Topics

Entries on this blog are exploring a number of themes including: environmental issues (e.g. Digging for coal, Climate Action Summit); establishing a basis for ethical decision-making (e.g. The Charter for Compassion; The basis for compassion); the need for a soundly based philosophy of life (e.g. London bus ad says ‘stop worrying’); and Christian theology and the natural environment (e.g. The church, the people and the coal mines).

For recent postings please see below.

Turning around the Queen Mary

The Australian Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, has spoken of ‘turning around the Queen Mary’ with reference to the difficulty of changing course in response to climate change. He used the expression when answering a question after his address to the National Press Club in Canberra on 15 December 2008 concerning the Australian Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Government’s approach uses low reduction targets and depends to a large extent on capturing and storing emissions.

I find the subject of ‘carbon capture and storage’ (CCS) extremely painful because it seems to me obvious that it is an option that will make our environmental problems worse. Why spend time, effort and resources on technology that will exacerbate the problems, when better options are available and there is an urgent need to concentrate on options that will be both quick and effective? Two obvious reasons are that fossil fuels are readily available and coal brings in large export earnings; but these are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

A combination of low government emission reduction targets and the promise of CCS seems a perfect recipe for disaster. It means placing a lot of emphasis on reducing emissions by a small amount, using an approach which perpetuates large emissions and presents the added problem of carbon leakage.

The CCS industry is not finding the recipe quite perfect. It is reported that ZeroGen, a company planning a new coal-fired power plant for Queensland in 2012 with underground storage of part of the plant’s emissions, has written to the Australian Government stating that the government’s 5 per cent carbon emissions reduction target is too low to make clean coal technologies economically attractive for investment (news.com.au, 19/1/2009). According to the report, under the Federal Government’s emissions trading scheme a coal-fired power plant would not have to pay for buried emissions, but ZeroGen is arguing that it should not have to pay for emissions into the air either, because of the high risk and expense associated with the demonstration plant. The company’s feasibility study, to be completed in 2009, has been supported by the Queensland Government ($100 million) and the Australian Coal Association ($25 million).

At the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi earlier this week (19-21 January 2009) the Australian Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, presented an address on emission reduction needs and technologies including CCS (19 January). The text is online on the Australian Government website. In her speech the Governor-General states that while CCS is ‘by no means the whole answer to capping global emissions, it is a vital part of it’, and the Australian Government will open a Global Carbon and Capture Storage Institute in Canberra as ‘an exciting initiative in the race to speed up the demonstration of carbon capture and storage technology around the world’. Founding members include a number of governments and companies, now joined by Masdar, the Abu Dhabi company that hosted the conference.

The Governor-General also refers to the Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the granting from Australia’s Renewable Energy Fund of up to $500 million over the next 18 months to assist companies developing renewable energy technology. She reports that ‘Geoscience Australia, our national agency for geoscience research, estimates for example that if we could extract a mere one per cent of Australia’s geothermal energy, it would account for as much as 26,000 times our annual energy consumption’; ‘And geo-thermal is a very clean source of energy that produces no waste.’ An Australian Solar Institute has also been established.

There is a recent media release from the Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, on the $100 million Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, to which the Government is expecting to contribute up to $100 million annually. According to the media release, coal is Australia’s largest source of export earnings and earned $43 billion (estimated) in 2008-2009. The Government has also established the National Low Emissions Coal Council and Carbon Storage Taskforce, and the National Low Emissions Coal Initiative. The latter is a $500 million program to support development and deployment of technologies for reducing emissions from the use of coal. The Parliament is considering legislation to allow carbon storage under the seabed for storage beginning in early 2009.

The $500 million Renewable Energy Fund includes $50 million for geothermal drilling. The Australian Solar Institute was launched in Newcastle on 15 January 2009, funded by $100 million from the Government’s Energy Innovation Fund. The Energy Innovation Fund is also providing $50 million for a Clean Energy Program for research and development in clean energy technologies (including renewable energy, energy efficiency, energy storage and hydrogen transport fuels).

