Left wing, right wing, Christianity, atheism, BNP...

A few articles have made me chuckle this week. With all the furore surrounding Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time, I found this article resonated well with my thoughts on fundamental atheism. Here we have a despicable, poisonous, racist, individual on a political debate show for the first time, but anyone who saw the programme will understand why support within the British public has increased. The man was berated. No policies were discussed, no constructive debate was encouraged, and Griffin was forced to spend the entire programme defending himself.

Are you listening, "new atheists"? You see what's happened there? Common opinion would be that the left wing were in the right, but the aggression and facetiousness with which the subject was handled has done them no good at all. This is how I see the aggression of fundamentalist atheists. It's exactly the same as evangelical Christians. If you try to force something down someone's throat, they will instinctively try to reject it. The choice of whether to be religious or not is an entirely personal one.

However, Christians, you don't get off lightly either. If you want to throw Hitler at atheists, we'd like to present you with Mr Griffin as your very own little Hitler.

Siding with the other team

A rare one for you here - I'm going to side with the Christians for a moment. Take a look at this article:

Cheerleaders' Bible Banners Banned

I picked this up from another of my atheist "friends" tweeting away on twitter. Seriously, when I read things like this I can see why people go with religion - it can be a much friendlier option.

I'm seriously disgusted at this banner being forbidden, for two reasons. Firstly, and most obviously, it contravenes the right to free speech. Secondly, the team and their coach can choose to use whatever they like as motivation. Would the argument have even been presented if the team had used words of Martin Luther King, Abraham Washington, Bill Hicks etc? I seriously doubt it. Even as staunch atheist I can see that parts of the Bible can have motivational effects on those that appreciate it.

The so-called "new atheists" need to take a long, hard look at themselves. All they are doing is giving atheists a bad name, in the same way that evangelists can form the basis of our perception of religion. You know those arguments thrown at atheists about Hitler, Stalin etc.? Well, you're simply fuelling the fire for them. If I was asked whether or not I want to live in a society governed by these fools or Christians, I take Christians every time. The irony is that every time come across one of these people, they're usually wound up into such a frenzy that they negate their arguments by being completely closed to discussion around what they are saying.

This works both ways. When you see an evangalist in the street, they will never consider what you have to say because they are coming from a presupposed standpoint. Likewise when you try to discuss the finer details of the Bible (in context, I should add) with a "new atheist", they are totally oblivious to fact because they have their own presuppositions. Therefore I have very little time for either the evangelist or the "new atheist".

The journey within religion is a voyage of entirely personal discovery, all I ask for is considered debate.

Morality vs Atheism

The suggestion from many Christians that a secular state would be dangerous due to the lack of an absolute morality is one that bugs me greatly. I find the argument entirely preposterous, and indeed damaging to the human psyche.

Even if I was to make a great concession and suggest that the argument for heaven and hell was true, you would still have bad people doing bad things. We know that we (as humans) will go to prison if we commit crimes, and yet people still do so. If we knew for certain that sinners go to hell, this acts is a strong argument to suggest that it would not alter our behaviour. People would still be convinced that they could get away with it, and others simply would not be able to help themselves.

A question that I would like to put to Christians is this: If you were to discover for certain that there is no God, would you decide that murder was acceptable?

Furthermore, to suggest that humans have morals purely on the existence of an absolute morality is doing the race a great disservice. In one of the few highlights of The God Delusion, Dawkins gives a good explanation of a Darwinian evolution of morality. Ultimately, morality can be accurately illustrated to have survived through kin altruism, reciprocative altruism and reputation.

Contrast that with comments made by this lady:

"Everyone I have ever worked with has clearly known I am a Christian - it is what motivates me to care for others," she said.

Am I the only person who finds that a little disturbing? A nurse, whose only motivation for caring for others is because of her Christian duty?

Tell me - would you rather be cared for by somebody who enjoyed caring for people, or someone who thought it their duty?

Hospitals are already full of individuals who are simply going about their job because it's what they are paid to do. It's not necessarily a bad thing (I don't know about you, but I don't particularly want my doctor becoming emotionally involved) but in the overall morality picture it's a pretty big smudge on the reputation of religion.

In Darwinian theory there is no absolute morality. There is no need for an absolute morality. Natual selection takes care of morality for us.

Where there's blame, there's a claim...

I think I've figured out where injury lawyers learned their trade- Exodus 21:12 onwards...

12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.
29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.
32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
33 And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein;
34 The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.
35 And if one man's ox hurt another's, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide.
36 Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.

Christianity vs Islam

Recently I have to admit that I have been everso slightly swayed by the Christian argument for the usefulness (note: not existence) of a deity. I don't buy into the morality argument, and I don't buy into any of the "evidence" that has been presented, but the way Zacharias and Robertson have presented the case for a world based on atheism is a strong argument for maintaining Christianity throughout the coming years. Of course their case is based on extremes such as Hitler, Stalin and other less humanistic individuals (typically internet writers and forum trolls that give atheists a bad name), but Dawkins, Harris et al. are all guilty of using the same technique against religion.

