Why there almost certainly is No God!!

Thanks, that was an excellent read. I plan to read it again more slowly when I have the time. The common thread through the studies I read (I didn't get to them all) was the assumption that one's will is defined solely by the conscious mind - or more accurately that one has to make a conscious decision to act, then perform the act in order for that act to be a choice.

In every test the participants had already chosen to play and were given their instructions before the test began. Each clearly acted with a purpose (what I assume you meant by the libertarian definition of free will?). How does having the neurons involved in the task charging up ahead of conscious awareness make the choice any less free?

The "neurons" could imply and are associated with parts of the brain that make descions. If freewill is what people say it is, it's the idea that conciouse makes our descions. The "I" inside your head. When you chose something you believe it came from a descion you made in your head over seeing or dictating. This is an illusion. The studies are not trying to prove freewill doesn't exist by this experiment per say, it is conducting an expirement to see when a thought or action is first initialised and when conciousness is then hit with that outcome. We perceive this outcome as our own but the brain shows activity before a concious activity is registered.

For example, think of an actor..



Now why did you think of that actor? Would it of been a diffrent actor if I asked 20 mins ago? Or maybe if you watched a movie prior to the question.

The point of this question is, you don't know why you thought of that actor. You didn't go through a list consciously and picked one, it was brought to your conscious and the way we perceive it, is as if we came up with this as our own.



That wasn't my intention. I said ahead of time I have strong opinions, but I will leave it to you to decide if faith is the wrong word. Your initial response was very definite:



I apologize if I'm taking that out of context.

I'm guilty of passion being mistaken for aggression or narcissism as well so I'll assume it's all in good faith.



Why would you hope you lack free will? Do you maybe mean you believe free will is improbable? I'm slightly confused here, as your next sentence implies you really do mean hope.

I apologize I think we are talking past each other here. You seem to just be pointing out that if I had no evidence to support my claims then I'm basing it off faith. Which is correct if that was my position. I was just trying to point out that faith is a word that is thrown back to atheists or skeptics claiming that we have faith too, for example we have faith in waking up everyday and not dying in a car crash. Now of course I plan my life to assume I will not die the next day in a car crash and have "faith" my next day will happen but this is such a clear equivocation error that I almost have to leave the table.

Even with the supported evidence I've supplied. It still does not prove we do not have freewill but the evidence suggests we don't. Relying on evidence for my position could be misrepresented as faith to the religious.
 
The "neurons" could imply and are associated with parts of the brain that make descions. If freewill is what people say it is, it's the idea that conciouse makes our descions. The "I" inside your head. When you chose something you believe it came from a descion you made in your head over seeing or dictating. This is an illusion. The studies are not trying to prove freewill doesn't exist by this experiment per say, it is conducting an expirement to see when a thought or action is first initialised and when conciousness is then hit with that outcome. We perceive this outcome as our own but the brain shows activity before a concious activity is registered.

For example, think of an actor..

Now why did you think of that actor? Would it of been a diffrent actor if I asked 20 mins ago? Or maybe if you watched a movie prior to the question.

The point of this question is, you don't know why you thought of that actor. You didn't go through a list consciously and picked one, it was brought to your conscious and the way we perceive it, is as if we came up with this as our own.

You are just pointing out that memory is a physical construct with physical access requirements. Sometimes I might think of an actor and not be able to remember his name. That doesn't mean I lack free will.

I apologize I think we are talking past each other here. You seem to just be pointing out that if I had no evidence to support my claims then I'm basing it off faith. Which is correct if that was my position. I was just trying to point out that faith is a word that is thrown back to atheists or skeptics claiming that we have faith too, for example we have faith in waking up everyday and not dying in a car crash. Now of course I plan my life to assume I will not die the next day in a car crash and have "faith" my next day will happen but this is such a clear equivocation error that I almost have to leave the table.

Yes, I would use faith to describe the position of most atheists. It is faith there is no guiding force or principle beyond nature. It is faith that once dead there is nothing left of one's self. Personally, I plan to wait as long as possible to find out, in case the atheists are right : )

Even with the supported evidence I've supplied. It still does not prove we do not have freewill but the evidence suggests we don't. Relying on evidence for my position could be misrepresented as faith to the religious.

