment in those tasked with the assessment and assistance of  men and women who feel they may be called by God to serve their communities as spiritual shepherds.

Traps for the unwary

 I said at the beginning that your writing can easily carry the uninformed along with you.  Without knowing what a genuine religious calling to priesthood involves, a reader is very likely to accept your superficial analysis uncritically, swept along by the push of your strong conviction.   Also by the strongly ingrained associations of the title “Professor”. That title automatically calls up associations of  competence, knowledge and  reliability earned over years of study. To the lay person ”Professor” generally denotes people who know their stuff.

 Where your genius lies

You are a genius. Not as a philosopher.  Not as an authority on religions.  Not even as an evolutionary biologist, if Fern Elsdon-Baker is to be believed, though “immensely clever and influential” (cf The Selfish Genius Icon Books Ltd 2009 p 1) .  You are a genius at co-opting individuals or groups to your way of thinking, whether they like it or not. With the help of a little oversimplification, editing, cropping and subtle or not so subtle implication combined with your tone of well-founded confidence  you can co-opt anyone to  bolster your agenda, if you choose.  You have done this with your unfortunate school chaplain.

You are not even above using a bit of condescension.  Had this unfortunate, naive, poorly self-analytical young man been been better read andconversant with The Origin of Species he would have gone along with, what you falsely imply, was Darwin’s atheism.  Even Darwin has to be co-opted to the Dawkins agenda. (Fern Elsdon Baker has some interesting observations even here. Cf ……)

I wonder what the padre  would say about your use of his life and calling?  Your confident presentation of him is built up from your very limited teenage memories of him and his chats at school. A flimsy basis.  Are you surprised that your critics find you arrogant or self-opinionated or, at best, surprisingly naïve?

You do the same with Professor Winston.  By your presentation of your interview (page 14) you manage to leave the half-impression that, in fact, if Professor Winston were frank, he would admit that he thinks exactly as you do.

With the sentence “A quasi-mystical response to nature and the universe is common among scientists and rationalists”(page 11) you attach the whole gamut of scientists and rationalists to your ship. And in case the reader has not got the point you follow it with the magnificent dogmatic assumption: “It has no connection with supernatural belief.”  You have spoken.  It is settled. In my next letter I will suggest that it is by no means settled.

Really Richard.  If the Pope had your sense of personal infallibility, his job might be much simpler.  Unfortunately his is very severely limited. Did you know that?  In a moment of weakness you might consider a little significant research.  It might surprise you. 

Word cartoon  Professor Dawkins, dressed in Papal Robes, tiara slightly askew, reading from a Papal Bull.

Speech bubble:

“I hereby solemnly proclaim the following 13 indisputable opinions to enjoy  my full approval.

I confidently declare them worthy of the trust and acceptance

of all men and women of rational bent…

Well, Richard.  That’s this evening’s contribution to our gloves off dialogue.

Hoping this finds you well.   It would be interesting to know what you feel about the above.

Sincerely,

Your brother John

==============

22nd October 2009

Letter 23

Contemporary events: Rome surprises the Archbishop of Canterbury: makes room for Anglican clergy;  Royal Mail Christmas Postal Strikes

Dear Richard,

In an indirect way a debate Chris Hitchens (with Stephen Fry) was recently involved in fits into our dialogue.  It enables me to make two very basic points about your whole approach to this religion thing.

Here is the opening of Andrew M Brown’s comments on it (Telegraph, 22 Oct 09).  Brown is a Roman Catholic.

Ann Widdecombe defended the Church single-handedly. I have just witnessed a rout – tonight’s Intelligence Squared debate. It considered the motion “The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world”. Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry, opposing the motion, comprehensively trounced Archbishop Onaiyekan (of Abuja, Nigeria) and Ann Widdecombe, who spoke for it. The archbishop in particular was hopeless.

The voting gives a good idea of how it went. Before the debate, for the motion: 678. Against: 1102. Don’t know: 346. This is how it changed after the debate. For: 268. Against: 1876. Don’t know: 34. In other words, after hearing the speakers, the number of people in the audience who opposed the motion increased by 774. My friend Simon, who’s a season ticket holder, said it was the most decisive swing against a motion that he could remember.

