Beinn Sgulaird

If my last Munroing expedition was a disaster in which very little went right; today's was the opposite - one of the best days in the hills I have ever had! My wife & I enjoyed a night out in Oban, first at Coasters bar, and then a fantastic late meal at the Ee:usk fish restaurant, whose beautifully cooked fishcakes, haddock, monkfish and sea bass, were accompanied by a stunning sunset from the premises' huge windows. Eating fresh seafood, while watching the boats and ferries come and go from Oban's bustling harbour was a wonderful experience!

A good cooked breakfast in the farmhouse B&B we found via the tourist office (perhaps the last available room in Oban), set us up for a a day in the hills. We selected the closest Munro, Beinn Sgulaird, which neither of us had climbed; and made for the starting point at Druimavuich, at the head of Loch Creran.

It is perhaps a sign of the inordinate length of time it is taking me to pursue the Munro summits, that my OS maps are starting to become out of date. The massively engineered bulldozed track which skirts Druimavuich and ascends eastwards up and over the Coire Bhuidhe, is on recent maps, but not mine! The matter was quickly resolved with the help of an elderly Corbett-bagger, whose state-of-the-art smart phone contained accurate up-to-date mapping! Just as we were leaving, a familiar face appeared, on his bike. Jim Stewart from Perth, training for an Iron Man event was doing the circuit of upper Loch Creran - and stopped for a blether!

The new track climbs sharply into the hillside, until at the top of a zig-zag, a nice cairn points the walker to turn left and strike up the ridge past a large erratic, the the first top at 488m. The path continues all the way past this top, down a sharp descent and up and along the ridge to the major top at 863m. The ridge then turns NE and undulates over some subsidiary tops until the glorious summit of Beinn Sgulaird is gained at 937m.

The views from this summit were quite stunning. So many distinctive hills were easy to pick out, The Paps of Jura, Ben More (Mull), Beinn an Beithir, The Buachaiiles, Bitean nam Ban, Ben Nevis - and more. Beyond that were hundreds of mountains we couldn't name. It was ... stunning. My wife reckons these were the best mountain views she has ever seen n Scotland, and she has seen a few. Not only was the visibility excellent, but the sun shone, and the wind blew, to keep down the midgies. 

We baled off the the back of the hill, down a steep stony gully, and traversed around the bottom of the hill to pick up the new track back to Druimavuich, the car and then home.

Hill days just don't 'get much better than this!

Film Notes: Of Gods And Men

I picked up this DVD for a quid, in a sale of old LoveFilm stock. In the days before Netflix and downloading was a thing, postal DVD services were popular; but their demise led to some amazing deals. I'd heard that this was a 'film worth watching' and without knowing much about it at all, picked it up on the off chance. It turned out to be a deeply sad, very moving, and rather profound film.

The setting is Algeria in 1996, as the government start to lose control of the state, and Islamist militants cause misery and chaos in their quest for an Islamic revolution. In a remote corner of the country a small Roman Catholic monastery had functioned for years. Alongside their own rituals, and devotions, they served the community and provided healthcare and support. The film depicts them as being very much part of the community, in which they served; sharing life, hospitality and friendships across the religious divide.

The central plot of the film is whether the monks should abandon the monastery and flee, either to a safer monastery in Africa, or indeed back to France; as Islamist atrocities take place with ever increasing frequency - and in ever closer proximity to them. They face, essentially, a decision to run away from their calling, or to face death for it. The Muslim villagers certainly do not want the monks to leave - but to face up to the threat of the extremists alongside them. The discussions around the small monastery table in which they debate this decision are amongst the best moments in the film. One monk, determined to stay, says to a younger colleague (who wants to leave), "we already gave up our lives, when we decided to follow Christ". Strong stuff indeed.

As the film draws to a climax, the monks with sorrow and resolve, face up to the inevitability that as non-Muslims in an Islamist take-over, they are doomed. With their songs, liturgies, and around the eucharist; they re-affirm their faith even as the dark clouds gather around them.

This is actually a true story. Which possibly explains why there is more detail about the two monks who survived the ordeal; than the mystery about the deaths of the rest of those who did not. We see, finally, the sad group being led away to their deaths; and a caption reading that nothing is know about who murdered them. 

Lambert Wilson gives a really strong performance as the head monk, alongside Michael Edward Lonsdale as Luc - the medical brother, It's a slow film; in that the rhythms of life in the monastery which have survived generations are depicted. It's not an action film, in that the plot develops as much in the brooding tension and the monks' response to it; as in the actual civil war. That kind of cinema is far harder to write and produce than action; but it is done very well indeed here.

The film is a stunning protest against religious extremism, religion violence and intolerance. This message, along with the context of the last monks in an ancient monastery in Muslim lands, is somewhat reminiscent of William Dalrymple's stunning book, From the Holy Mountain. Although set further east, amongst the Orthodox and Coptic churches, not the French Catholics of Algeria, the extinction of these people and orders is a parallel story; and very worth reading.

The monks in this film share a 'Last Supper' together, waiting to face death, as Christ did before them. One wavering monk faces up to this with the biblical quotation, ''no servant is greater than his master'- in other words, if martyrdom was good enough for Christ himself, who am I to demand anything more? With their faith and integrity intact, they are then led away.