The evidence you reference is coming from scientists, and yet that evidence is barely enough to form a hypothesis - primarily the idea that the unpredictability of human action is buried in background noise, like a servo with a bad connection. There have been some profound advances toward understanding the nature of noise fairly recently, so maybe these hypothesis can one day be tested. But for the moment, they are just hypothesis like millions of others that have mostly been disproven over time.
 
Since I started this I suppose I should state my actual opinions on the subject. Free will has two components: the practical and the spiritual. Most of us only consider the spiritual which allows us to accept or deny its existence based entirely on our own biases. I may give my opinion on spiritual free will later, if I can put it in words.

But like it or not, free will exists in the practical world. Humans are somewhat predictable in large groups, dangerously so, but as individuals living outside the laboratory our actions are much less certain.

This doesn't mean Amazon can't use your internet history to know you sometimes buy muscle tees and inundate you with ads for them when you log in to FB. To buy or not to buy may be a choice, but it's insignificant from the perspective of choosing one's destiny.

What FB can't predict, and thankfully governments too, is the long term impact of of exposing you to those ads. Some of us might consider it an invasion of privacy and abandon not only Amazon, but FB as well. Some might like this convenience so much we become insulted or disillusioned when the predictors fail and produce unrelated ads (this is me, lol).

One has only to look at recent political trends and movements to know the predictability of humans, even in large groups, is anything but certain. And this is after more than a hundred years of child to adult brain washing in public schools. So as long as others lack the ability to predict our actions, whether we act or react makes no difference. For all practical purposes we possess free will, and the authoritarians of the world will never have true control.
 
Since I started this I suppose I should state my actual opinions on the subject. Free will has two components: the practical and the spiritual. Most of us only consider the spiritual which allows us to accept or deny its existence based entirely on our own biases. I may give my opinion on spiritual free will later, if I can put it in words.

But like it or not, free will exists in the practical world. Humans are somewhat predictable in large groups, dangerously so, but as individuals living outside the laboratory our actions are much less certain.

This doesn't mean Amazon can't use your internet history to know you sometimes buy muscle tees and inundate you with ads for them when you log in to FB. To buy or not to buy may be a choice, but it's insignificant from the perspective of choosing one's destiny.

What FB can't predict, and thankfully governments too, is the long term impact of of exposing you to those ads. Some of us might consider it an invasion of privacy and abandon not only Amazon, but FB as well. Some might like this convenience so much we become insulted or disillusioned when the predictors fail and produce unrelated ads (this is me, lol).

One has only to look at recent political trends and movements to know the predictability of humans, even in large groups, is anything but certain. And this is after more than a hundred years of child to adult brain washing in public schools. So as long as others lack the ability to predict our actions, whether we act or react makes no difference. For all practical purposes we possess free will, and the authoritarians of the world will never have true control.
Well said brother. I don’t know why, but I read it in the voice of Jerry Springer and was a little disappointed when you didn’t close with “take care of yourself and each other.”
 
Life Is a Coin With One Side [Free Will]
Life Is a Coin With One Side - This American Life

Brief Notes…

David Kestenbaum did the segment. David has been thinking about (lack of) free will for a while but finally got the courage to discuss it on the show. Explains 4 forces of physical universe that control everything. They leave no room for “free will.”

Interviews Robert Sapolsky, Stanford neuroscientist. Goal of book “Behave” was to gently lead people to conclude there’s no free will. Implications: don’t be so proud, don’t hate people for doing bad things, rethink our criminal justice system. Sapolsky says this is all he thinks about these days.

Interviews Melissa Franklin, Harvard physics professor. No evidence for free will, it’s very unlikely. People hoping for magic or God.
 


An Australian court’s gag order and the forces of the Information Age collided on Thursday in a largely futile effort to keep news about the conviction of a high-ranking Vatican official from reaching readers.

While some U.S. and British news organizations, including the New York Times, did not report on the conviction of Australian Cardinal George Pell on the judge’s order, social media and other news outlets defied it.

Pell, 77, was convicted Tuesday on five counts of child sexual abuse in Melbourne, becoming the most senior official ever found guilty in the Catholic Church’s long-running child sexual-abuse scandals. The judge in the case, Peter Kidd, immediately subjected news of Pell’s conviction to a suppression order, the Australian equivalent of a gag order on press coverage.

