During the past week, the blogosphere has been buzzing with spirituality. In her BBC series Am I Normal? the psychologist Tanya Byron provoked comment from across the spectrum of views on spirituality. The questions posed by the series about the nature of normality are fundamental to our perception of risk.

---

On balance, from what I've read this week, the atheists are claiming victory after last Monday's broadcast. Christians have mostly seemed offended or indignant, which are common points of view among Christians, especially those inclined to public comment. Certainly, Tanya Byron made no secret of her own skepticism about spiritual experiences, especially towards the end of the broadcast. Many bloggers, from both ends of the spectrum, admitted not having watched the whole thing. I watched all of it and my opinion from a Christian perspective was that the treatment of the subject was reasonably well-balanced, unlike much of the debate elsewhere.

Weird Worries

A healthy view of normality is essential to making sense of risk. What should we worry about and what should we not worry about? Should we deny children opportunities to explore and to socialize for fear of them being kidnapped by strangers? How much restriction of civil rights is acceptable in order to combat terrorism? We need to get a grip on what's normal and what's weird and stop being afraid of things that are probably not going to happen.

Even when things are a bit weird, we need to try to understand them without freaking out. One of the things that impressed me most in Tanya Byron's broadcast was her interview with Peter Bullimore. He was a successful businessman before being diagnosed with schizophrenia. He endured 8 years of treatment with anti-psychotic drugs before discovering a self-help organization that helped put him on the road to recovery. He still hears voices but is now drug-free and working in the Hearing Voices Network to help other sufferers.

Risky Christianity

When I have told Christian friends that I am writing a book about risk, they have been keen to talk about the risks involved in Christianity. This concept of risky Christianity seems to have been alien to Tanya Byron and her representatives of the atheist viewpoint, who mentioned several times the "comfort" of a religious attitude. The life and death of Jesus were anything but comfortable. It is easy to see that the cultural rituals of religion may be a comfort to believers but that is not real Christianity. The way of Jesus is about taking risks. He urged his followers to do likewise and warned them not to expect a life of comfort. Of course, it eases the risk aversion if you believe that the Holy Spirit will give you strength. But don't expect it to be comfortable! To love and to trust is a risky approach to life, albeit with enormous potential reward.

Tanya Byron interviewed her fellow TV presenter, Jeremy Vine, who was supposed to represent the Christian view. She asked him whether he would turn to the doctor or the church if his daughter were sick. Byron was still stuck in the science versus religion confrontation despite the fact that the psychiatrist Andrew Powell had told her earlier in the broadcast that the debate has moved on from that simplistic notion. Suppose that you believe in the power of prayer. Let's say it increases the probability of healing. Medical intervention by the doctor also increases the probability of healing. Why would you choose one or the other?