Russell Brand on celebrity

I'm not a huge fan of Russell Brand, but I have to say, when he's in thoughtful mood he can actually be very insightful. In this interview with Jeremy Paxman I think he's very perceptive concerning the replacement of serious ideology in our society with vacuous celebrity and the desire for a narrative. Also very interesting is his assessment of the total emptiness of fame and the need for something deeper.

It's worth sticking to the end as he reveals the conclusion that we need a god. I don't know the nature of what Brand believes, but it is interesting that someone of his publicised nature should come to that conclusion.

Thoughts on the John Terry racism saga

With the not guilty verdict rendered in the John Terry/Anton Ferdinand racism case, it is important that the right conclusions are drawn, and the correct future actions taken. So, in no particular order, here are some of my thoughts on the issue - feel free to add your own opinion in the comments.

1. Football has issues - I think it is fair to say that the way footballers speak to each other on the pitch is pretty appalling. Sledging takes place in many sports (it is a time-honoured tradition in cricket), but only in football is it so utterly foul-mouthed. Much has been made in the newspapers of what they like to refer to as 'industrial' language. Having had a fair bit of experience working in an 'industrial' context, I can testify that such language is common, but it is very rarely used in such an aggressive and directly abusive way - football stands apart on that. For all their 'Respect' campaign and handshakes, the FA have clearly failed to engender a sense of basic human decency in players - oh for more of the Iker Casillas spirit, who on seeing Italy suffering at 4-0 at the end of the Euro final, urged the goal-line official to tell the referee to end the match out of respect. No wonder neither Terry or Ferdinand wanted this in court - neither have appeared in a favourable light. Even if Terry was not racist, neither player has demonstrated themselves to be a paragon of virtue.
2. This shouldn't have gone to court - This decision puzzles me. Why, of all the offences committed on a football pitch, was this one picked for trial? Why was the Suarez case not considered serious enough, and yet this one was? (Why is Terry not similarly up for assault after the second leg against Barcelona?) The FA should have dealt with this quickly, like the Suarez affair, recognising that as a sporting body, the burden of proof is not so heavy (the ICC had handed out its own spot-fixing sanctions long before the corresponding criminal trial had started). With the evidence available, it was never going to be established beyond reasonable doubt that Terry had racially abused Ferdinand - so why? All we have achieved is an undedifying opportunity for the * to compete with the letter e for 'most commonly used character'.
3. Other victims will be more reluctant now - possibly the most serious of the repercussions from this case is that players who are already reluctant to come forward will now be even more reticent. The judge commended Ferdinand for his bravery in testifying, which is a fair comment, considering the appalling hounding he has had from members of the public. As with the Liverpool fans in the Suarez affair, people side with their team rather than wanting justice and condemning racism as they should. The FA could have dealt with this, handed Terry a sanction that he cares about (a ban to a footballer is much worse than a measly fine in this financial era) and demonstrated that racism is not to be tolerated. Out of fairness the criminal justice system requires greater proof, and therefore it was inevitable that they could not convict. It essentially boiled down to one man's word against another - and that is not enough to overturn the legal presumption of innocence (this is as it should be, but poses difficulties in cases like this). Will other players come forward knowing that they may not even see justice done?
4. Terry's story did hang together - a lot of people came to their own conclusions before the trial on the basis of YouTube footage. Having read Terry's defence and watched the footage, it does actually make sense to me. His body language as he speaks can be interpreted as a sarcastic dismissal of an alleged accusation. Personally, I find it slightly more believable than the judge did. It is worth noting that the judge concludes that Terry did not change his story and was consistent throughout - whether it is true or not, there was not enough evidence to contradict him. People have compared this case to OJ Simpson's trial, but I don't think it's that clear-cut. I think Terry's explanation is legitimately plausible, whether it is true or not.
5. The FA has work to do - the difficult of the FA waiting until after the trial to carry out their own work is that it may become harder to act contrary to the legal verdict. This season has made it clear that racism is not dead in football, or in the wider country - it is good in one sense that such an issue is made of this, because we do not want a return to the late 70s and early 80s. They must make sure that racism is not tolerated, but they need to go further. Football has long been worse than other sports for language used, both between players and towards officials. Perhaps miking up the ref might help - in rugby it ensures players talk to the ref in an acceptable manner. Football should enforce these things more - players can learn pretty fast when they have to!
6. Where does this leave freedom of speech? - this is more a question than a comment. Should this even be a legal issue? Let me be clear, I think it is perfectly acceptable for the FA to forbid racist language around football grounds - every employer and professional organisation reserves the right to make codes of conduct, and I think that is right for the FA to do so. However, as a firm believer in freedom of speech, should the law of the land adjudicate on this matter? Let us assume that Terry was guilty of a racial slur - should he be legally prevented from saying it? Why has he been singled out? He was not inciting violent behaviour, he was not encouraging people to assault or discriminate against black people - it was an insult. Where is the line drawn at legally acceptable language? Should ginger hair-based insults be illegal? What about sexuality-related insults? I do not condone it by any means, but part of me is disturbed that this can become an issue for a criminal trial. As Voltaire said: 'I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'. Thoughts? Are there things that it should not be acceptable to say? Should all things be sayable? If we legally forbid people saying things that are commonly agreed as wrong, does it open up the way to more severe censorship?