Australian courts impose such orders to shield defendants from negative publicity that could prejudice future jurors in upcoming trials. Pell faces another trial next year on a separate set of abuse charges dating to the 1970s.
 


An Australian court’s gag order and the forces of the Information Age collided on Thursday in a largely futile effort to keep news about the conviction of a high-ranking Vatican official from reaching readers.

While some U.S. and British news organizations, including the New York Times, did not report on the conviction of Australian Cardinal George Pell on the judge’s order, social media and other news outlets defied it.

Pell, 77, was convicted Tuesday on five counts of child sexual abuse in Melbourne, becoming the most senior official ever found guilty in the Catholic Church’s long-running child sexual-abuse scandals. The judge in the case, Peter Kidd, immediately subjected news of Pell’s conviction to a suppression order, the Australian equivalent of a gag order on press coverage.

Australian courts impose such orders to shield defendants from negative publicity that could prejudice future jurors in upcoming trials. Pell faces another trial next year on a separate set of abuse charges dating to the 1970s.

Good! Expose these pieces of garbage wherever they are!
 
Life Is a Coin With One Side [Free Will]
Life Is a Coin With One Side - This American Life

Brief Notes…

David Kestenbaum did the segment. David has been thinking about (lack of) free will for a while but finally got the courage to discuss it on the show. Explains 4 forces of physical universe that control everything. They leave no room for “free will.”

Interviews Robert Sapolsky, Stanford neuroscientist. Goal of book “Behave” was to gently lead people to conclude there’s no free will. Implications: don’t be so proud, don’t hate people for doing bad things, rethink our criminal justice system. Sapolsky says this is all he thinks about these days.

Interviews Melissa Franklin, Harvard physics professor. No evidence for free will, it’s very unlikely. People hoping for magic or God.
So if we're just "machines" predetermined to make decisions that we don't have control over, who does?
Who or what programmed us this way? Just by random circumstance? Bullshit.
To me this would strengthen a believers argument that a higher being does exist. Not weaken it.
To me it was laughable listening to them try and disprove freewill. No matter what outside factors are placed in front of me it's still my choice.
Yes outside factors determine every individuals decisions. Jay Cutler is huge and I want to be so I'll inject AAS. It's still my decision to plunge that pin in my ass.
I find it a very weak argument against freewill.
Unlike others I'm open enough to entertain the notion that maybe freewill doesn't exist. But to say it doesn't exist because we're "programmed machines" is a pretty weak argument that holds no validity with me.
 
So if we're just "machines" predetermined to make decisions that we don't have control over, who does?
Who or what programmed us this way? Just by random circumstance? Bullshit.
To me this would strengthen a believers argument that a higher being does exist. Not weaken it.
To me it was laughable listening to them try and disprove freewill. No matter what outside factors are placed in front of me it's still my choice.
Yes outside factors determine every individuals decisions. Jay Cutler is huge and I want to be so I'll inject AAS. It's still my decision to plunge that pin in my ass.
I find it a very weak argument against freewill.
Unlike others I'm open enough to entertain the notion that maybe freewill doesn't exist. But to say it doesn't exist because we're "programmed machines" is a pretty weak argument that holds no validity with me.
Theologically, freewill doesn’t exist because you’re either a slave to the flesh/sin or God.
 


As the West becomes more and more secular, and the discoveries of evolutionary biology and cosmology shrink the boundaries of faith, the claims that science and religion are compatible grow louder. If you’re a believer who doesn’t want to seem anti-science, what can you do? You must argue that your faith – or any faith – is perfectly compatible with science.

And so one sees claim after claim from believers, religious scientists, prestigious science organizations and even atheists asserting not only that science and religion are compatible, but also that they can actually help each other. This claim is called “accommodationism.”

But I argue that this is misguided: that science and religion are not only in conflict – even at “war” – but also represent incompatible ways of viewing the world.
 
If you ever wondered why the Left is so dead set on eliminating the Christian religion, this is a fair discussion of the practical motivations involved. Essentially, without the morality inherent in Christian traditions (even if they don't always practice it), morality can be anything the PTB say it is.