FORB (freedom of religion and belief), as enshrined in Article 18 of the UN Convention on Human Rights; is under more strain then in 1996 when these awful events occurred. Tragically, CSW (the Christian charity that works for freedom of religion for all people, of all faiths or none) reports that this is increasingly the case in Algeria. Click here to read more.

At Ruthven Barracks

Due to what railway companies like to call "unforeseen circumstances" I found myself alone in Kingussie one night last week. A stroll out of the village led to the dark and foreboding site of Ruthven Barracks, built to 'garrison the Highlands", after the Jacobite Revolt. 

Ruthven looks so sombre, as it peers over at the A9, that I have wanted to stop and explore it for years, but somehow we were always in a hurry North to the hills, or Southwards towards home in Perth, that I never managed it. Actually, that's not entirely true, I once took my sons there when they were about 5 and 3, as an addition to a day out somewhere in the hills - but when I stopped in the little car park at Ruthven - they were both in a deep, deep sleep which lasted until we were well South of Dunkeld.

With it's gloomy history, from a dark time of conflict and strife; Ruthven Barracks is a sombre place. Alone there, in the shell of the once grand building, with the sun sinking, it was positively eerie. My mind wondered outside to the remaining Jacobites, and their resentment, then inside to the barrack rooms; and wondered what the soldiers billeted here made of the situation. I can only imagine that the situation called for much rejoicing on either side.

Book Notes: Fools Rush in Where Monkeys Fear to Tread (Taking Aim at Everyone) by Carl Trueman

Trueman is, I think, a one-off. A serious academic, working currently at Princeton; a British minister in the American Orthodox Presbyterian Church, a historian engaged in the development of ideas, a reformed conservative who engages meaningfully with Roman Catholicism, and a robust defender of his savage critiques of ..... well, everyone really. He might also be the first really funny Calvinist since Spurgeon! He has opinions, very strong opinions, which he seems more than willing to put into print too. I spoke to him once, and found him witty, engaging, and thoroughly good company - and his passionately held opinions, love them or loathe them; are actually the result of serious thought and engagement with the issues.

When I picked up a Trueman book last week which was subtitled "taking aim at everyone", I knew it was going to be a read which would at times involve several laugh-out-loud moments, several sharp intakes of breath and several derisory snorts. I was not disappointed on any of those criteria! In fact, Fools Rush In, like a theological edition of Private Eye, succeeds in both entertaining and informing the reader, while skewering the unwise, the pompous and the hypocritical. Trueman has the disarming ability of not appearing to take himself to seriously either, which makes his stinging critiques of others easier to bear - as he seems to have no problem reflecting on his own sins, follies and foibles and those of his fellow Reformed crowd, as he does on those of other people and groups. In fact, if anything it is people who profess Reformed theology but indulge in worldy, or pragmatic foolishness who are the 'lucky' recipients of the most pointed helpings of Trueman's spicy invective.

Amongst the targets Truman demolishes in this book are self-centred 'Christian' bloggers and their (my! :-)) ) pointless outpourings; worse those who use them for self-promotion, constantly re-tweeting praise about themselves. He berates adults who cannot grow up, handle criticism, and are permanently adolescent, in comparison with his Grandfather, who was a working man aged 13. He throws out the charge that the celebrity culture has infected the church, especially the young trendy Reformed churches who ought to know better. His description of a wishy-washy ecumenical multi-sensory service; packed with high-brow academics with their brains firmly in the 'off' position is as hilarious as it is naughty. The insights he offers into the nature of Christian service, in 'welcome to wherever you are' are really wise and helpful, while his assessment of the notorious Chic tracts is as funny as it is sadly accurate.Catholicism, it's greatness and its folly is analysed; and the (sadly unnamed) Christian writer who used a ghost writer for his book is excoriated. 

One chapter stands out as especially relevant to today's debates - especially those which take place on social media. His essay "Am I bovverred?" analyses the role of 'hurt' and 'pain' in contemporary debates, Although written maybe a decade ago, this piece has become more important over the intervening years. His basic argument (written with his usual verve), is that the categories of 'hurtful' or 'affirming'; are replacing the categories of  'true' and 'false' in public discourse. As such, people hold their opinions as part of themselves; and therefore beyond reasoned debate. They state their views, along with their biography explaining why it matters; but then cry 'hate-speech', if anyone dares to engage critically with their work. This has happened again this week. A well-known author has published a theologically charged memoir, and when theologians have questioned the ideas in book; claimed victim-status as a way of shutting down the debate. Trueman, his critics should note, saw this coming. 

In turns wise, funny, outrageous and principled; Fools Rush In is a cracking good read. 

Book Notes: The House of Elrig by Gavin Maxwell

I have very distinct memories of reading Maxwell's famous "Ring of Bright Water", many years ago while sitting in the Arizona Desert. The intensely dry heat, the crumbly sand between my toes. the desert insects and the bold cacti, formed a strange accompaniment to Maxwell's easy prose, as he spoke of his life with otters, and the sea, and the lush green rain-soaked western isles of Scotland. I remember the book as disarmingly charming, whimsical - and creating in me a strange longing for the familiar shapes of Scotland; and for the sensation of cold rain on my face.

