It is very easy to recognise failings in others. The recent release of the Epstein files has brought this into sharp focus. Jeffrey Epstein appears to have been a serial user of women and girls, some as young as fourteen. Such actions are rightly reviled. It is easy to point such behaviour out and say how evil it is, in part because most of us, and most people, do not participate in that particular kind of evil.
Some Christian Facebook friends have posted and reposted with energetic enthusiasm about the need to, and their right to, call out evil. This has included accusations about business people, politicians, and film and music stars.
But the evil we are primarily directed to call out is the evil that resides in our own hearts. There are never any circumstances where it is right to pass on false witness or gossip, or stories which float across our timeline which we cannot verify, or to call people names, including politicians who have views that differ from ours.
In relation to this, and to Epstein’s offenses in particular, I have seen repeated use of Matthew 18:6: “If anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” This is usually accompanied by some reference to how vile child sexual offenders are, and how they deserve everything they get. Of course offences against children are indeed vile and deserve matching punishment.
But this is not what Matthew 18:6 is about. The words “little ones” here do not refer to children, though children can be included in that group. The underlying Aramaic word is “zeʿorē.” Although it is not etymologically related to our word zero, the similarity can remind us that Jesus is talking about those we do not see, people who are zeroed out. This can include unborn children, male victims of domestic violence, refugees, prisoners, people who are homeless or suffer from addiction or mental illness.
Most of us, by the grace of God, are not tempted to abuse children. But we all have blind spots, where our greed or political views, or sheer lack of interest, make certain groups of people invisible.
Rather than worrying and reposting about what other people have been doing or might have been doing, let’s take Jesus’ words to heart and start thinking more carefully about what we ourselves have NOT been doing; going out of our way to care for the little ones, the people society zeroes out.
Spotify is not your friend ☹ And it’s certainly not ours.
My band Hitstax spends a lot of time thinking about the stories we want to tell. More time, sometimes a lot of time, finding words to tell the story. There has to be rhythm in the words – scansion. There has to be a consistent rhyming scheme, but without ever compromising on meaning.
Then coming up with a melody that fits the words. Then realising that tune doesn’t work and coming up with another one. Then finding a second but related melody for the bridge if there is one. Then thinking about instrumentation that works with the melody, and even more important, brings the story to the front.
For example, ukelele and slide guitar to create a Hawaiian surf feel for Shadows in the Golden Sea – an allegory for life. Or clashing guitars and weird synths to make a heavy, strange, and sinister atmosphere for Inferno (based on Dante and not yet released). Or cello, piano and gentle choir to match the thoughtful, sombre mood of Silent Shore, based on Kenneth Slessor’s great Australian war poem Beach Burial.
This is the main reason we don’t have a “style” – because the story comes first, and every story is different. In doing this, I think we have created a couple of entirely new genres. There is nothing that sounds like our Western rock songs with Indian instrument and rhythm overlay like Build Again, and no, it’s not Bhangra. Nor is there anything that sounds like our heavy swamp rock, like Voodoo Call.
And then you stream these songs on Spotify and you can’t tell a flute from a goose fart, or a oboe from your elbow, because it sounds someone has dumped a wheelbarrow of mashed potatoes over the speakers. In the free version of Spotiface you can’t play the songs you want, you are drowned under ads, and you might as well forget about the music. It’s all mashed potato.
But the final straw is that Sloptify is simply not honest in reporting plays. We have run a couple of small Facebook promos. For Out Of My Way and Hey Honey Honey, likes were almost an exact match for plays. Some people played them and didn’t leave likes on FB. A few people left likes but didn’t play the song. But it evens out. Last week we ran a highly targeted promotion for Ran Chandi Ride Again, a patriotic song for India. Over 70,000 likes. 70,000! And over 400 positive comments. How many plays did Snotify record over that same period? 37. Not real, and not fair.
It’s not so much the money that bothers me. Spottibutt only pays 0.1 cent per play. 1,000 plays will earn you a dollar. $70 would be nice but whatever. It’s more that that number of plays in a few days would trigger algorithms that lift our other songs. Or that’s what they tell us.