Walking the Fine Line…

Bionic Mosquito
Wednesday, January 2, 2019

…between pagan and Christian
- Steve Vai, For the Love of God

The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, by Edward Feser

In this book, Edward Feser intends to refute the new atheists: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and the like. This will be a difficult book for me to work through. First, the topic is not something that comes easily to me: the nuances of the early philosophers and the science of philosophy. Much more difficult: I want to stay focused on the aspects important to the culture and tradition of Western Civilization, and avoid – as much as possible – getting into the middle of the debate.

In other words, I will address the “Christian” part of this from the viewpoint of the functional benefits to liberty in the west, and the costs to liberty of losing the “Christian.” This is the fine line that I will try to walk.

For when the consequences of [secular progressivism’s] philosophical foundations are worked out consistently, it can be seen to undermine the very possibility of rationality and morality themselves.

Friedrich Nietzsche offered, in “Twilight of the Idols”: “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident…” I think Nietzsche and Feser fully agree on this point. Peter Singer demonstrates the point, with his defense of infanticide, necrophilia, and bestiality.

Yet these new atheists believe they can create something approaching Christian morality without the Christian faith. Given that it was through this Christian morality that western liberty was born, it would seem an important issue for libertarians to take up.

In his opening chapter, Feser raises many points and objections that he will develop in more depth in subsequent chapters. He suggests that the new atheists demonstrate their ignorance on the matter of Christian philosophy, as they understand nothing of the philosophical tradition – going back to even the pre-Christian Plato and Aristotle, and continuing through Augustine and Aquinas. Their “philosophy” is dependent on this tradition, yet without understanding it they believe they can remove the tradition and still have a coherent philosophy.

…the very possibility of reason and morality is deeply problematic at best on a modern naturalistic conception of the world, but perfectly intelligible on the classical philosophical worldview and the religious vision it sustains.

Instead of addressing the foundational philosophers of this Christian tradition, Feser offers that these new atheists tackle the caricature Sunday-morning televangelists. These make for very easy targets, but worthless if one is after a meaningful conversation…or the truth.

Feser offers several comments about the materialist idea – all is material, there is no purpose, meaning or design in our universe. Explain the human mind and consciousness? These atheists have no answer other than faith: one day science will find the answer.

Feser intends to show the following through the remainder of this book: the so-called war between science and religion is, instead, a war between rival philosophical or metaphysical systems, namely the classical worldview versus modern naturalism; this naturalistic worldview makes reason and morality impossible; secularism, therefore, can do nothing other than manifest irrationalism and immorality.
 
The whole idea of men adhering to a vow of celibacy with virtually no oversight is stupid. Turning them loose on children is insane.

The same goes for women, actually. Can't wait till the stories of nuns start coming out.
 
I suspect the Left in the US won't have any better luck than did Mao.

"Mao thought he could eliminate religion. He thought he had accomplished this," Prof Yang said. "It's ironic – they didn't. They actually failed completely."

China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 years

The number of Christians in Communist China is growing so steadily that it by 2030 it could have more churchgoers than America

By https://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/tom-phillips/, Liushi, Zhejiang province
2:00PM BST 19 Apr 2014

china_2887244b.jpg

Christian congregations in particular have skyrocketed since churches began reopening when Chairman Mao's death in 1976 Photo: ALAMY


It is said to be China's biggest church and on Easter Sunday thousands of worshippers will flock to this Asian mega-temple to pledge their allegiance – not to the Communist Party, but to the Cross.

The 5,000-capacity Liushi church, which boasts more than twice as many seats as Westminster Abbey and a 206ft crucifix that can be seen for miles around, opened last year with one theologian declaring it a "miracle that such a small town was able to build such a grand church".

The £8 million building is also one of the most visible symbols of Communist China's breakneck conversion as it evolves into one of the largest Christian congregations on earth.

"It is a wonderful thing to be a follower of Jesus Christ. It gives us great confidence," beamed Jin Hongxin, a 40-year-old visitor who was admiring the golden cross above Liushi's altar in the lead up to Holy Week.

"If everyone in China believed in Jesus then we would have no more need for police stations. There would be no more bad people and therefore no more crime," she added.

Officially, the People's Republic of China is an atheist country but that is changing fast as many of its 1.3 billion citizens seek meaning and spiritual comfort that neither communism nor capitalism seem to have supplied.

