The Last Supper... would you like fries with that?!

As Christians prepare for Holy Week they will be drawn to remember Jesus' Last Supper with his disciples, the event which Communion/Eucharist is based on.



Recent research has shown however that in artistic depictions of this event portion sizes have significantly increased over time.
Could this be yet another sign of the overindulgent, materialistic Western lifestyle? So used are we to having all that we want, and more, that we find it hard to depict a celebratory meal with only meagre portions.
The implications of this can be seen in rising levels of obesity, especially in the USA.
From a broader perspective, this sort of attitude may well be responsible for collapse of the global financial system, where banks, being driven by greed, took ever increasing risks secure bigger profits. The price of this is that we may all have to tighten our belts and reduce our portion sizes as public spending looks set to drop and taxes look set to rise for years to come.
Exploitation in labour and trade is another symptom of putting profit and personal gain above all else. Many of our high street retailers have been shamed in recent years, due to their use of child labour in sweat shop conditions. How can such rich businesses put their finances above the lives of thousands... yet does the fact that I am wearing my Primark jumper as I write this highlight that this is not just an issue for businesses but for all of us?
The impact of working for profit and personal gain has also taken its toll on the environment and while we are being told to reduce our 'carbon footprint', the biggest polluting countries, USA and China, are very reluctant to sign up to any climate change plans, due to the financial impact.
The events of Holy Week have huge religious significance for millions of Christians but maybe the simple meal of the Last Supper can also have a far more down to earth and practical message for all of us in the 21st Century. One that doesn't require fries on the side...

Click for resources on Business and Environmental Ethics.

Why do atheists just not get 'it'?

I came across an interesting article in New Scientist that has turned the debate about belief in God on its head. It suggests that, given the prevelance of belief in God throughout history, all over the world, we should not ask , 'why do some people believe in God?', but rather we should study atheists to investigate why they do not.

Some prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins (actually Dawkins refers to himself as agnostic) have pointed out that statistically, theists are less intelligent than atheists, and that this may help answer the above question. However the article also suggests that when this is explored more deeply it is not that simple. It seems, for example,that post graduates are actually more likely to believe in God than not. The danger with statistics is that they can easily be skewed and viewed to support a number of different conclusions. I personally know some very intelligent theists and atheists, aswell as some that are not so intelligent in both groups too!

Dawkins, like many other atheists/sceptical agnostics, likes to point to the lack of scientific empirical evidence for God. While it is true that God's existence has not been disproved by science, Dawkins certainly has a point that many scientists argue that science does not point to a God and has shown some traditional theistic beliefs, regarding creation for example, to be incompatible with a modern view of the world. Yet many theists know this and still retain their faith. Is it because of their lack of intelligence? Well surely this is too much of a generalisation and does not account for the likes of John Polkinghorne who is a world class scientist and also a Christian minister. Embracing a scientific view of the world does not, it would seem, necessarily lead to atheism. So, does Polkinghorne have 'something' that Dawkins does not?

It is very hard to pin down why some people beleive in God and some do not and, in attempting to answer this question, it is very easy to rely on sweeping generalisations. It will be interesting to see what this study reveals. Until then the question still remains...

Why do atheists just not get 'it'?

Check out the article here.

What do you mean?

'Ghandi was good; Hitler was bad; honesty is right; killing is wrong...'






We use words such as 'good' and 'bad' all the time, often in an amoral sense, 'That was a good Theology lesson(!)', but, more importantly, we regularly use them in a moral sense.

But, what do we really mean when when we say, 'Hitler was bad'?

Do we mean...
He did things that are intrinsically wrong;
He did things that had negative consequences;
He did things which I personally feel are wrong;
He did things that the majority of people feel are wrong;
He did things that no people should ever do?

There are those, such as A. J. Ayer, who hold that ethical statements are no more than expressions of emotion. So if I say, 'The Iraq war was wrong' all I am really saying is 'Boo to the Iraq War' in the same way one may Boo at a pantomime villain. No proof can be offered as to whether the statement is true or not, it is simply how I feel. This is called Emotivism.

On the hand there are those who propose that moral statements are objective, something is either right or wrong. G. E. Moore suggested that we recognise 'good' intuitively, we simply know when we see it. We cannot, however, define goodness. For example I may say that charity is good, but this only says that charity has the quality of goodness, it doesn't actually say what goodness is. What it does do though is show that we do recognise goodness when we see it. This is called Intuitionism.

Others, such as F. H. Bradley, advocate that ethical statements are like any other, and that they can be shown to be the case. For example, 'Martin Luther King was a Baptist minister' can be shown by checking historical records, and equally 'Martin Luther King was a good man' can be shown by examing his actions and their results. As such, his goodness would not simply be my opinion, it would be shown to be objectively true. This is called Ethical Naturalism.

So when, for example, we hear Terry Pratchett arguing that it is right for people to be allowed to decide when they die, what does he actually mean? Is it what he would prefer; is it what would benefit most people or is he saying it is some sort of absolute right?

I wonder how many of us say we think things are right or wrong without really stopping to think what we actually mean?

To explore these ideas further click here.