I picked up The House of Elrig, Maxwell's memoir of childhood, simply having enjoyed his other work so much. Although undoubtedly the work of the same writer, there is a vast world of difference between the two volumes. Bright Water is hugely enjoyable, and while it references a unique lifestyle - it does so in places I know, and takes place not that long before I was born. The House of Elrig, on the other hand seems to come from another time and place quite outside my experience, or really my understanding. That's not really the biggest difference though, which is that while Bright Water is delightful; The House of Elrig, I found if anything, slightly disturbing.

My initial impression of the book was that it was a window into a world I knew nothing about. I hadn't realised that Maxwell was of such aristocratic stock, and that he had grown up in a mansion in Galloway. The early stories are all of grouse-moors, tweed-clad shooting parties, servants, ghillies and roaming the estate in the company of a bizarre cast of eccentric titled relatives; some of whom I have stumbled across in history books, as they were members of various cabinets in Westminster governments between the wars. His yearly commute between great houses around the country, was described in detail - and something I found most odd. 

Strangely, Maxwell dwells little on the absence of his Father, who was killed in the opening salvos of the First World War. He tries to explain that this absence was simply his childhood normality, and that he thought little of it - other than seeing the physical memorabilia in the home. Yet - the absence of his father seems to be the unspoken central theme of the book, whether he intended this or not. His oddly intense relationship to his mother, was the first sign of this; followed by the separation from her for boarding school which reads almost like a bereavement. This reads like the start of a  psychcologists case-study.

I found the descriptions of the English public schools of the mid-Twentieth Century very weird indeed. As the product of a weak comprehensive education, I sometimes looked in envy at the perceived advantages of the exclusive education of the privileged elites who lived in our town. Maxwell's reminiscences of anxiety, loneliness, rituals and a veritable cast of misfits or weirdos amongst staff; make me think that Abbotsford Comprehensive, wasn't so bad after all. Maxwell's descriptions of what passed as 'sex education', which mostly amounted to veiled, incomprehensible warnings against masturbation; are beyond dreadful, and maybe as embarrassing to read, as they were for young Maxwell to endure. Maxwell's search for a father-figure amongst older boys, teachers, and uncles, again almost unacknowledged, seems to also be a profound, and unsettling subject in the book. He hints at, but simultaneously denies, that there was a sexual element to these relationships. It's hard to say whether he is inviting the reader to read more that he says into his words or not - what we can certainly say is that some of this (such as secret nighttime meetings with a teacher), would be absolutely in breach of current standards of child protection. His later teenage obsession with his sexual awakening might not be anything unusual, but he writes about it with a curious candour, perhaps telling us more than we might want to know in what sounds like catharsis.

While school was often miserable, Maxwell projected most of his longings on The House of Elrig, which represented belonging, freedom, home and the opportunity to spend time with animals (keeping them, killing them, catalogue-ing the, and drawing them). This love of animals which would so much shape his later life was formed here, in the Galloway Hills. The suspicion that he was more at ease with animals than people is also never that far from the surface of the narrative. School life came to an end after a life-threatening illness almost took him, as a seventeen year old. He was administered the last-rites as Henoch's Purpura gripped his adolescent frame, and internal bleeding sapped his energy. Surprisingly, he survived - despite the misdiagnosis of his birthmarks as ecchymoses by the celebrated Dr, Lord Horder! (Many readers of this blog will have come across Horder from the biography of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the noted Welsh preacher, who was Horder's assistant prior to his Christian ministry).

Lurking in the background throughout this strange tale is the family religion of the Maxwell and Persies. Maxwell makes frequent references to this, but doesn't name the sect in question until the very end of the book. What we learn is that his family, while happy to attend mainstream churches when away from home, were ardent adherents of a Christian group which was tight-knit, and specialised in producing ecstatic experiences, trance-like states, and strange prophetic utterances, in their congregations; they required members to pray from their incomprehensible prayer-books, and frowned upon such things as contraception. While basically orthodox in their core Christian theology, their innovation was an insistence that they were the restored supernatural New Testament Church, and their leaders Apostles. Bear in mind that this was home life, while starchy, formal, rigid stiff-upper-lip Anglicanism was Maxwell's term-time experience. No wonder, he found the whole thing mistifying! Only at the end of the book does he reveal that "our church", was the Irvingites (formally the Catholic Apostolic Church), a very eccentric and now defunct sect, which in some ways pre-figured contemporary Pentecostalism.

Finally, it's rather a sad book. Maxwell appears as a shy, embarrassed, confused, insecure, unwell young man who longed to go back to Elrig and ascend the moors. The glaring absence of his father seems to be the great elephant-in-the-room (or is that the elephant on the page), which would make Maxwell, another victim of the Great War. Although the book ends, with Maxwell and a friend, roaming the Elrig estate, it's hard not to imagine that the road ahead will not be easy for this youngster, after all that the War, the dreadful schools, the strange people, inflicted upon him.

An Lochan Uaine & The Ryvoan Pass

Lovely afternoon stroll in the Cairngorms, with old friends.......

Film Notes: White Material

This film, although beautifully made, is rather disturbing. Isabelle Huppert plays a coffee planter in an anonymous African Republic, which had been a French Colony; and then a protectorate of some kind. Early in the film we learn that the French military are withdrawing, and urging all remaining white people to withdraw, as the country disintegrates into a bloody civil war. Huppert's character, remains defiant in the face of danger however, and persists with her determination to bring in the harvest, even as her workers leave and her family disintegrates.