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to chip in, especially with your opinions on the last point.

God is not the 'god' of philosophy Part 2: The Trinity

I originally posted an article of about 3000 words that I realised that only a few people would have the inclination to read. So, obeying a rule of blogging, I'm going to repost it in more manageable chunks. This is the introduction, more to follow.

In my earlier post on the way western Philosophy approaches the question of God, I talked about the problem of starting with ourselves as the ultimate authority rather than finding out what God is like from Him. The consequence is that we don't know truly who God. He has to tell us. This means that we don't get the most important and distinctive teaching of Christianity and the vital implications of it.

These posts will talk about the Trinity. This is the teaching of the Bible that God is not a singular entity, but three persons - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three persons who are distinct in their roles and yet equal and completely united by love and united in their purpose. Not one lump of 'god stuff' that appears in three different ways (that's called 'modalism'), but three persons. The best analogy is marriage as the Bible describes it - the idea of two people who come together as 'one flesh'. Deuteronomy 6:4 says 'the Lord is one' - but this is not 'one' meaning 'single', but 'one' meaning 'united'.

The three states of water analogy - that's modalism Source here.

This isn't polytheism either (belief in multiple gods - e.g. ancient Greece and Rome), note that the persons of the Trinity are named by their relationship to each other. God the Father is not like Zeus - Zeus would get on without the others because they are independent beings - the persons of God are more inter-dependent. If it seems hard to understand, don't worry - humans aren't trinitarian beings, so if you think you've totally got it, you probably haven't quite and a lot of erroneous understandings of the Trinity come from trying to bring it within human understanding too much. But that doesn't mean we can't get blown away by the implications of the Trinity.

You may be wondering at this point what makes this particular teaching so amazing, interesting maybe, but not setting your soul on fire (maybe it is already). Well, there are several things about God being trinitarian that makes Him absolutely wonderful, and will make you realise you never want to settle for anything less. I'll address them in each of the following posts, and hopefully you'll see how the Trinity impacts the way we think about everything in Christianity and why it is (apart from understanding salvation by Christ alone) the truth that has had the single biggest impact in my own Christian life.

God is not the 'god' of Philosophy: Part 1 Reasoning From Ourselves

I may be a computer scientist, but philosophy has been one of my casual interests for a few years. Recently, however, there's something about Western philosophy that bothers me. Western philosophy spends a lot of its time debating questions about God and whether God exists, which is fine, it's the most important topic there is, but the more theology I read, the more I feel that philosophy doesn't do a good enough job. In fact, what I've come to think, is that the approach to the question is fundamentally flawed.

It's a bit of a long old topic, so I'll do it over two posts, but I want to look at the key points that we really need to know about God that we just can't get from philosophy, and why.

Problem 1: Reasoning from ourselves

Philosophers are the intellectual descendants of the Greeks, via the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. What this means is that rationality is terribly important. In other words, if I think long enough and logically enough about something, I can work it. Well, that seems fair enough - that's basically how science works (with the addition of using experiments to establish the validity of the reasoning). But the problem is that it's actually a bit of an arrogant attitude, believing that everything is within the capacity of human thought - and so it works fine for the world around us that we can grasp, but when it comes to the transcendent, things beyond our environment, it's simply not enough.