Rising Tide Australia has on its website a paper entitled ‘Clean Coal’ which explains the disadvantages of CCS; there is also a pdf version with the title ‘”Clean Coal”: What’s the Story?’, by Rising Tide Newcastle, July 2007. The U3A Climate Study wiki has a section on Carbon Capture. There are Wikipedia articles on ‘Clean coal technology’, ‘Carbon capture and storage’, ‘Carbon capture and storage in Australia’, ‘Energy policy of Australia’, ‘Hot dry rock geothermal energy’ and ‘Geothermal energy exploration in Central Australia’.

According to Beyond Zero Emissions, ‘Any money spent on “yet to be proven commercially” solutions like geosequestration with coal (aka carbon capture and sequestration) and nuclear power (with 4th generation power stations that won’t be out of the design phase until 2020), will be wasting billions of dollars by adding an unnecessary intermediate step in reaching near zero and beyond zero goals. In view of the time frames required for these unproven and untested technologies, they would also be out-priced by ever cheaper renewables.’

In South Australia, Geodynamics Ltd under its Cooper Basin Development Plan envisages a demonstration hot fracture rock geothermal power plant by mid 2011. In reporting progress to date, the company notes that it is lobbying for a Transmission Super Highway between Adelaide and Brisbane with the Cooper Basin as a generation hub. Its submission of 15 October 2008 to Infrastructure Australia is available online.

Cultural and natural landscapes

Simon Schama has an article in the Guardian today on ‘The making of a president’ (20/1/09). He speaks of the power of Barack Obama’s oratory and Obama’s view that words are deeds.

Schama concludes: ‘But none of this would work if he did not do that simplest thing: tell the truth. That was the essence of his greatest speech on the campaign at Philadelphia on 18 March, when facing a firestorm over the unhinged denunciations of his pastor Jeremiah Wright. He could have wriggled out of it, let it cool down, done something judicious. But he didn’t. Instead, he grasped the burning stick and let things happen as they did. It added courageous decency to mere cleverness and it spoke of qualities that augur well for a leader in rough times.’

Simon Schama is professor of history and art history at Columbia University, New York. His work Landscape and Memory (1995) explores the human consciousness of the natural environment, as evident in cultural traditions and especially mythological accounts of the world. His TV series on ‘The American Future: A History’ was broadcast by the BBC in October–November 2008 and January 2009.

Jeremiah Wright, Jr.,  is a well-known American preacher. In March 2008 a controversy broke out over his views on racial relations in the United States and the place of the United States in the world. Barack Obama’s speech ‘A More Perfect Union’ addressed the issue of racial disharmony (18 March 2008). Obama argued that Wright’s comments on race reflected an anger that was understandable but not constructive.

Wright’s views were widely regarded as inflammatory and divisive at a time when unity and co-operation were needed. The controversy raises questions about how debate can proceed in a constructive way towards a desired objective when the debate involves different and conflicting cultural traditions, diverse orthodoxies, and a lack of consensus as to what the desired objective should be.

Experience in observing the character and interplay of cultural traditions generally should help us as we seek to come to terms with conflicting cultural responses to the natural environment, the disabling effects of disagreement over the meaning of the world in which we live, and the need to locate a reliable source of values to guide our practical and ethical decision-making. Nature is daily reminding us that we have to re-examine our cultural understanding of the natural landscape, find truth amid complexity, and quickly work towards a constructive and successful outcome.

Epicureanism and the Golden Rule

I cannot claim to be an expert on Epicurean philosophy, and I am very willing to be corrected on my interpretations of the evidence. I do believe that we have much to learn from the Epicurean approach of basing ethics on an understanding of the physical universe (i.e. nature and human nature). It seems to me a great mistake that Epicureanism was overshadowed by Platonism and other belief systems. Among other things, we would not have brought on ourselves an environmental crisis if we had followed Epicurus’s warning that we must live within the limits of nature.