Huppert is brilliant as Mm Vial, the feisty-yet-fragile planter, who never seems to surrender - always seeking to fight back against the ever overwhelming odds surrounding her. Her acting, accompanied by a hauntingly beautiful, lamenting soundtrack, and plenty of character's-eye-view filming, make the film arresting to the senses.

Without including plot-spoilers, what makes this film at times unbearable to watch is the cruelty and suffering which accompanies civil war. Child soldiers feature heavily in the plot; and it is gut-wrenching to see the reality of children (some the age of my own kids), heavily armed, roaming the countryside, with no hand to restrain their 'Lord of the Flies' like descent into barbarism. That evil men commit evil acts is of little shock value, I suppose, compared to such horror being unleashed from those we would normally see portrayed as innocents, is actually chilling.

The family plantation becomes the centre of the action, as it becomes known that a rebel fighter known as 'the Boxer' is hiding out there; and the war between government and rebels grows more fierce. The already divided family, divide further over whether to stay and fight, or cut and run, with the adult son, descending into mental illness after a brutal (probably sexual) assault by teenage soldiers. The film ends on a grim note of betrayal and revenge, even as the war itself seems to be running its course.

There are a few moments when the plot is not easy to follow, although these do become clearer as the memory-sequences are made more obvious. Part of this is quite deliberate, in that the confusion of a nation in civil war, with panic, information and miss-information, abounding being conveyed to the viewer. Characters are often in fact, seem listening to the demagogic rebel radio broadcaster, urging his troops on to trash the remaining vestiges of colonialism. But, what will remain with me far longer than the plot, are the incredibly vivid scenes, the sense of foreboding, and the fear and confusion of a country amidst violent revolt. This was very, very disturbing indeed.

Balhomish

On The Balhomish track, Murthly Estate, Birnam.

"Inventing the Universe" - A Conversation with Prof Alister A. McGrath

A while ago, I had the pleasure of speaking to Dr Alister A. McGrath, who is Prof. of Science and Religion at Oxford University, about his new book. While some of this was published in Solas Magazine, this is the whole interview,  reproduced here with permission, following the demise of that publication.

___

Tell us about your new book, “Inventing the Universe”. What is it about? Why did you write it, and who is it pitched at?

AEM:  I wrote it because I wanted to explain to people the kind of journey I made from being an atheist, who thought that science explained everything – and that was it; to a Christian, who sees science as very important as filling in parts of a picture, but that there is a bigger picture as well. So I am writing this for anyone who is interested in the whole area of science and faith, I think particularly for scientist who are Christians who want to articulate the way they think more clearly, or for other people who just want to know that there are other ways of holding science and faith together – which is why I use the language of “enrichment”, which is effect allow us to see a bigger picture of reality in which both science and faith have very important roles to play.

Something of an intellectual autobiography as well, then?

AEM: Well, it is actually, yes! So its really me saying that over a 40 year period, this is what I have come to think – does this help you!? It’s not saying, “this is right”, it’s saying, “this is what I have found my way towards, and if it helps you, I’ll be delighted!”

I notice that in the book you often refer to the “warfare model”, of Science versus Christianity. Why do you think that has come to dominate – at least in the public discourse, so much, and seize people’s minds, and create such a problem for giving the Christian faith, or Christian apologetics, even a fair hearing?

AEM: I think it’s become a defining narrative or our culture. In part, because it’s been propagated by a media who tend to just repeat what everyone’s said in the past. But more importantly, I think, the New Atheism, has made this conflict narrative as normative, in other words “this is the way it is”. And I think that when you have very influential cultural figures supporting this, its quite difficult to break that stranglehold. And so, one of the things I say, is that we need to tell a different story and show that, a) it makes more sense of things and b), it’s much more exciting and attractive.

How do we help people to hear Christian apologetics when their plausibility structure has already told them that what we are saying is irrelevant?

AEM: Well what I think you need to do is to say, “look, here is a narrative which has been suppressed, here is a way of thinking that people are trying to drown out”. They find it threatening, they find it challenging, and we need to say that they may not like it, but they’ve got to hear it. You owe it to us to give us a hearing. I think that is something we need to say. C.S. Lewis; I don’t know if you know his sermon called “The Weight of Glory”?

Yes!

AEM: Well in it, he says, look, the dominant narrative in our culture is, ‘what you see is what you get’, and he says we have been ‘entranced’ by that, and we need to break that spell! And then he says something interesting, he says, the way of breaking a spell is by casting a better spell! What he means by that is portraying Christianity in an attractive, intelligible, and an imaginatively compelling way, so that people stop and say, ‘we’ve got to think about this’. And we haven’t done that very well.

And the media is encaptured by this vision? And prevents people like you being heard at the public level, I suppose?

AEM: It’s become the dominant media narrative. If you read Charles Taylor’s book, “The Secular Age”, he talks about how this sort of thing happens, and the difficulty is that once a narrative takes root, anyone who contradicts it is seen as being irrational. And Taylor says, that once that mindset develops it’s very, very hard to break it. So we’ve got to see ourselves as a counterculture, a fifth-column, (or something like that), but we are subversives who are challenging the dominant narrative – a) because it’s wrong but b), because it’s pressing a much more meaningful and exciting narrative.

