eChurch Blog

If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humor or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense, satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness.

If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours. Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England that be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ’s…

…his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large…The lunatic’s theory explains a large number of things, but it does not explain them in a large way…

…If we could express our deepest feelings of protest and appeal against this obsession, I suppose we should say something like this: “Oh, I admit that you have your case and have it by heart, and that many things do fit into other things as you say. I admit that your explanation explains a great deal; but what a great deal it leaves out! Are there no other stories in the world except yours; and are all men busy with your business? Suppose we grant the details; perhaps when the man in the street did not seem to see you it was only his cunning; perhaps when the policeman asked you your name it was only because he knew it already. But how much happier you would be if you only knew that these people cared nothing about you! How much larger your life would be if your self could become smaller in it; if you could really look at other men with common curiosity and pleasure; if you could see them walking as they are in their sunny selfishness and their virile indifference! You would begin to be interested in them, because they were not interested in you. You would break out of this tiny and tawdry theatre in which your own little plot is always being played and you would find yourself under a freer sky, in a street full of splendid strangers.”

Curing a madman is not arguing with a philosopher; it is casting out a devil.

Source: GK Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, pp. 25-27.

A few links I found interesting for one reason or another:

Vatican – Pope Bendict’s address to the US bishops

First Things – Is the European Union a Catholic Plot

Roger E Olson – Neo-fundamentalism

NPR – Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Christian Post – The ‘Prosperity Gospel’ Is Peddled by Magicians

Finally, Chris Cotter – who I introduced here – has put me out of my misery and revealed his top secret new project, which sounds really exciting.

I’ll hand over to Chris at this point to furnish us with more details:

The Religious Studies Project  (RSP) is a website and podcasting project launched in January 2012, founded by David G. Robertson and Christopher R. Cotter, and presented in association with the British Association for the Study of Religions.  It features a weekly audio interview (of around 30 minutes) with leading scholars of Religious Studies (RS) and related fields, which is available through the website, iTunes and other portals. In addition to the podcasts, the website also features weekly articles from postgraduate students and other scholars of religion on the themes of the interview that week, in addition to other useful resources and articles relevant to teachers and students of religion in the modern world.

The RSP has been launched to help disseminate contemporary issues in RS to a wider audience and provide a resource for undergraduate students of RS, their teachers, and interested members of the public. It aims to provide engaging, concise and reliable accounts of the most important concepts, traditions, scholars and methodologies in the contemporary study of religion, without pushing a religious or nonreligious agenda or resorting to presenting “fact files” about “World Religions”.

Have you ever wondered how you can use a brain scanner to study religion? Or what an anthropologist does? Is Jedism a religion? What exactly is the secularisation thesis? These are just a few questions we address in the first few episodes. Our first podcast features Professor Emeritus James Cox (University of Edinburgh) speaking to David about the phenomenology of religion. You can find the podcast and accompanying notes here, or alternatively subscribe on iTunes.

In the meantime, please have a look around the site, follow us on Twitter, “Like” us on Facebook, rate us on iTunes, tell all your friends about us… and let us know what you think!

A few links I found interesting for one reason or another:

Deacon’s Bench – Best. Fingerpainting. Ever.

The Thirsty Gargoyle – The Pope and the Diplomats

Mail Online – BBC sex education video ‘is like porn’

Accepting Abundance – Cognitive Dissonance and Geocentrism

A Grain of Sand – God is the Issue

The Atlantic – What’s Wrong With the Phrase ‘In Real Life’

Science and Religion Today – Why Might Our Minds Be Better Suited to Religion Than to Science?

FutureShapeOfChurch – Nothing Good

National Catholic Reporter – Five myths about anti-Christian persecution

….and I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible – occasionally – that you may – sometimes – be mistaken.

CROMWELL

As I seem to have become embroiled recently in lengthy discussions relating to euthanasia, palliative care and such, I thought I’d share here a couple of Catholic documents on the topic for anyone interested:

The first is the The Declaration on Euthanasia which is not particularly lengthy. This is the official Catholic document on this topic and was issued as by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1980:

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH – DECLARATION ON EUTHANASIA

The second document is fairly lengthy and incorporates the Catholic position on life. It is an encyclical written by Pope John Paul II in 1995 and is quite majestic in scope. I must say that it’s remarkable how the Genesis account of Cain’s murder of Abel is weaved throughout.

EVANGELIUM VITAE

The more difficult thing is to convey the Church’s teaching clearly, in a way that is completely truthful and completely charitable.

SOURCE

The logic that all doctrine must be clearly stated in scripture seems to be:

Premise: All valid doctrines must have the Bible as their source;

Premise: The doctrine “all valid doctrines must have the Bible as their source” does not have the Bible as its source;

Conclusion: Therefore the doctrine “all valid doctrines must have the Bible as their source” is NOT a valid doctrine.

SOURCE

A few links I found interesting for one reason or another:

Maggi Dawn – Battle On

A biologist’s view of science & religion – Typologies, categories, and the myth of science and religion at war

Washington Post – Vatican launches Catholic home for U.S. Episcopalians

Engage – Daily Mail reports that halal meat rejected in Parliament restaurants and cafes

A Tiny Son of Mary – God Bless the Oratorians!

The New Oxonian – Accommodationist of the Year!

Doug Chaplin – Maybe they should be ashamed of that gospel?

Theology Under Construction – Should Christians Refuse to Explain Christianity?

The main criticism levelled against me for my post on the death of Christopher Hitchens was: “Who are we to judge?”

Fair enough I thought, perhaps I was wrong to judge, especially in light of all of the “RIP” sentiments, prayers for his soul and tentative hopes for a deathbed conversion, emanating from the Christian world.

Today we heard of the death of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and the Christian world has been rather silent; no outpouring of the prayers, sentiments and hopes, that came in response to Christopher Hitchens.

Well of course there wasn’t, I hear you say. One was a brutal murderous dictator and the other wasn’t; in fact, Hitchens stood against totalitarianism.

Well let me say right now that I’m in no way setting up a moral equivalence between the two men. That would be simply impossible and ridiculous.

But what I will ask of those those who told me we cannot judge in regard to Hitchens; where’s your outpouring for Kim Jong-il? If we really are to avoid judging, then surely we should treat everyone equally and to do otherwise would be hypocrisy.

It seems to me that those of the “we cannot judge” camp have bound themselves up in a ludicrous trap. The truth is that we all judge; in fact, we have to in order to make sense of things.

It’s right and fitting that there has been no Christian outpouring of sympathy for Kim Jong-il, but I maintain that this is based on our judgement of the man.

Interestingly Archdruid Eileen has posted on the three recent notable deaths and says:

That of the three famous deaths of recent days, Christopher Hitchens provoked much mourning and opining; Vaclav Havel died and nobody (on Twitter) really mentioned it, and Kim Jong Il provoked mostly jokes.

This goes to show how we employ our faculty of judgement in reacting to the news of death.

On an aside, I came across a blog post examining Ezekiel 33:11 in respect of rejoicing over the death of the wicked. I’m not saying I agree with it, but thought it an interesting read.