The ‘Principal Doctrines’ of Epicurus, as reported by Diogenes Laertius in his Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers (Book X, 139-154), include a number which are relevant for understanding the Golden Rule. I quote below from the translation in Brad Inwood and Lloyd P. Gerson, The Epicurus Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia, Introduction by D.S. Hutchinson, Indianapolis – Cambridge, Hackett, 1994, p. 35.

According to Principal Doctrines nos. 31-33, justice is based on human beings’ willingness to enter into a pact not to harm one another or be harmed. Justice does not exist in the universe as ‘a thing in its own right’ (no. 33), but arises by human agreement. ‘The justice of nature is a pledge of reciprocal usefulness, [i.e.] neither to harm one another nor be harmed’ (no. 31). By contrast, animals are unable to enter into such a pact and so among them notions of justice or injustice do not apply (no. 32). The same can be said of nations unable or unwilling to form such a pact (no. 32); I am not sure that there are any, but in the state of knowledge in Epicurus’s day it may have seemed possible.

The Golden Rule of ‘Do to others as you would have them do to you’ seems to me to be another way of expressing mutual agreement to avoid causing harm. Epicurus sees such an agreement as the basis for justice. If that is so, then we can accept the Golden Rule as having a key role in forming a system of ethics.

In this context, I expect that whether we regard the Golden Rule as deserving a primary role in forming a system of ethics depends on how we understand justice in relation to other aspects of ethics, in particular notions of the ideal, the good and the right.

If we see justice as existing independently of human agreement, for example as having its source in the character of a divine being, then that will clearly influence our estimation of Epicurus’s point of view.

We need to remember that Epicurus did not dismiss the existence of the gods. In that regard it may be helpful to consider how he would understand the notion of a human pact in the light of possible correlations with the perfectly happy arrangements that could be envisaged as existing at the level of the divine.

The basis for compassion

Incredible as it may seem, there are some people who are strongly opposed to the Charter for Compassion (referred to in the posting of 17/1/09). Of course we have to wait and see what the final version of the Charter will say, but these people are not waiting. They are opposed to the idea in principle. Most blog references that I have come across are favourable, but there are some that are very unfavourable indeed.

One view is that the Charter is one more sign that we are living in the last days, when the world will unite and persecute Christians. There is some connection with the Woman of Babylon, though I didn’t stay long enough to work out what it was. More mainstream is the view that, if Jesus is the only one who saves, an emphasis on the Golden Rule as our highest duty cuts across that theology and must therefore be rejected.

This is a point that needs some reflection. According to a saying attributed to Jesus in Matthew 7:12, the injunction ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ (i.e. what is now called the Golden Rule) sums up the Law and the Prophets. Within the context of the Four Gospels, one could not get a higher recommendation for a principle than that. But Christianity adds to this concept the notion of belief in Jesus as a necessary precondition for the ability to fulfil the Gospel’s commands. So belief in Jesus must come first.

In addition, there is some disquiet that the Golden Rule should be regarded as belonging equally to all faith traditions. Granted that the idea is widely known, the fact surely remains that human beings are aware of the idea because the Christian God infused knowledge of it into his human creatures? On that view it is inappropriate to be focusing on the Golden Rule without paying respect to the God with whom it originated.

This raises the question of why the Golden Rule is so widely known and accepted in diverse cultural settings. Many of us have learned to realise that human beings, along with the rest of living species, have evolved to possess certain characteristics, and we can well understand that an acknowledgment of mutual interdependence might be one of these evolved traits (or an awareness associated with an evolved trait). This point of view is not acceptable to some religionists, so we have a debate on our hands to discover what the truth of the matter is.

C.S. Lewis took the view, in his work The Abolition of Man (1943), that there are ethical values which are part of the natural order but they are not inbuilt in the human being. The individual’s preferences for one value over another have to be inculcated by education, and it is wrong if a society fails to inculcate them in the young. According to Lewis we have to be aware that this leaves the system open to manipulation. Unscrupulous people can select one part of traditional morality and use it against the rest, so distorting people’s moral sense. This could ultimately mean the abolition of man as we know him. Man (i.e. human beings) would have intellectual and animal understanding but would lack the fine emotions in the middle that should join the two – they would be (in Lewis’s phrase) ‘men without chests’.