And your book is going towards doing that..

AEM: Well, it’s a small step in that direction, I mean, scholarship disproved this ‘conflict narrative’ a generation ago, but it’s taken ages for it to filter through to the media who keep on repeating this old fashioned out-dated approach.

Is this a book you’ve been wanting to write for a long time? I notice that previously you’ve published books addressing particular New Atheists and their thought, or about CS Lewis as a Christian apologist; but this is drawing back and looking at the bigger picture? Is this something you’ve been working towards for a while?

AEM: It is! (we’re just getting into a cab, so there will be a gap for a minute or so). Yes, basically this is a book I have been meaning to write for ages, and it is cast as a personal journey because that is much more interesting format – and it does raise all the intellectual issues I’ve raised elsewhere, but it does it in a much better form and I introduce a lot of new material that I think people will find really interesting.

I was impressed because I’m not a scientist (my background is in history) but it did make a lot of scientific ideas accessible to a non-scientist reader like me which was one of the things that I found so exciting about it.

AEM: Well, it is written for a general audience, although I think scientists will particularly like it. In fact we’ve just been doing a programme here at Premier Radio in which I’ve been debating with a leading British physicist – who is also president of the British Humanist Association, and actually we had an incredibly civil and interesting conversation because basically my science is right, and that makes it much harder for atheists to write it off. But also because it gets a really good conversation underway.

Interesting you were speaking to a physicist, One of my friends who is a physicist asked me to ask you, “Is it harder to be a biologist who is a believer than a physicist”? Because he knows so many  people in physics and maths who are believers and so few in life sciences/biology..

AEM: And that’s my experience too. I think the answer is ‘yes’, and that’s partly because if you think of someone like Richard Dawkins, Biology has been ‘weaponised’, (if I can use that phrase), whereas Physics has not, if anything Physics is going in the other direction. Physics is very, very, supportive of a generally theistic world-view. Whereas Biology, precisely because, if interpreted in a certain way, seems to be anti-theistic, is being seized upon and in effect being made the weapon of choice by those who want to continue the conflict narrative and also offer an atheist apologetic.

Delving a little more into the book. The idea of ‘multiple maps’ seems to be a key idea in the book, to reconcile the supposed conflict between science and faith. Can you tell us what you mean by multiple maps, what did you have in mind here?

AEM: What I mean is, let me put it like this, assuming there is a big picture, science gives us one bit of that picture – religion gives us another bit. We want to see the full big picture, that means that we need to recognize that science is going to tell us some things, but not others and its really saying, ‘Look you can approach things from only one perspective and say that’s all there is to it’; but that’s simply unacceptable because if you are simply a scientist and you say that’s it. then you leave out massive things like the issue of meaning, the issue of value and so on. And so the idea of ‘multiple maps’ is to ensure that you have a full palate of colours to do justice to the richness of the world, our experience and so on,  and it seems to me that that is a helpful metaphor for people to get into their heads the idea that any approach that says there is only one map and that’s it – is simply going to miss out on a lot of interesting stuff.

Which also would not just be an assault on Atheist Scientists, but also on Christian Fundamentalists, I suppose?

AEM: Absolutely. I think that what they’re doing is in effect locking themselves into a very small area and saying ‘this is it’ and I’m not able to dialogue with anyone beyond that. The method I’m adopting in effect is a wonderful platform for apologetics because it is saying, ‘look, we can talk and a very good conversation is going to be had here’, and in effect Christianity has a marvellous contribution to make, and it cannot be ridiculed, it cannot be ignored, there is something very significant here which needs to be heard.

Was I right in thinking that ‘multiple maps’ are the big idea of the book? A centralising thought?

AEM: I think it is a big idea – I supplement it with other approaches to make sure that there are other approaches that I personally find helpful. But I know from talking to people that the ‘multiple maps’ idea is so accessible that people find it very, very useful and I think in apologetics it has got a lot to offer.

And thought if multiple maps were a big idea in the book, “Scientism” was the big target in the book, Can you tell me (our readers), what do you mean by ‘scientism’, and the overreach of science/

AEM: Sure. Scientism is a non-Scientific viewpoint which says that science answers all meaningful questions and that if science can’t answer questions then they are not meaningful. So – in effect science tells us what the meaning of life is, it tells us what is good and what is bad. And you do find people like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris particularly – I don’t know if you’ve read his book on moral landscape, that’s very much the line that he’s taking. And my point is simple this, that this is an abuse of science! Science is science, you’ve got make sure that you respect it, not convert it into something else, and when science is done properly it has limits, and that is the best way of preserving its identity, its integrity, by forcing it to answer questions which its methods don’t allow it to do. So what I am saying is, I am protesting strongly against those scientists who exaggerate the explanatory capacity of science and I know the scientific community would do the same.

So why is there this persistent element among some quarters of science that wants to over-reach, into scientism. Is it purely a power-play or … what is driving that agenda?