(Intelligence Squared debate: Catholics humiliated by Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry, Telegraph 22 Oct 2009)

Hitchens was right the first time in his book God is not Great.  The god of the islamist extremists is “certainly not “great” no matter how many times they chant the mantra “Allah is great!”  The god they pretend to worship is small, mean, the creation of distorted political mentalities that use the concept of God and religion for their own murderous ends.  He is right this time when he argued, with Stephen Fry,  that the Catholic Church is not a force for good. They won the debate resoundingly.

If he had argued against the proposition:”In the Catholic Church and its history there is a great deal of good” he would have been wrong.  There is a great deal of good in that history together with the huge amount of rubbish and repulsiveness.  The Catholic Church today is not a force for good.  There are good and excellent  people in it. Good and excellent things being done. There are some exemplary clergy and bishops, but, as a whole, as an institution, it is a force for spiritual stagnation. But…  It holds its adherents back.  It stultifies spiritual growth.  And to top it all, it is in a state of denial about this in its clerical ranks, ie from lowest priest to Pontiff.  The best one might say for it is that it has not yet recognised its parlous state.  Once that I am aware of Pope Benedict  comes near to this recognition, but never quite saw  with the clarity that would have galvanized him into the action required.

How does this fit into our dialogue? 

In two ways.  One, it shows the need to make distinctions when analysing human phenomena, especially huge and complex ones like the Catholic Church.  The distinction that this religion has both good and bad in it. You, Richard, are not into  making of distinctions when it does not suit your purposes.  Your paint in one colour only.  You recognise only the bad.  Yet you claim the right to publish a book on critical thinking!  Pardon me if I ask, rather bluntly: Are you completely lacking in the ability to assess your own behaviour with any accuracy?  The phrase “downright cheek” comes to mind.  A bit like the Pope arguing for bare stripped-down-to essentials Christianity.  Not altogether credible.

Two, more positive.  If at the back of your mind there is the desire to make religions face what they actually do in terms of harm, how they actually stand up to the challenge of being  forces for good, as near unalloyed as is humanly possible, then say so.  You would be doing something very positive and very valuable for your own standing, the Catholic Church and the world in general.  Why don’t you taake that tack instead of what comes across as a rather self-promoting campaign to oust the Creator and downing all believers as simple-minded naifs?  If you were about saying to the world’s religions: Measure up to your highest ideals!  Face the challenges they pose you!  I would be right behind you.  As it is I have to scratch my head and wonder how a man who has had all the benefits of education to its highest levels can be so one-sided in his universal critique of religion and, simultaneously, so sure of his own infallibility.

 Before signing off this brief letter, I should perhaps make my position on the debate clear.  The point is not the Catholic Church. The point is Christ.  He is the supreme, the unique force for good.  The Catholic Church is relevant, a force for good only in so far as it reflects Him and  promotes His teaching by living that teaching. As Bryan Ferry says in one of his lyrics:”Don’t talk about it.  Show me.”

Kind wishes,

Your brother John

11h October 2007

Letter 22

Dear Richard

Continuing the previous letter concerningGod’s words to Abraham. The language of verse 3 is, to our eyes, rather strong, to put it mildly.  “I will curse those who slight you.”

Cursing is not the language you and I would use. How do we explain it? The answer is fairly straightforward.  This is the unrefined language of Abraham’s time. We would put it differently.  We might say, ”Anyone who slights you or treats you with arrogant disdain  will have me to deal with.” 

Why should God not speak this way?  It’s the way we speak – and rightly – when some serious injustice is done to  our children maybe by other children or some irate teacher.The “slights” spoken of here are not trivial pinpricks to ego. We can see in our classrooms what happens if wrong behaviour is allowed to go unchecked by teachers and senior management.  The bad pupils become more arrogant and unteachable. Eventually, even some of the good ones follow suit. There is an inevitable downward spiral when firm checks are not applied. 

 Proof

Abraham receives not just reassurance of God’s protection.  He also receives proof of God’s power. This is the birth of a son to him from his own wife (ch 21) when she is well past the menopause.  In fact Sarah had a good laugh when she hears, evesdropping at the door of the tent,  Abraham’s mysterious guest telling him,”I shall visit you next year again without fail, and your wife will then have a son.”  She had no delusions about her ability to become pregnant.  She made the slight error of leaving the Creator out of account.  I wonder what her reactions were to the guest’s question:”Is anything too wonderful for Yahweh?” (Cf ch 18 vv 9 – 15)

I can just imagine your reaction, Richard, to that last quote.  Being a gentleman, you probably suppressed the temptation to laugh  at that obviously rhetorical question. But that is precisely the point -

If God were not a God of miracles,  if He could not make nature do what He wants, what use would He be?