Is this really the case, or is there an inbuilt conscience that tells us (whether we follow it or not) that the Golden Rule (for example) is valuable and ought to be obeyed, and is there an inbuilt drive that enables us to follow it if we choose to do so? These questions have important implications for the debate over whether we need religion if we are going to be moral people. Do we have inbuilt capabilities to be moral people independently of what religion tells us? Or will we end up in a morass of amorality and immorality if we try to abandon religion?

The Charter for Compassion

TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) is an annual conference first held in 1984. Speakers are invited to give an eighteen-minute talk – ‘the talk of their lives’ – to present ideas worth spreading. The best of these are made available free to the public.

Each year the TED Prize is awarded to three individuals. Each receives $US 100,000 and the granting of ‘One Wish to Change the World’. They unveil their wish during the award ceremony held at the TED Conference. The TED community then helps to make the wish come true.

TED.com is a global community which anyone can join. The community, with millions of members, seeks to exchange and spread ideas. It is described as ‘a community welcoming people from every discipline and culture who have just two things in common: they seek a deeper understanding of the world, and they hope to turn that understanding into a better future for us all.’

TED2009, ‘The Great Unveiling’, is the 25th anniversary conference, to be held in Long Beach, California, 3-7 February 2009.

A ’sister conference’, TEDGlobal, originally to be held every other year in different countries but now to be held annually in Europe, has a stronger international perspective. Conferences held so far have been in Oxford, UK (2005) and Arusha, Tanzania (2007). TEDGlobal 2009, ‘The Substance of Things Not Seen’, is to be held in Oxford, 21-24 July 2009.

One of the 2008 TED Prizes was awarded to British author Karen Armstrong, a former Roman Catholic nun who now describes herself as a ‘freelance monotheist’ and specialises in the study of comparative religions.

Her wish was: ‘I wish that you would help with the creation, launch and propagation of a Charter for Compassion, crafted by a group of leading inspirational thinkers from the three Abrahamic traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and based on the fundamental principles of universal justice and respect.’

The Charter for Compassion takes the Golden Rule as fundamental to all world religions and aims to ‘inspire people to think differently about religion’. The public were invited to submit contributions for the Charter and a ‘Council of Sages’ has been working on the final wording.

According to the Charter for Compassion website, the  Charter does not assume that ‘all religions are the same’, ‘compassion is the only thing that matters in religion’ or ‘religious people have a monopoly on compassion’; but does affirm that ‘compassion is celebrated in all major religious, spiritual and ethical traditions’, ‘the Golden Rule is our prime duty and cannot be limited to our own political, religious or ethnic group’, and ‘therefore, in our divided world, compassion can build common ground’.

The Charter is intended to create a grass-roots movement around the document. It is not an organisation itself but is supported by a range of organisations as Partners.

The Charter seeks to show, ‘that the voice of negativity and violence so often associated with religion is the minority and that the voice of compassion is the majority. Through the participation of the grassroots, people around the world will expect more out of religious leaders and one another. In doing so, the Charter will shift conceptions of religion for all people.’

The church, the people and the coal mines

The Australian Greens leader Bob Brown is reported today as saying, ‘We now recognise the climate change emergency means that we have to be moving straight through to renewable energy and energy efficiency and gas can fight it out with the coal industry as to who’s the less polluting, but we need zero pollution in our new energy production’ (ABC website, ‘Natural gas industry urges compulsory usage targets’, 16/1/2009). This undoubtedly means discontinuing the use of fossil fuels, including coal and gas.

The great extent of the New South Wales coalfields can be seen very clearly on a map available on the website of the NSW Government’s Department of Primary Industries. The main area as shown on the map extends along the east coast under and either side of Sydney and inland in a generally NNW direction up to the border with Queensland. There is also a much smaller area a little north of Newcastle and another in the south of the state. A coal mine south of Sydney was mentioned in a recent blog posting (11/1/2009).