AEM: It’s partly a power-play because some scientists feel threatened by cultural developments which they see as marginalising themselves. But the real answer goes back to that conflict narrative. It’s all about an understanding about intellectual history which sees a trajectory from the dark ages, to a modern, enlightenment period in which reason and science, are the drivers of progress and therefore science is the guarantor of rationality and progress, and anything else such as religion is seen as backward and unhelpful. And that is a world-view, not an empirical observation. That is in effect the imposition of a world-view and science is being ‘weaponised’ to consolidate that world-view.

 ‘Weaponised’ that word again! But are there any other key things from the book, that you’d like to mention, which I haven’t asked you about?

AEM: Well I think there are two things to emphasise. One is that I do not in any way criticise science. I think science is wonderful, I think it is great, but incomplete. We need a full picture, not just a partial picture. That’s very important.  And secondly, I do hope that the book will encourage Christians to talk about these things, to feel more confident about their faith, but also to begin to really open up some of the questions I raise in that book, in public.

And where is your research and writing going to take you next?

AEM: Well, the next big book, written for an identical audience, is going to be on ‘what are we?’, ‘what is human nature?’, and that is a big debate in today’s culture and its going to be looking a scientific insights, cultural insights, philosophical insights, and in effect saying, ‘look there is a big problem in the naïve enlightenment view of humanity, which still dominates Western-culture, and here’s a better way of looking at it.’ And it will be very sympathetic, very friendly towards traditional Christian ideas of ‘The Image of God” and sin and so on, so in effect it will be absolutely rigorous in terms of engaging with where we are, but at the same time it will offer a perspective which often isn’t heard. And that will enter into a debate… I don’t know if you have read John Gray’s book, “Straw Dogs”, things like that. It really is entering into a big discussion underway right now about what is human nature that’s essential to so many political, social, and religious debates.

So is that a book-length treatment of what you probed at in Ch6, of the present book

AEM: Yes – that expanding it to a complete book, and taking off into new directions as well. Same readership, same length book, but the big topic is what’s in ch6 [of Imagining the Universe], but that will be expanded massively.

____________________________________

Alister McGrath is the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University, and Fellow of Harris Manchester College, Oxford. After initial academic work in the natural sciences, Alister turned to the study of theology and intellectual history, while also engaging in broader cultural debates about the rationality and relevance of the Christian faith. He is the author of many academic and theological works, as well as the bestselling The Dawkins Delusion and his acclaimed C. S. Lewis - A Life.

Book Notes: The Varieties of Religious Repression by Ani Sarkissian

It is sixty-eight years since the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights was signed. 

The lofty aspirations contained in that document have not been fulfilled, no more so, than those of its eighteenth article, which states: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." Outright persecutors of believers, such as the North Korean regime, are the obvious perpetrators of such human rights abuses. Less visible is what Ani Sarkissian calls “religious repression”. That is, violation of religious freedom by governments, which while not constituting full persecution, involves ongoing restriction, control and interference with religious people, organisations and activities. Her book, “The Varieties of Religious Repression: Why Governments Repress Religion” is an intelligent, rigorous and highly revealing study of the politics of repression implemented by non-Democratic governments, and is a most welcome addition to our understanding of a neglected field.

Sarkissian’s book uses an innovative typology of regimes which adds sophistication to our understanding of how governments behave. Regimes have traditionally been placed on a scale from fully-democratic, to completely autocratic. Sarkissian notes however, that while there was a tendency for more democratic regimes to repress religion less, “many states with low levels of political-competition… chose not to impose a large number of restrictions on religion, while some…. with relatively higher levels of political competition impose a large variety of restrictive regulations.” (p182). Instead she groups regimes into four categories; those who (i) repress all religion (e.g. China); (ii) those who repress all but one religion (e.g. Russia); (iii) those who repress some religions (e.g. Singapore) and (iv), those who do not repress religion (e.g. Albania). Using this schema, Sarkissian is able to demonstrate that it is not just levels of democratic participation in government which dictate the extent of religious freedom; but it is these in combination with the levels of religious division within the society which provoke governments to repress in the ways they do. 

Non-democratic regimes appear to repress on a basis of their own rational choices in their particular circumstances as follows; “states with very low political-competition that are religiously divided tend to repress all religious groups, while those with higher levels of political competition but less religiously divided societies repress none.” (p183). Then, “States in the middle of the political-competition and religious division scales, repress some religious groups”, while a “subset of states that have higher religious divisions but more competitive political systems target repression at all but one religious group.” (p183). The final conclusion is that some highly  autocratic regimes find it rational to allow genuine freedom of religion. The sixteen national case-studies with which Sarkissian illustrates her thesis are informative, well-crafted and compelling; and form the heart of the book.

The implications of Sarkissian’s work are important. Much western rhetoric and policy seems to assume that democratisation is an automatic route towards the flourishing of a full civil society, apart from the state. If that was true in the Cold War, it certainly does not reflect the complex realities of today’s world. Also, people of all faiths should beware of assuming that they have a monopoly on victimisation too, as state-repression by non-democratic governments affects all. Christians are, I think, provoked to move beyond simply invoking the inevitable enmity of the world to the church, to see that such tensions are mediated through political systems which can be understood and therefore reckoned with more wisely. She also notes that while she has studied non-democratic regimes, her work suggests that a democracy containing major religious divisions, and a single dominant political party, might equally begin to limit religious freedom (p185).