'School of Athens' by Raphael - Aristotle & Plato in the centre. Source here.

I'll be frank, I'm fully convinced that we can establish the existence of a deity by looking at the world around us. I think it's patently obvious - and I think there's a certain degree of wilful blindness going on when it comes to thinking otherwise. However, even accepting that, it's difficult to go much further than that if we start from ourselves. Starting from me and my experience of the world, plus the experience of others, just doesn't give us enough.

Using the world and our reason as our only sources of information about a god leaves us with an open question, such as the Buddhist answer (the Buddha is quite an adept analyst of the problematic state of the world and how it seems to work, but Buddhism doesn't give us a lot of concrete answers about why it's that way), or perhaps with the polytheism of the ancient world (we laugh at the Greco-Roman ideas, but it had a certain logic to it - they were simply interpreting the world as they saw it), or perhaps the atheistic approach - which rather than explaining everything with lots of gods, tries to explain everything with no gods at all. These ideologies get some things right - they all identify that life is often full of difficulties and suffering (esp. if you live outside the shelter of the first world middle classes) - but they conclude that therefore, the ruling force behind it all is of the same temperament. The Greco-Roman gods were capricious and cruel, the blind forces of evolution are bloody and thoughtless, the machine of Karma is, whilst fair, unmerciful.

The Buddhist Wheel of Life, depicting the cycle of reincarnation. Source here.

But what if God is deeper than that? What if the state of the world as we perceive it doesn't tell the whole story? What if, in fact, this is not the way things were to start with, and the confused state of the world reflects a bigger picture?

The Bible paints a picture of a God love and mercy, who created the universe by His power for the enjoyment of the creation. The purpose: to display His glory - which is exhibited first and foremost in His love. 1 John 4:8 says 'God is love'. Love is the very essence of who God is, and He created the universe to display His love. The pinnacle of that creation? Humanity, made in His image, to enjoy a relationship with Him so that they can have the joy of marvelling at His greatness and knowing Him personally. That, however, is a far cry from the world we live in. A world of disease, disaster and death hardly seems the work of such a God. The answer in many ways is a simple one, sin. Mankind's rejection of God's love and God's wisdom, pursuing self-interest and self-gratification. Buddhism spots this problem of sin and the selfishness of mankind. Karmic justice is its answer - bad actions now mean a bad life later, good actions now, a good one. The ultimate goal? Escape the cycle into oblivion in Nirvana. However, there is no explanation (as far as I know) as to why the world is this way. The Bible tells us why - Adam sinned, and from that the whole of creation is fallen, destined for destruction - it's been ruined. But the Bible it also gives us hope. It doesn't tell us to do everything we can to escape existence, rather it gives us a promise of a new creation, populated by those who have been saved from the horror of sin. And that hope comes because of the death and resurrection of Jesus taking the place of punishment and rejection that rightly belongs to those who have wrecked God's perfect creation - in other words, us. God has not given us up to destruction - He is redeeming and renewing us. All who put their trust in Jesus and His perfect work, rather than relying on themselves, are forgiven, made new - and will have eternal joy in the new Heavens and new Earth.

Source here

And this is where philosophy fails us. It cannot tell us any of that. It can only look at a snapshot of the part of the world we can see. So you have to go a step further - rather than starting with man and reasoning to god, go to the source of knowledge - start with God and work back. To do that we need God to reveal Himself - who He is, what His plan is, what He is like. God has done just that. Through His words in the Bible, and in person and in action through Jesus Christ. Jesus claimed that if you have seen Him you have seen the Father (John 14:9-11) - in other words, Jesus is God, and thus He reveals God and His character to us.

How is that character displayed? What is God like? Jesus displays God's character and heart on the Cross. When the Son of God - through whom the very world was created (see John 1) - humbled Himself to become part of His creation and the immortal, eternal God was killed - by His creation, by those very people He came to save - in order that they could be saved from the destruction that they had wilfully brought upon themselves.

As I commented the other day, our God, the true God, is humble and powerful, but, above all, love. More on that in the next post.