Christian congregations in particular have skyrocketed since churches began reopening when Chairman Mao's death in 1976 signalled the end of the Cultural Revolution.

Less than four decades later, some believe China is now poised to become not just the world's number one economy but also its most numerous Christian nation.

"By my calculations China is destined to become the largest Christian country in the world very soon," said Fenggang Yang, a professor of sociology at Purdue University and author of Religion in China: Survival and Revival under Communist Rule.

"It is going to be less than a generation. Not many people are prepared for this dramatic change."

China's Protestant community, which had just one million members in 1949, has already overtaken those of countries more commonly associated with an evangelical boom. In 2010 there were more than 58 million Protestants in China compared to 40 million in Brazil and 36 million in South Africa, according to the Pew Research Centre's Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Prof Yang, a leading expert on religion in China, believes that number will swell to around 160 million by 2025. That would likely put China ahead even of the United States, which had around 159 million Protestants in 2010 but whose congregations are in decline.

By 2030, China's total Christian population, including Catholics, would exceed 247 million, placing it above Mexico, Brazil and the United States as the largest Christian congregation in the world, he predicted.

"Mao thought he could eliminate religion. He thought he had accomplished this," Prof Yang said. "It's ironic – they didn't. They actually failed completely."

Like many Chinese churches, the church in the town of Liushi, 200 miles south of Shanghai in Zhejiang province, has had a turbulent history.

It was founded in 1886 after William Edward Soothill, a Yorkshire-born missionary and future Oxford University professor, began evangelising local communities.

But by the late 1950s, as the region was engulfed by Mao's violent anti-Christian campaigns, it was forced to close.

Liushi remained shut throughout the decade of the Cultural Revolution that began in 1966, as places of worship were destroyed across the country.

Since it reopened in 1978 its congregation has gone from strength to strength as part of China's officially sanctioned Christian church – along with thousands of others that have accepted Communist Party oversight in return for being allowed to worship.

Today it has 2,600 regular churchgoers and holds up to 70 baptisms each year, according to Shi Xiaoli, its 27-year-old preacher. The parish's revival reached a crescendo last year with the opening of its new 1,500ft mega-church, reputedly the biggest in mainland China.

"Our old church was small and hard to find," said Ms Shi. "There wasn't room in the old building for all the followers, especially at Christmas and at Easter. The new one is big and eye-catching."

The Liushi church is not alone. From Yunnan province in China's balmy southwest to Liaoning in its industrial northeast, congregations are booming and more Chinese are thought to attend Sunday services each week than do Christians across the whole of Europe.

A recent study found that online searches for the words "Christian Congregation" and "Jesus" far outnumbered those for "The Communist Party" and "Xi Jinping", China's president.

Among China's Protestants are also many millions who worship at illegal underground "house churches", which hold unsupervised services – often in people's homes – in an attempt to evade the prying eyes of the Communist Party.

Such churches are mostly behind China's embryonic missionary movement – a reversal of roles after the country was for centuries the target of foreign missionaries. Now it is starting to send its own missionaries abroad, notably into North Korea, in search of souls.

"We want to help and it is easier for us than for British, South Korean or American missionaries," said one underground church leader in north China who asked not to be named.

The new spread of Christianity has the Communist Party scratching its head.

"The child suddenly grew up and the parents don't know how to deal with the adult," the preacher, who is from China's illegal house-church movement, said.

Some officials argue that religious groups can provide social services the government cannot, while simultaneously helping reverse a growing moral crisis in a land where cash, not Communism, has now become king.

They appear to agree with David Cameron, the British prime minister, who said last week that Christianity could help boost Britain's "spiritual, physical and moral" state.

Ms Shi, Liushi's preacher, who is careful to describe her church as "patriotic", said: "We have two motivations: one is our gospel mission and the other is serving society. Christianity can also play a role in maintaining peace and stability in society. Without God, people can do as they please."

Yet others within China's leadership worry about how the religious landscape might shape its political future, and its possible impact on the Communist Party's grip on power, despite the clause in the country's 1982 constitution that guarantees citizens the right to engage in "normal religious activities".

As a result, a close watch is still kept on churchgoers, and preachers are routinely monitored to ensure their sermons do not diverge from what the Party considers acceptable.

In Liushi church a closed circuit television camera hangs from the ceiling, directly in front of the lectern.