If that were the case, wouldn’t Jews and Christians not be better shutting up shop and becoming  devout atheists?

If the Creator of the universe in all its astonishing complexity, who is presumed to have devised the whole reproductive system, bringing it into existence through the long processes of evolution – if He can’t do a simple thing like suspending the usual laws that He himself is responsible for and making an old post-menopausal woman pregnant- if He can’t do that little thing – what sort of a God can He claim to be? 

Which is precisely the point of the acts of power that are found in the Old Testament.  They give humans the PROOF they need for belief in the Deity who communicates with them.

Abraham was a human being like the rest of us.  Human beings, sensible ones, want to know that they are not acting on impulse, or a shaky basis, on personally unverified hearsay – especially in matters of importance – not to say life and death. And God is gracious. He gives the proof that humans need. He did so for Abraham – and He is still doing it in our day.

The Bible is the consistent record

that God has consistently given the people He deals with

the proof they need, the proof they demand,

the proof that is crucial to give them the confidence to believe in His existence and to follow His lead.

This is the consistent pattern throughout the Bible.

Isn’t it logical that when God wanted to found a nation under Moses, He should give irrefutable and repeated proofs of his being there in all his power?   Up to the call of Moses the Israelites had been held in the vice-like grip of a ruthless tyrant.It was the acts of power God enabled him to perform that set the Jews free,

One little coincidence made me see the relevance of the series of plagues .  As part of an RE course with secondary pupils I used to show the film, “The Ten Commandments”.  One year it coincided with a discussion and video footage on the Tiananmen Square atrocity. I had two televisions in the classroom running simultaneously, one showing The Ten Commandments and the other the Tiananmen Square footage.The visual juxtaposition of the two events suddenly made me see the point of the plagues.  Had the Israelite tried to fight their way out of Egypt, they would have been annihilated, trampled under the hooves of Pharaoh’s chariots as effectively and brutally as the young protesters were by the tanks of the Communist state driving in over their tents.  Set free by powerful demonstrations of divine power, they were set free without a shot being fired, as it were. They had no other way of securing freedom. 

Since the year they happened, the Jews have recalled those events.  Richard, we are dealing with a nation’s history, not fairy stories. A real, powerful  historical change (the liberation of the enslaved Israelites) needs a  real, powerful historical cause (the plagues).

Moses’ contemporaries witnessed the power of the divine on their behalf. Is it surprising that the pious Jew says,”What God is great as our God is?” - an exclamation that re-appears throughout the Old Testament in various forms(eg Psalm 11[110] verse 2).  In the book of Isaiah, ch 12 verse 6,  is this statement, which sums up the reaction to God in the Jewish Scriptures:

                                   “Cry out for joy and gladness

                                   you dwellers in Zion!

                                   For great in your midst

                                   is the Holy One of Israel!”

There is no way that you can say, “All this genesis and Exodus stuff is fable.” Of course you can, silly me!  Just as I could say that you are the reincarnation of an unquiet soul who has come onto this earth to get his own back on a god who did his ancestors a terrible injustice in some primeval past. You can’t prove me wrong. Or perhaps you think and speak and write as you do – not because this is the real you speaking. Your psyche may have some “psychic gene” – let’s call it a “pseme” – that disposes you to be like a reservoir or receptacle for all the ancient hostilities between man and god. Why not?  You can’t disprove this fascinating hypothesis. After all, fact is stranger than fiction.

No you can’t, not on the basis of evidence, say these events never happened.  You can’t say, “Abraham never lived.  He’s a myth.”  You can certainly say,”I can’t believe this stuff!”  That is an acceptable position. A respectable position.  But not, I repeat, that it never happened.   

The same applies to Jesus Christ.  You can say, in all honesty, and honest people will respect you for it, “I can’t believe that  a man could do the things Christ was supposed to have done. Even if he did think he was God’s Son!” 

Fair enough.  You would not be the only one. Even some Christians, bless them, think something along those lines, liking to pick and choose their miracles acccording to personal criteria.