Sarkissian has done a great job in enhancing our understanding of the often fraught relationships between faith-groups and non-democratic regimes. She has done this by adding a vital layer of complexity to the ‘state’ side of the relationship. If the book has a weakness, it is simply that she has not done the same for the ‘religion’ side of the equation. There is a tendency throughout the book to treat ‘religion’ as a single phenomenon. That such a method is overly simplistic, in a world in which ‘religion’ leads some to armed jihad and others to pacifism, is obvious. Sarkissian acknowledges this in her closing remarks in which she both adds an afterword about the current problems in the Islamic world, and suggests that future research might nuance her model perhaps around a classification of religious behaviours. (p187) The reader is left hugely informed about how governments act, but also wondering how differently varying religious systems operate in this arena. Perhaps categorising religious groups according to their understanding of the state-religion relationship, would make a useful next step. Likewise, while this intriguing work of political science explains why regimes repress; it generally avoids the questions of political philosophy, such as what the legitimate limits of freedom are; and when governments are justified in imposing them.

Sarkissian’s “The Varieties of Religious Repression”, is an astute and penetrating analysis of one of the most critical contemporary issues. 

________

First published in Solas Magazine. Used with permission.

Book Notes: Dawkins' God, Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life by Alister McGrath

Alister McGrath's response to the various writings of Richard Dawkins is now a little out-of-date, having been published prior to Dawkins God Delusion (2006), in which Dawkins pushed his ideas even further. McGrath, it should be noted also responded to that book in The Dawkins Delusion? (2007) and updated this one. This volume from 2005, is however fascinating, and insightful, and gives some useful and sober background to the debates which became rather shrill after Dawkins somewhat ill-tempered subsequent diatribe.

McGrath began his academic career as a molecular biologist, which he pursued to PhD and research levels at Oxford. His subsequent career involved theology and the history of ideas, and a later PhD in that; leading to gaining the Andreas Idreos professor of science and religion at the University of. Oxford. The history of ideas is littered with people who are highly competent in one field, and as such do not appreciate their limitations in others. A recent notorious case involved a renowned theologian making foolish statements about science, simply failing to recognise the limits of his competence. McGrath is on the other hand a competent commentator here; and this is part of his complaint against Dawkins, that his scientific brilliance does not make him a good philosopher or guide to the meaning or purpose of life; in fact Dawkins very assertion that science is competent to do this, is the basis of the problem.

McGrath begins with a very useful guide to Dawkins main publications up until 2005. In good science/faith books, I often find that as someone with a very limited background in science (but having studied the history of ideas at some length), I learn more about science, than anything else. The admiration McGrath has for Dawkins academic work, especially his contribution to genetics (The Selfish Gene), is apparent, and his explanation of Dawkins work, is especially good, as his appreciation for Dawkins ability to communicate science to the public.

The conflict arises however when Dawkins moves from raw science, into the world of ideas, starting with The Blind Watchmaker. McGrath here, rather forcefully demonstrates that Dawkins repeatedly hammers one particular view of faith, which is actually a grotesque parody of what Christians (in particular) view it as. Furthermore, Dawkins expends great energy comparing what he sees as the Christian view of science, and demolishing it with science. McGrath's view is that this is the classic straw-man argument; because what he actually demolishes is William Paley's English 19th Century view of science, which was only ever a theological cul-de-sac, totally unrepresentative of Christianity as a whole, either historically, or today. McGrath's view is that Dawkins misleads his readers, as to the nature of faith, either by ignorance or deception, in order to maintain the 'warfare' model of science versus faith; which is at least a century and a half out of date. (!) The fact that McGrath provides several examples of places in which Dawkins misquotes, misreads or misunderstands faith positions and writers, only adds weight to his argument. That Dawkins re-cycles popular misquotations from church-history to score points suggests that he hasn't engaged with the things he wishes to dismiss, as carefully as his academic credentials would suggest that he might.

If McGrath is highly respectful of Dawkins work in biology, he is bordering on scathing about his attempts to use Darwinism as a tool for explaining how ideas work, Before it became social-media slang for a funny, satirical joke, picture or video shared across the internet; Dawkins proposed the "Meme", as the equivalent of the gene, in the realm of ideas. McGrath assesses the evidence for Dawkins view of the meme, and is withering in his dismissal of the concept, as unscientific. Dawkins end-point, of course, is to view any form of theism as a mental virus, an illness or form of insanity - rather than a reasonable response to the evidence we have. McGrath is deeply unconvinced, and explains why.

The book ends on what should have been a hopeful note; a plea for faith and science to actually engage with each other in an open, honest and respectful examination of evidence, search for truth and exploration of our humanity. Deploring closed minds on either side of the debate, McGrath hoped for a better standard of discussion. Looking back over the intervening years since McGrath wrote those words, it now seems rather sad, that despite such reasoned voices, there were those such as certain religious fundamentalists, and The New Atheists, who actually took this discussion to new lows.

It seems to me that while there are vast numbers of academics, pursuing research and adding to the sum of knowledge within their respective fields: human progress is held back by our failure to integrate the key insights of different disciplines. McGrath has at least done the hard work of reaching the heights of academia in two distinct arenas; and as such should at least be given a hearing when he critiques those who stand on one hill, dismissing out of hand, things they know little about on another. In this regard, the original edition of Dawkins' God (Genes, Memes and The Meaning of Life), is an excellent, if now slightly dated, place to start.