"They want the pastor to preach in a Communist way. They want to train people to practice in a Communist way," said the house-church preacher, who said state churches often shunned potentially subversive sections of the Bible. The Old Testament book in which the exiled Daniel refuses to obey orders to worship the king rather than his own god is seen as "very dangerous", the preacher added.

Such fears may not be entirely unwarranted. Christians' growing power was on show earlier this month when thousands flocked to defend a church in Wenzhou, a city known as the "Jerusalem of the East", after government threats to demolish it. Faced with the congregation's very public show of resistance, officials appear to have backed away from their plans, negotiating a compromise with church leaders.

"They do not trust the church, but they have to tolerate or accept it because the growth is there," said the church leader. "The number of Christians is growing – they cannot fight it. They do not want the 70 million Christians to be their enemy."

The underground leader church leader said many government officials viewed religion as "a sickness" that needed curing, and Prof Yang agreed there was a potential threat.

The Communist Party was "still not sure if Christianity would become an opposition political force" and feared it could be used by "Western forces to overthrow the Communist political system", he said.

Churches were likely to face an increasingly "intense" struggle over coming decade as the Communist Party sought to stifle Christianity's rise, he predicted.

"There are people in the government who are trying to control the church. I think they are making the last attempt to do that."
 
I suspect the Left in the US won't have any better luck than did Mao.

"Mao thought he could eliminate religion. He thought he had accomplished this," Prof Yang said. "It's ironic – they didn't. They actually failed completely."

China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 years

The number of Christians in Communist China is growing so steadily that it by 2030 it could have more churchgoers than America

By https://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/tom-phillips/, Liushi, Zhejiang province
2:00PM BST 19 Apr 2014

china_2887244b.jpg

Christian congregations in particular have skyrocketed since churches began reopening when Chairman Mao's death in 1976 Photo: ALAMY


It is said to be China's biggest church and on Easter Sunday thousands of worshippers will flock to this Asian mega-temple to pledge their allegiance – not to the Communist Party, but to the Cross.

The 5,000-capacity Liushi church, which boasts more than twice as many seats as Westminster Abbey and a 206ft crucifix that can be seen for miles around, opened last year with one theologian declaring it a "miracle that such a small town was able to build such a grand church".

The £8 million building is also one of the most visible symbols of Communist China's breakneck conversion as it evolves into one of the largest Christian congregations on earth.

"It is a wonderful thing to be a follower of Jesus Christ. It gives us great confidence," beamed Jin Hongxin, a 40-year-old visitor who was admiring the golden cross above Liushi's altar in the lead up to Holy Week.

"If everyone in China believed in Jesus then we would have no more need for police stations. There would be no more bad people and therefore no more crime," she added.

Officially, the People's Republic of China is an atheist country but that is changing fast as many of its 1.3 billion citizens seek meaning and spiritual comfort that neither communism nor capitalism seem to have supplied.

Christian congregations in particular have skyrocketed since churches began reopening when Chairman Mao's death in 1976 signalled the end of the Cultural Revolution.

Less than four decades later, some believe China is now poised to become not just the world's number one economy but also its most numerous Christian nation.

"By my calculations China is destined to become the largest Christian country in the world very soon," said Fenggang Yang, a professor of sociology at Purdue University and author of Religion in China: Survival and Revival under Communist Rule.

"It is going to be less than a generation. Not many people are prepared for this dramatic change."

China's Protestant community, which had just one million members in 1949, has already overtaken those of countries more commonly associated with an evangelical boom. In 2010 there were more than 58 million Protestants in China compared to 40 million in Brazil and 36 million in South Africa, according to the Pew Research Centre's Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Prof Yang, a leading expert on religion in China, believes that number will swell to around 160 million by 2025. That would likely put China ahead even of the United States, which had around 159 million Protestants in 2010 but whose congregations are in decline.

By 2030, China's total Christian population, including Catholics, would exceed 247 million, placing it above Mexico, Brazil and the United States as the largest Christian congregation in the world, he predicted.

"Mao thought he could eliminate religion. He thought he had accomplished this," Prof Yang said. "It's ironic – they didn't. They actually failed completely."

Like many Chinese churches, the church in the town of Liushi, 200 miles south of Shanghai in Zhejiang province, has had a turbulent history.