                                                      A final friendly word of caution

You should be careful in accusing others of “delusion”.  You use the definition of that word supplied by the Microsoft Dictionary: “a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contrary evidence”.(p.5)  Did you realise as you wrote it, that that definition fits you  perfectly?  You are “persistent in your beliefs” about the origins of Christianity (I hold no brief for other religions) and “in the face of strong contrary evidence”.  The conclusion is watertight and logical.  You are suffering from delusion. If “persistent false belief held in the face of strong contrary evidence” is a “symptom of psychiatric disorder” in Christians, it is a “symptom of psychiatric disorder”in you.Is it  in you? And if Robert M Pirsig is an authority you stand by, whom you quote with approval a few lines on, should he not give you pause for thought?  “When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity…”

If you have doubts about the strength of the evidence for Christ – let’s leave the Old Testament aside for a moment – because that is the book I have on my table at the moment -  why not look at Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Zondervan, 1998)? 

Your brother John

PS  I hasten to add, I don’t subscribe to Pirsig’s slightly simplistic views.  I don’t really doubt your sanity.  Just the value of some of your opinions.

9th October 2007

Contemporary event: pro-democracy demonstrators in Burma are paying the price.

Letter 21

Dear Richard

In this and the two following letters I am simply going to give a number of key texts you could have read.  Had you done so, you would ( should I say “could”?) never have written the astonishing opening sentence  of page 31.  When I came on it the first time, I honestly thought you had taken leave of your senses.

The texts are perfectly typical in what they reveal about the personality of the God of the Old Testament. They represent the side of the God of the Old Testament you chose to ignore. I can only assume that it was a deliberate choice.  Motivated by what?  Only two answers, it seems to me, fit the bill.  One.  You were simply repeating  an opinion you had formed years ago without thinking to check it. Two. You simply did not want your opinion to be contradicted by a new consideration of the evidence within the actual. I suppose there is a third explanation.  You might not have had the time.  You are fairly busy with writings and lectures here and elsewhere on the planet and fulfiling the duties of your chair at Oxford.

                                        Let’s begin at the beginning

God enters the history of the Jews with Abraham.  Genesis 12 gives the  kernel of what passed between God and Abraham.  It doesn’t say how God spoke, when it was,  how Abraham reacted. A 20th century novelistic account of the experience would have been fascinating – but 20th century AD styles were not in vogue  1850 or so years BC. I suspect that even such a narrative style would not manage to persuade the non-believer determined to dismiss biblical accounts of anything at all costs.

 Genesis 12 records with total economy what was said to Abraham. He was to leave his ancestral country and go to the land God would show him. An astonishing promise follows:

v.2″I will make you a great nation. I will bless you and make your name so famous

that it will be used as a blessing.

v.3 I will bless those who bless you;

I will curse those who slight you.

All the tribes of the earth shall bless themselves by you.”

No amount of literary sleuthing on the text of chapters 12,13,14 and 15 will reveal that Abraham was dealing with the malevolent psychopath you detect in the Bible’s pages. The verb “detect” is slightly inappropriate, but let it stand.  Abraham was a good-hearted and just man.  His generosity to Lot (chap 13 v 5-9)  illustrates this.  He let his cousin choose which land he would like to settle on – rather than impose his own preference. A man like that would have picked up a psychopathic god if that was what he was dealing with.The relationship is open and trusting, though Abraham, like any normal human being needs both proof and  reassurance. He will get his proof later, particularly with the birth of a son from his wife when she is beyond the menopause.

He gets plenty of  reassurance.  The promise is repeated four times altogether (ch 12, v.1-3; ch 12,v.7; 13, v.14-17 and ch 15, v.1-6).  The last one starts with the words:”Have no fear, Abraham: I am your shield; your reward will be very great.”  No malevolent bully,Richard, but a supportive, encouraging and generous God.  He was told to look up at the stars in the clear night sky. He was told that his descendants would be as many as those myriad little lights.  A prophecy that has already come true.

As the Jews were to discover throughout their history, it is humans who make promises or predictions and break them – not God.  This God is not a deceiver.  God did not just predict  renown and countless descendants .  He also warned Abraham to “know for certain”  that his descendants would be “exiles in a land not their own”, where they would be “slaves and oppressed for four hundred years” (ch 15  v 13). This was the exile and the slavery whose end is described in the book of Exodus.

It may be worth reminding you what I am doing here. The point of directing your attention to these  texts  is to show you how off-beam is your summary of the God of the Old Testament. I am not  engaged in a proof exercise of why your assertion that Abraham is a myth is academically untenable.  