Anyway, we have three tracks in the release timeline for Slagifly, but I think that will be it. No more. All of our releases will go to Soundcloud, and some of the other high definition services like Tidal. You can find all the songs I mentioned above on Soundcloud (except Inferno).
Recently someone complained to me online that he could never consider Christianity because computer modelling had shown that without the Church’s interference, science would be 400 years further advanced than it is.
There is no evidence of any computer modelling claiming that science would be 400 years more advanced without Church suppression. This assertion stems from debunked claims propagated in 19th-century “conflict thesis” books like John Draper’s History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874), often visualized in misleading graphs showing stalled progress during the Middle Ages. Such graphs claiming massive delays of 400–1,000 years circulate online but have been labelled “complete bulls*#t” by historians.
Even if such computer modelling had been conducted, it could tell us nothing new. Computer models cannot produce new information. They can only give back what is input, sometimes presenting information in new ways. They reflect the information and assumptions put into them.
The only objective way a delay caused by Christianity could be measured would be to compare the development of science in the West with the development of science in other societies. But this cannot be done, for the simple reason that the Christian West is the only place where the scientific method, and science itself; the careful, systematic, objective study of material reality for its own sake, ever developed.
But how can this be, if Christianity is the great oppressor of science? There are two answers to this question. First, Judeo-Christian metaphysics are a necessary foundation for science. And secondly, far from being an oppressor of objective study and truth-seeking, the Church has always been the great supporter and defender of science. I will explain each of these claims in turn.
I am not the first to notice that science arose only where Christianity was the common faith. For example:
“The fundamental paradigm of science; its invariable stillbirths in all ancient cultures and its only viable birth in a Europe which Christian faith in the Creator had helped to form.” Stanley L. Jaki, Theologian and physicist, The Road of Science and the Ways to God.
“Theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom, religion and science not only were compatible; they were inseparable.” Rodney Stark, Historian, For the Glory of God.
But why? What are these theological and metaphysical assumptions that are unique to the West, and underpin the development of science?
Science and the scientific method could only take hold in a world view that:
The material world is objectively real, not simply an illusion; why would you bother to investigate something that wasn’t real?
The material world is good – something worth investigating, not an evil to be escaped from
That the material world is ordered according to rules which can be investigated and understood, and not by the whim of inhabiting spirits or an god who rules by fiat
And finally, that faith has nothing to fear from the truth.
This is the standard Western understanding of reality, so it seems difficult to many Westerners to imagine that people could think otherwise. But in reality this combination of beliefs is uniquely Judeo-Christian. This is why science, the systematic and objective study of reality for its own sake, has taken root and flourished in the West as nowhere else, which has in turn given the West enormous advances and advantages in science and technology.
The usual response to this claim by detractors is: “But what about Galileo?” The fact that most people can think of only one possible counter-example in 2,000 years of Church history is itself telling. In reality, Galileo was never tortured, never imprisoned, and was always free to teach the Copernican theory as a theory, as had been done in other Catholic universities throughout Europe since heliocentric theory was first proposed by Nicholas Copernicus, a Catholic priest. When talking about this period in history, “Catholic universities” is a tautology. By the year 1500 there about 100 universities in Europe; every one of them was Catholic.
The issue with Galileo was that the Church insisted students be taught every reasonable alternative, with the evidence for and against, and allowed to make up their own minds. Galileo refused to teach anything except his own pet theories. In many of these, he was completely wrong. For example, as Einstein noted in 1953, Galileo’s theories about tidal action were nonsense. Galileo believed the rings of Saturn were not rings but a large moon on either side. He was savage in his attacks on Jesuit astronomer Orazio Grazzi, who correctly described comets as small heavenly bodies, while Galileo insisted they were reflections shining on vapours rising from the earth. In each of these instances, Galileo refused to teach or consider any other possibility.
As philosopher of science and Berkeley professor Paul Feyerabend noted, it was the Church, not Galileo, which was on the side of reason and science: “The Church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and… her verdict against Galileo was rational and just.” Paul Feyerabend (from Against Method, 1975).