It was founded in 1886 after William Edward Soothill, a Yorkshire-born missionary and future Oxford University professor, began evangelising local communities.

But by the late 1950s, as the region was engulfed by Mao's violent anti-Christian campaigns, it was forced to close.

Liushi remained shut throughout the decade of the Cultural Revolution that began in 1966, as places of worship were destroyed across the country.

Since it reopened in 1978 its congregation has gone from strength to strength as part of China's officially sanctioned Christian church – along with thousands of others that have accepted Communist Party oversight in return for being allowed to worship.

Today it has 2,600 regular churchgoers and holds up to 70 baptisms each year, according to Shi Xiaoli, its 27-year-old preacher. The parish's revival reached a crescendo last year with the opening of its new 1,500ft mega-church, reputedly the biggest in mainland China.

"Our old church was small and hard to find," said Ms Shi. "There wasn't room in the old building for all the followers, especially at Christmas and at Easter. The new one is big and eye-catching."

The Liushi church is not alone. From Yunnan province in China's balmy southwest to Liaoning in its industrial northeast, congregations are booming and more Chinese are thought to attend Sunday services each week than do Christians across the whole of Europe.

A recent study found that online searches for the words "Christian Congregation" and "Jesus" far outnumbered those for "The Communist Party" and "Xi Jinping", China's president.

Among China's Protestants are also many millions who worship at illegal underground "house churches", which hold unsupervised services – often in people's homes – in an attempt to evade the prying eyes of the Communist Party.

Such churches are mostly behind China's embryonic missionary movement – a reversal of roles after the country was for centuries the target of foreign missionaries. Now it is starting to send its own missionaries abroad, notably into North Korea, in search of souls.

"We want to help and it is easier for us than for British, South Korean or American missionaries," said one underground church leader in north China who asked not to be named.

The new spread of Christianity has the Communist Party scratching its head.

"The child suddenly grew up and the parents don't know how to deal with the adult," the preacher, who is from China's illegal house-church movement, said.

Some officials argue that religious groups can provide social services the government cannot, while simultaneously helping reverse a growing moral crisis in a land where cash, not Communism, has now become king.

They appear to agree with David Cameron, the British prime minister, who said last week that Christianity could help boost Britain's "spiritual, physical and moral" state.

Ms Shi, Liushi's preacher, who is careful to describe her church as "patriotic", said: "We have two motivations: one is our gospel mission and the other is serving society. Christianity can also play a role in maintaining peace and stability in society. Without God, people can do as they please."

Yet others within China's leadership worry about how the religious landscape might shape its political future, and its possible impact on the Communist Party's grip on power, despite the clause in the country's 1982 constitution that guarantees citizens the right to engage in "normal religious activities".

As a result, a close watch is still kept on churchgoers, and preachers are routinely monitored to ensure their sermons do not diverge from what the Party considers acceptable.

In Liushi church a closed circuit television camera hangs from the ceiling, directly in front of the lectern.

"They want the pastor to preach in a Communist way. They want to train people to practice in a Communist way," said the house-church preacher, who said state churches often shunned potentially subversive sections of the Bible. The Old Testament book in which the exiled Daniel refuses to obey orders to worship the king rather than his own god is seen as "very dangerous", the preacher added.

Such fears may not be entirely unwarranted. Christians' growing power was on show earlier this month when thousands flocked to defend a church in Wenzhou, a city known as the "Jerusalem of the East", after government threats to demolish it. Faced with the congregation's very public show of resistance, officials appear to have backed away from their plans, negotiating a compromise with church leaders.

"They do not trust the church, but they have to tolerate or accept it because the growth is there," said the church leader. "The number of Christians is growing – they cannot fight it. They do not want the 70 million Christians to be their enemy."

The underground leader church leader said many government officials viewed religion as "a sickness" that needed curing, and Prof Yang agreed there was a potential threat.

The Communist Party was "still not sure if Christianity would become an opposition political force" and feared it could be used by "Western forces to overthrow the Communist political system", he said.

Churches were likely to face an increasingly "intense" struggle over coming decade as the Communist Party sought to stifle Christianity's rise, he predicted.

"There are people in the government who are trying to control the church. I think they are making the last attempt to do that."
Persecution has always made the church flourish and thrive.
 
Back
Top