Do you know the legal tag that what is asserted without proof can be denied without proof?  As you do not provide any proof for your assertions,  I could simply have denied them.  I have taken a diferent tack.  I have chosen the path of patient illustration of the ludicrous nature of this figment of your imagination (which is all it is) that graces the opening of Chapter 2, purporting to be a thumbnail sketch of the God one finds in the pages of the Old Testament. For speed of reference I shall in future refer to this nasty creation of yours as the God of  Page 31. 

 The whole of the Old testament gives a consistent picture of Yahweh: a just God, concerned for his people, compassionate, stern when necessary. Certainly displeased with evil behaviour.  And why not? Doesn’t evil behaviour need to be faced up to?  What are our legal systems in place for if not for this exact purpose?  Without them, decent law-abidingcitizens would be over-run by the crooks and the pederasts.  Mafia godfathers would be the top dogs. Certainly a God who is displeased with lack of belief in Him after repeated powerful proofs of his reality and concern for the Israelites. And deeply disappointed.  In the prophet Micah is recorded, in perhaps the strongest way, the hurt God felt. Could He have done more for his people?

                           Listen you mountains…for Yahweh is accusing his people,

                           pleading against Israel: My people, what have I done to you?

                           How have I been a burden to you? Answer me.

                           I brought you out of the land of Egypt.

                           I rescued you from the house of slavery.

                           I sent Moses to lead you with Miriam and Aaron.  My people, remember! (chap 6, verses 2 – 4)

 A God who gains the admiration, respect, trust and love of those who experience what He is about and have committed their lives to his service and companionship.  A God well worthy of these sentiments.

In a nutshell

This text from the prophet Isaiah gives the heart of what you and so many – even Christians who should know better - call “the God of the Old Testament”. Read with knowledge of how the Bible was written and how to read it intelligently, not imposing modern preconceptions and expectations, not to say prejudices, on it, you will find that this glimpse into the heart of God’s attitude to people is present from the beginning:

                                       Behold the Lord God comes with might,

                                      and his arm rules for him;

                                      behold his reward is with him [the saints]

                                     and his recompense before him.

                                    He will feed his flock like a shepherd,

                                   he will gather the lambs in his arms,

                                   he will carry them in his bosom,

                                   and gently lead those that are with young…

So, Richard – just where is your God of Page 31?  Not in the Old Testament.

I will continue in the next letter saying more on the theme of proof.

Regards,

Your brother John

Postscript

Perhaps I had better make a wee comment on verse 3 in Genesis chapter 12 as it is bound to catch your eye, keen as it always is to pounce on any possible crumb of evidence in support of your thesis. As this will take a bit of time, I’ll treat this in my next letter.

25th September 2007

Contemporary event: pro-democracy demos in Burma

Letter 20  

Dear Richard  

In Letter 18 I accused you of failing in your duty to give leadership. How?  Because in your zeal to lash out at “the God of the Old Testament” as you  choose to understand him, you looked only at the texts that suited your purpose and totally ignored those that paint a quite contrary picture. You wouldn’t get far as a scientist if you adopted that tactic in your use of evidence.

You are unjust judge jury and executioner.  The kind of behaviour one became used to in trials of dissidents in the totalitarian Russia with its KGB.  Not the kind of behaviour one expects from a man who presents himself as a reputable academic.

You behave like a reputable academic, it seems, when you stick to your area of expertise.  I can’t claim to know that for certain, as I don’t know the peer literature in your area.  I just presume that you do.

Did you ever come across the Latin tag: Qui nimis probat, nihil probat?  Who proves too much, proves nothing.  Where God and religion are concerned you need to take a look at your methodology.  You may recognise that tag in your approach.

I also pointed out the conclusion that I could respect:  your finding an astonishing contradiction between two sets of texts.  Had you observed this, then what should you have done?  You have the resources. Any sensible man would ask someone expert in the field of the Old Testament if there is any way to sort out this apparent contradiction.

Are you telling me that there is no-one in Oxford capable of assisting you in this way?  Difficult to believe.

But you didn’t ask did you?  There is no internal evidence in your text to suggest that it even entered your head to do so.  What am I meant to conclude from this astonishing oversight?  What is any fair-minded person meant to conclude?  The only conclusion that fits the bill is that it was not an oversight.  It was intentional.  May I quote? “Honest mistake or wilful mendacity?”