Under ‘Low emissions coal technologies’ the Department of Primary Industries’ website states that, ‘Burning coal to produce electricity is recognised as a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. NSW’s coal fired power stations account for about 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually.’

The Government is supporting two ‘clean coal projects’, a pilot project on the Central Coast to capture up to 5,000 tonnes of CO₂ a year using ammonia absorption technology, and proposed geosequestration at sites to be identified, to capture more than 50,000 tonnes per year beginning in around 2013.

If we assume a rate of 60 million tonnes per year and apply the stated figures of 5,000 and the proposed minimum 50,000, we arrive at a total of 239,980,000 tonnes during 2009-2012 and then 59,950,000 tonnes per year thereafter. On this basis, the proposed ‘clean coal’ options hardly make a dent in the figure of 60,000,000 (240,000,000 over four years). It would take more than four years, and far more than the minimum 50,000 tonnes from ‘around 2013′, for a significant difference to be achieved – if the technology works. Meanwhile, emissions continue. 

That is only part of the story. The figures from the website take no account of other emissions associated with the use of coal within the state (e.g. the burning of coal in steel-making) or emissions associated with the transport and burning of coal sent outside the state. Up-to-date figures and calculations would be needed to place the matter in more adequate perspective.

Here and elsewhere on the Department of Primary Industries’ website the Government indicates its commitment to coal mining. For example, under ‘New mines & projects in NSW – Coal’ (which appears to report developments to early 2008 ) we read that, ‘In the Hunter coalfield new coal mine developments along with significant mine expansions are likely to result in continued increased production from this coalfield in the medium term’; ‘In the Gunnedah coalfield, a number of small to medium sized coal mines are likely to commence operation in the next few years, with the potential for a couple of larger operations to commence within the next decade’; and so on.

If coal mining is disastrous for the environment, why does the Government continue to favour it? Under ‘Low emissions coal technologies’ we read: ‘Coal extraction is one of New South Wales most significant industries. Not only does coal contribute valuable dollars and jobs to the NSW economy, it also provides 90% of the electricity in NSW.’

Environmental groups have been protesting for years against coal mining in NSW. Every day the situation becomes worse, as more greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere, increasing the difficulties of getting them out again. Can we find a strong enough moral voice in the community to persuade the Government to ban coal mining?

In an article of 1 August 2008 entitled ‘Who will you elect?’, the Very Rev. Phillip Jensen, Dean of Sydney, argues that democracy does not work well because popular opinion cannot be trusted to do what is right and ‘popular opinion will always lead our leaders down hill’.

He quotes Lord Denning to the effect that law needs morality and morality needs religion. (Baron Denning (1899-1999) was a famous British jurist, and president of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship in the UK for nearly forty years.) Dean Jensen argues that because religion is necessary Christianity has a vital role to play in promoting moral decision-making. In his view, ‘only when the community has an agreed moral compass can our politicians choose the good of the society over the personal desires of sinfulness’, and this requires that the church preach the Gospel and teach the scriptures.

This argument commits the church to a role of influence in the present world order. If the church accepts this role, there can surely be no doubt that it must move quickly to persuade governments to close the coal mines on the grounds that they are contributing to ecological damage and the destruction of life and that there is no morally acceptable alternative to stopping without delay the extraction and burning of coal.

The changeable word of God

The Sydney Anglicans website carries a glowing review of The Essential Jesus (John Dickson, ‘The Essential Jesus’, 14/1/09). The book contains a recent translation of the Gospel of Luke, with brief introductory material and at the end a page headed ‘Where to from here?’ and a section with six points on ‘Why Jesus is essential’. The review notes that appended material derives from a Gospel summary known as ‘Two Ways to Live’. The review is not academic but is obviously intended to encourage people to support and distribute the book. The Anglican Diocese of Sydney is sponsoring distribution of copies to Sydneysiders as part of its Connect 09 mission.