Book Notes: The Evolution of The West (How Christianity Has Shaped Our Values) by Nick Spencer

Although the high water-mark of the New Atheism has passed, argues Nick Spencer; one of its’ lasting influences has been the almost complete triumph of the secular attempt to airbrush Christianity from the cultural landscape. His book, “The Evolution of The West: How Christianity Has Shaped Our Values” is Spencer’s attempt to reverse this process and reacquaint us with the formative importance of Christian thought. Spencer’s argument is that The West, would not look as it does today, without the influence of Christianity; indeed much that liberals and secularists most cherish about the West, would not exist in its current form, were it not for this particular influence. However, the voices who wish to exclude Christianity from the contemporary public square, do so on the basis of this selectively amnesiac view of history. Spencer’s quest, in this absorbing and profound little book, is to meet such critics on their own terms, and demonstrate by careful and scholarly analysis, that such exclusions are unwarranted historically, and are therefore unjustifiable today.

Spencer frames each of his arguments extremely carefully, and is anxious to avoid the error of attributing every gain to Christianity. The obvious point that some Christians opposed Wilberforce, is enough to wreck some superficial attempts at historical apologetics. Spencer’s approach is far more nuanced, and as a result far more robust. His view is that both good and evil existed in our past in a deeply Christian context which influenced everything. “The tree of Western values did grow in Christian soil, but it would be a mistake to imagine that soil had some precise blueprint for what the tree would eventually look like”, he writes. (p6) Rather than drawing neat lines between social gains and Biblical proof-texts, Spencer demonstrates the way in which Christian thought was the structure within which all these debates were worked out; and an essential element in their outcomes.

While the scope and range of this book is enormous, and the ground covered in less than 200 pages astonishing; the beauty of it is Spencer’s ability to distil vast amounts of research into remarkably clear and concise theses. The book is a series of themed essays, which are so well presented that they enable the reader to gain easy access to difficult and complex areas.

In the twelve essays Spencer covers areas as diverse as the development of the rule of law, equality before it and due process; the formation of nation-states, democracy, Darwin, humanism, human rights, and welfare. In each of these areas he presents a historically viable case for the vital influence of Christian thought. Two areas seem to crop up repeatedly. Firstly there is Christian anthropology based on the imago dei. Secondly, there is the idea that the attempt to merely assert “human rights” and dignity as absolutes, without having a universal foundation to underpin them is insecure. The blunt instrument of the old ‘axe the root, and loose the fruit’ argument is re-stated here in elegant and nuanced tones, fit for the 21^st Century.

If there are any criticisms to be made of this book they are simply these. Firstly, chapter ten is written at a higher academic level than the rest of the book, making it rather uneven. More importantly though, there are times in which Spencer, in his quest to meet secular contemporaries on their own terms, somewhat underplays the value Christianity has added to the fields he assesses. Seeking only to present a scholarly case against the exclusion of Christian thought from the public domain, he doesn’t press his case further to seek to persuade the reader of the value or truth of the Christian message itself. In this way, he presents a very different assessment of Christianity and history than say Vishal Mangalwadi (previously reviewed in these pages). If Mangalwadi is accused of sometimes overplaying his hand in seeking to persuade; Spencer might be accused of underplaying his, in seeking to appeal to the cynical, secularist reader he has in mind.

What is undeniably the case is that the story of “how Christianity crafted the building blocks that made the West” has been lost, and that as a culture we are deeply ignorant of the “Deep reasons why the West became what it did” (p24). Spencer’s book is a superb corrective to this historical fallacy; which should quietly strengthen the Christian Church’s confidence to resist being silenced.

(Nick Spencer is the Research Director of Theos.)

_____

My review first appeared in Solas Magazine (www.solas-cpc.org), used with permission.

Obney Hill

Balhomish

Obney Hill is a tremendous viewpoint high above Dunkeld on the Murthly estate. On a scorching hot day my wife and I parked on the A822 just before Rumbling Bridge, and followed the estate road towards Balhomish Farm, signposted as footpath route "Bankfoot via Glen Garr".

We left the track to Balhomish and took the footpath through Glen Garr, which was an unexpected delight. Glenn Garr is a steeply sided gash through the hills which is an old right-of-way. It's a beautiful, and lonely place; we didn't see a soul, as we waded through the high bracken on the overgrown path through the glen. As we reached the south of the glen we followed a feint track up towards the summit of the hill. This path soon disappeared under the rampant vegetation, leaving us fighting through the head-high ferns, prickly gorse all on steeply rising ground. Eventually we broke through the overgrowth, and burst out into the glorious views of the upper reaches of Obney.

We opted for the straightforward descent down to Balhomish, following the signs around the farm, and back to the car down the estate road. Our children are (at last!) old enough to stay at home on their own and release us back into the wild, and onto Dunkeld for coffee and cake at the deli!

Inchmahome and Lake of Mentieth

My daughter has been reading about Mary Queen of Scots, at school. That seemed like enough of an excuse to go out for the day to Inchmahome Priory ruins on the island in The Lake of Mentieth. It was here that the young Mary was taken from her home in Stirling, to conceal her when Scotland was under threat of English invasion.

Apart from all that, it's a lovely place for a day out, a picnic and time with my daughter......