 Your website carries a poll asking whether you and Chris Hitchens are good for humanism.  I don’t know Chris  enough to express a founded opinion. But I think I have read and thought carefully enough about you.  I have to admit that in the area of critique of religion I think you are bad news for humanism -by which, it seems to me, the pollsters meant “atheistic humanism”. 

   I have a high opinion of humanism which I understand as : the collection of all that is best and most noble in thought, in the arts and the sciences, and in social, political  and moral behaviour and achievement in the strictly human sphere.

                                                   A developing understanding

Had you approached someone who knows their subject, you would have been presented with the fact that, in the Old Testament,  there is growth, a development, in the understanding of God.

The God who later gave his name as Yahweh entered the experience  of Abraham and his tribe about the year 1850  BC.  I use the datings given by the scholars responsible for the Jerusalem Bible. From that time on, the Hebrews would have to come to terms with the Being who had made such an impact on Abraham.  What happened, what God made Abraham understand is described in the just 7 lines in the Jerusalem Bible I am using (Darton Longman & Todd 1966). Genesis chapter 12. 

Abraham is not a mythological figure, as you claim – on the basis of what evidence it would be instructive to know.  Some future over-the-top creationist Christian some 3 or 4 thousand years from now might just as well try denying the reality of Darwin, calling him a mythical creation of evolutionary biologists. His claim would have as much basis as yours.  Even that far into the future, very probably, Darwin will still be leaving his mark in the annals of evolutionary science.  No reason why he should not.  He is a key figure at the very beginning of a new development.  Just as Abraham was in his day, in a different field.   

                                                      A   long upward climb

And in that very first meeting,  Abraham received a promise.  That “All the tribes of the earth shall bless themselves by you.”   And that has probably now already been fulfilled – for wherever the Old Testament writings are taken as a record of God’s dealings with the Jewish people and their response (or non-response), Abraham is a great and wonderful blessing: the first person to respond in faith and obedience to the God who, at last had begun to reveal himself. 

He would continue to reveal himself at intervals with ever growing clarity.  He used historical events to show what He was like.  The chief event was the freeing from the dire slavery of the Egyptians – “without a shot being fired” by them.  Had they tried to fight their way out they would have been massacred.

He used key people: Abraham already mentioned, Moses and the prophets.  People who knew the God they spoke of or for by personal experience.  People whose teaching could be believed and was corroborated usually by actions and events that showed that it was not a fiction they spoke of but a living reality (the incident of Elijah and the prophets of Baal, 1 Kings 18) even if it was invisible to the eye. Dedicated people who gave everything for their urge to know and understand the ways of the God they had met.

Isn’t that the way science also climbs upwards?  It is the great breakthrough figures.  The dedicated people who give everything for their drive for knowledge and understanding. They are the path beaters.  And us the smaller people trust and follow.  I know the parallel does not work in all respects.  No parallel ever does.  But surely you see what I’m driving at.  As you have done in science, these people did in the field of the knowledge of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

                                                  The climax of the climb

That climb up through history, beginning from about 1850 BC, reached its climax in the birth, life, teaching, actions, death and resurrection of the promised Messiah.  He had been foretold over centuries.  The Jews of his day were waiting for this person – though they had overlaid it with political overtones.  A unique man.  And he made unique claims, recorded by his followers. You are not naive enough to claim that these records are not admissible just because they are made by his followers. Who else would record them?  His enemies?  Come on.  Let’s have a bit of reality.  A bit of common sense.  Am I to dismiss anything your fans  tell me, just because they are fans, especially when they are serious, normal, intelligent people with no particular reason to lie about you, what you say, what you do?  If one of them writes a biography of you and your impact on life – am i at liberty to assert that they must be biased, full of lies and distortions and myths?

And you do not dismiss my point by simply retorting, “Yes but I’m not claiming to be God.”  I should hope not. You have nothing to show that you are a man with a difference, a man such as has never been seen either before or since as Jesus – according to reliable evidence – was.  That evidence stands by all the criteria that historians use. You cannot say, “Historically it does not hold water.”  It does.

The only thing anyone who is sceptical can legitimately say about the recorded events is, “I simply can’t believe them.”  That is a statement one can, indeed must, respect.

The things that he said and did – these bear witness to the fact that he was quite unique.  He had powers such as no-one showed either before or since.  And he said what he was: son of God.  Which, I would suggest to you, is the only assertion that can make full sense of all that he said and did.

Which naturally you have to totally dismiss, for otherwise your atheist case as you present it, falls flat on its face. 

 Your brother john.