To those promoting the mission the upbeat tone of the review is no doubt welcome. But to those who want a scholarly review of the book it is a piece of showmanship. Today in Sydney, with the temperature climbing into the forties and the world destined to be hotter in future years, we do not need showmanship. In the midst of ecological collapse we are in a life and death struggle for existence on behalf of ourselves, our children, our grandchildren and future generations. In matters of belief about the world we need critical enquiry and evaluation, and solid answers.

With regard to this translation of the Gospel of Luke, we need to know why a new translation was needed; whether it contributes anything new apart from clarity of style; where it differs from other translations and why; to what extent other translations should be rejected because they differ; what Greek text base was used; what theory of textual history justifies the wording chosen for translation; and how close the wording is considered to be to the earliest form or forms of the work.

Let us continue the list of story elements which Gospel preachers want us to accept as fact. Five elements were noted in an earlier blog entry (‘The God who isn’t there’, 13/1/09).

6. The Bible is the word of God. Some passages in some biblical writings assert that parts of what is now called the Bible are of divine origin or inspiration. These claims require evaluation. There is no basis for the view that the Bible as a whole is the word of God. That is a purely human tradition.

7. The four New Testament Gospels separately and together provide an accurate historical account of Jesus despite any differences and contradictions that they may present. The Gospels represent different and to some extent conflicting theological viewpoints, reflecting different ways in which the figure of Jesus was interpreted in early Christian tradition. We have to dig through layers of tradition to try to work out what really happened.

8. The sayings of Jesus in the Gospels are uniformly reliable evidence for what Jesus said. The sayings belong to various layers of tradition. We have to distinguish between materials that may be original and materials that developed in the course of subsequent tradition.

If any of the numbered statements is shown to provide an inadequate summary of a story element, I will be happy to amend it. If anyone can offer a convincing argument substantiating any one of the statements, I will be happy to record it on this blog.

The Hansen–Obama correspondence

On 29 December 2008 the climate scientist James (Jim) Hansen and his wife Anniek wrote a letter to US president-elect Barack Obama and his wife Michelle pressing the need for urgent action on climate change.

The argument of the letter is based on recent scientific findings, especially concerning the life-threatening consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuels, and an assessment of possibilities in introducing changes of practices world-wide.

Given the scientific consensus on the causes and effects of greenhouse gas emissions, it is no longer a case of asking whether something should be done, but a matter of working out what can be done to save the situation by stabilising the climate within safe limits.

The main culprit is the burning of coal. It is not enough to slow down the rate at which coal is burnt. The use of coal must be stopped, unless the harmful output can be captured. The pre-industrial level of atmospheric carbon dioxide was 280 parts per million; the safe amount is said to be no more than 350 and probably less; the present amount is 385 and increasing.

The letter makes three main recommendations: (1) coal emissions must be phased out rapidly; (2) a carbon tax with 100% dividend must be introduced; and (3) fourth-generation nuclear power must be investigated as an option in case renewable energy sources do not prove adequate.

Point (1) involves halting installation of coal-fired power plants and phasing out existing plants. Point (2) means taxing carbon emissions and distributing the income to individuals; individuals are themselves taxed on their carbon footprint; this cancels out the tax income they receive until they reduce their carbon footprint sufficiently. Point (3) involves research and development on nuclear power that can use materials currently stored as nuclear waste.

The letter has an unflattering reference to Australia: ‘Australia exports coal and sets atmospheric carbon dioxide goals so large as to guarantee destruction of much of the life on the planet.’

The letter is largely focused on technical responses to the problems of climate change. The technical choices depend to a significant extent on what societies around the world are prepared to do. If societies were prepared to move with speed and determination to reduce energy consumption, stop using fossil fuels and embrace renewable sources of energy, there would be less need to contemplate the hazardous option of nuclear power and the untried option of carbon capture.