Add to this that Catholic priests were founders of several branches of science. Marin Mersenne (1588-1648), a priest of the Minimite order, founded the science of acoustics (the physics of sound), and advanced music theory and knowledge of prime numbers. The science of geology started with the work of Bl. Nicolas Steno (1638-1686), who discovered the origin of sedimentary rock and fossils and established the laws of stratigraphy. One of the founders of astrophysics was the Jesuit priest Angelo Secchi (1818-1878), who pioneered the use of spectroscopy to study stars and developed the first systematic classification of them. The Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) is regarded as “the father of genetics.” The Big Bang theory was first proposed by Fr. Georges Lemaître (1894-1966), a Belgian priest and theoretical physicist.
These are only a tiny proportion of the total number of Catholic scientists who have made major contributions. There is a list on Wikipedia, which, impressive as it is, includes only lay people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lay_Catholic_scientists A list of clergy, including those I mentioned above, would be just as long.
In the late 1700s, one quarter of all the astronomical observatories in the world were run by the Jesuit order, as is the Vatican Observatory to this day. The Jesuits were also pioneers in the field of seismology, their far-flung missionaries setting up seismological stations around the globe.
It is worth noting that the medieval Church held natural science (then called “natural philosophy”) in such high esteem that it was a prerequisite for studying theology in medieval universities.
The Church’s insistence that students be presented with the evidence for and against all reasonable theories on any issue, required to do their own research, encouraged to make up their minds on the basis of the evidence, and then calmly and rationally argue their point of view with their professors and other students, is still the key to effective learning, in opposition to agenda driven lecturing.
Now, as for the last 2,000 years, the Church remains the patron and defender of science.
I have been thinking lately about kindness. It is more than just being nice to people you like, or who share your views. Kindness means caring for people whether or not they care for you, wanting the best for them no matter how difficult they may be, and treating others with respect, even when they differ from you.
Kindness counts
Kindness
Not by the word alone is mercy shown,
For faith unworked is faith that stands in vain;
The heart reveals through deeds what seeds are sown,
And love bears fruit where self has died in pain.
It is no cross to bless the kind and true,
Nor hard to heal where love awaits our care;
But Christ knelt down for those who never knew
The gift He gave, nor thanked the mercy there.
So must we learn to love beyond our will,
To heal the wounds that prideful self still fears;
It seems we cannot get past Australia Day now without seeing multiple claims that national celebrations on January 26th commemorate the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 which came into effect on January 26, 1949.
The first time this claim was made seems to have been on social media in 2020. It does not appear anywhere in books, government documents or any other media before then, and seems simply to have been invented.
In fact, the Act was deliberately proclaimed on Australia Day. By 1949, January 26th had been celebrated in NSW for more than 100 years.
Australia Day on January 26 originated as a commemoration of the First Fleet’s arrival at Sydney Cove on January 26, 1788, led by Captain Arthur Phillip.
The first official public holiday marking this date was declared in New South Wales by Governor Lachlan Macquarie in 1818, for the 30th anniversary, including a gun salute and extra rations for government workers.
Celebrations remained mostly local to Sydney (as “Foundation Day” or “Anniversary Day”) until the 1930s, when all states agreed to observe January 26 as “Australia Day” in 1935, with public holidays unified nationwide by 1940.
The Nationality and Citizenship Act is worth remembering, but it is not the reason we celebrate the 26th of January as Australia Day.
Freedom of speech simply means that except in a very few, very limited cases (immediate calls for violence, for example, or state secrets during war time), the government will not interfere in what you think or say.
Recent legislation in the UK and now in Australia has put some further limits on that right that many, including me, find troubling.
However, freedom of speech simply means that you can say what you like without government interference. You are not free from the consequences of saying what you like. Those consequences may include people asking how you know what you claim to know, or people deciding they do not wish to be friends with you, or employ you, or suing you for defamation.
In addition, freedom of speech has never meant that anyone is required to listen to you, or to provide a platform for your views. It is not a denial of freedom of speech for a social media company to decline to host views they believe are offensive or could cause harm to others, or indeed for any reason whatever.
Your freedom to think and say what you like does not mean others can be forced to publish those views.