This presents an urgent challenge to those who have moral influence in the community. A clear view is needed of the situation that has to be faced; of the certainty of permanent harm and wasted time, effort and resources if morality-based interventions are withheld; and of the options available for securing rapid changes in attitude and lifestyle.

Given the urgency of the situation, it is imperative that immediate attention be given to these issues as a matter of the highest priority. We and future generations will only be saved by a re-focusing of attention and effort in our ethical and practical decision-making.

The God who isn’t there

Recently two Jehovah’s Witnesses called and gave me a copy of their journal Awake!, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I was grateful for the opportunity to talk to two fellow human beings about the ‘big issues’ of origins, meaning and destiny. I had to tell them that I did not agree with their point of view, that I thought they were linking ethical concepts with a story that cannot be substantiated.

The January 2009 issue of Awake! includes an article on ‘The Water Crisis: What Is Being Done?’ (pp. 5-7). Under the heading ‘The Ultimate Solution’, the article claims that human beings have failed in their God-given responsibility to take care of the planet, instead mismanaging the earth’s resources with devastating consequences, but Jehovah will ‘restore the elements of our earth to a perfect balance’ and ‘make all things new’ (p. 6).

This obviously provides a comforting story for those who believe it, but is it true? It depends on taking statements in the Bible at face value, as if they were reliable statements of fact. If the statements concerned are wishful thinking, then the basis for accepting the story as factual evaporates. There is no evidence that biblical accounts of the end of the world (as in the book of Revelation) are anything more than the speculations of some people in antiquity. We would be foolish to rely on these materials as a guide to the future of the planet.

Such claims are not limited to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. There are claims on the Sydney Anglicans website which are equally misleading. For example, a new article on the website makes a number of claims in responding to the atheist advertising campaign on buses in the UK which asserts that ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life’ (Narelle Jarrett, ‘There’s probably no God’, 13/1/2009). The author correctly argues that the wording of the advertisement lacks logic. Why should one stop worrying and enjoy life because there is probably no God? On the contrary, as the author points out, the Christian Gospel is able to offer the prospect of worry-free enjoyment on the grounds that there is a God of a particular kind.

The Anglican evidence for this view comes back to the same basis as that relied on by the Jehovah’s Witnesses – the reliability of statements in the Bible. Many believers would add that there is also the evidence of personal experience of the divine; but the Christian case depends on the authority of the biblical writings.

Human beings are clearly adept at making up stories about life that offer comfort and hope in the face of uncertainty and fear, including uncertainty and fear about God and death. From the article on the Anglican website one can assemble a number of elements that are used to sustain a story, including the following selection:

1. The biblical writings have an authenticity that guarantees their statements about God and the world (‘the authenticity of the Bible documents’).

2. The first words of the book of Genesis were written a little after 2000 bc (‘almost four thousand years ago’). This part of Genesis has been attributed to a priestly source containing materials written well after the presumed time of the Exodus, which is often dated to the 13th century bc. If Genesis 1:1 is earlier, in what historical context was it written?

3. Thousands of people condemned Jesus in Jerusalem but soon after became Christians (‘the thousands of men and women in Jerusalem who became Christians even though they had, just a few weeks earlier, participated in the condemnation of Jesus before Pilate’).

On the basis of these and other story elements we are encouraged to reject the atheists’ claim and believe that, ‘There is God! Stop worrying and discover him.’

Let us add a few more story elements that need substantiation. The first is from elsewhere on the Anglican website, and found in material associated with the forthcoming Connect 09 mission of the Sydney Anglican Diocese. The second is a general Christian expectation.

4. The Gospel of Luke was written by a doctor named Luke. This is contradicted by a recent book: Rick Strelan, Luke the Priest: The Authority of the Author of the Third Gospel, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2008.

5. No matter how much of a mess human beings make of the world, in the end it will not matter because God will transform the world to a state of perfection, in which a limited number of individuals will be able to enjoy a perfectly happy afterlife for ever.

Our response to such story elements affects our attitudes to current personal, social and global issues. There is a widespread public need for clarification of the extent to which statements along these lines can be adequately substantiated.