However, this video (also embedded below) causes me concern on two levels.

Firstly, and most horrifyingly, the complete and utter inaccuracy of the video. The statistics are completely unreliable and the video has clearly been produced by something that is not a "friendofislam" as their username suggest, but someone producing venomous propaganda against Muslims. The final words of the video are most chilling - "This is a call to action."

This causes me concern. The tone and content of the video suggest that it has been produced by Christians. Given the constant references to evangelism, I would suggest that the "call to action" is not a peaceful call. The tone is quite frightening and the message could be interpreted in several ways by our more extreme Christian friends. Likewise, extremist followers of Islam could decide to respond or even get the first strike in.

Secondly, this shows the strength of feeling about how the world is heading. Although wildly inaccurate, it is true that Muslims breed at a faster rate than other religions, and that as things stand, in time Europe will become a Muslim state. Zacharias makes a particularly concerning observation when he says

Even now, Europe is demonstrating that its secular worldview... ...cannot stand the onslaught of Islam and is already in demise. In the end, America's choice will be between Islam and Jesus Christ. History will prove before long the truth of this contention.

The End of Reason, p126-127

Although I don't accept that the choice will be between Jesus Christ and Islam, I do feel that a stand needs to be made sooner rather than later. Of course this is unlikely to happen with the government's insistence in adopting every stupid bloody EU law without resistance. With Britain's stupidly polite nature we do what's asked of us without question. I don't intend to discuss the politics of the situation here, but herein lies my point- this is a political dilemma, not a religious one. Of course religion forms a part of politics, but church and state need to remain entirely independent of each other. Zacharias is right to point out the flaws in many atheists' proposed systems of morality, however the answer is not simply to place the big bandage of Christianity over what is more than a paper cut in the skin of our society. Yes, we need to make a stand and yes, we need to take assertive action - but that action needs to be decided upon in a democratic fashion. Christianity is full of holes- you cannot force people to believe. I'm willing to concede that proposed secularist methods are also full of holes, but these holes can be filled in through productive dialogue and changes in education.

Without a positive stand taken sooner rather than later, further wars are inevitable. They will likely (in Britain anyway) be fought in the name of the country, in honour of our forefathers, and the right-wing will most probably lead the charge. Americans and their more patriotic nature will certainly not welcome Islamic changes, so race-wars are likely.

This is quite a scary mess that we're in.

Exodus

When I met David Robertson a few weeks back, one of the most prominent things that he said to me was that he thinks that everyone should read the bible. I'm inclined to agree with him. I'm now at Exodus and I find it more and intriguing with every page. I have found several significant weaknesses that I have yet to come across in any atheist writings (that's not to say that they haven't been addressed, more that I've probably just not read the right books yet), so I'm going to try to address some of them here. Let's start with Exodus 2:11

In those days, after Moses was grown up, he went out to his brethren: and saw their affliction, and an Egyptian striking one of the Hebrews, his brethren. 12 And when he had looked about this way and that way, and saw no one there, he slew the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.

What? Seems a bit harsh to me. And what was God's reaction? To take Moses under his wing and use him as a messenger for his wonderous morals. Let's try Exodus 7:8

And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: 9 When Pharao shall say to you, Show signs; thou shalt say to Aaron: Take thy rod, and cast it down before Pharao, and it shall be turned into a serpent. 10 So Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharao, and did as the Lord had commanded. And Aaron took the rod before Pharao and his servants, and it was turned into a serpent. 11 And Pharao called the wise men and the magicians; and they also by Egyptian enchantments and certain secrets, did in like manner. 12 And they every one cast down their rods, and they were turned into serpents: but Aaron's rod devoured their rods. 13 And Pharao's heart was hardened, and he did not hearken to them, as the Lord had commanded.

So we are supposed to believe that these miracles actually happened, when the documented evidence of the event also states that the Pharaoh employed magicians that can do the same? I mean, this isn't just a small-scale illusion that we're talking about, this is all of the Pharaoh's magicians turning their rods into snakes. You could almost forgive the suggestion that the people could be fooled/manipulated/enchanted if the act involved one magician performing an illusion, but all of the Pharoah's magicians?

This is a huge hole in the bible, I'm surprised that I haven't come across it before.

But the big one for me is the constant referrals to the fact that God hardened the Pharoah's heart. This means that the actions of both Moses and his opponent were being controlled by God. Surely this means that life is predetermined and that actually we're just pawns in God's little game? I'm sorry, but I can't get with that. What actually happens is that lots of innocent people die in the name of their fathers/leaders and the proclaimed "message" from the story is actually null and void because no one has control over their own actions.

There is no doubt that parts of the Bible are a surprisingly good read, but as far as I have read so far, it's just a series of interesting stories with contradicting morals.

A letter to David Robertson (author of The Dawkins Letters)

First of all, I have to say that David Robertson is a lovely person and the most reasonable Christian I have ever met. The sarcasm/humour used in this email is in the spirit of the conversations I have had with him, it is not at all meant in an aggressive way. This email is here for reference, please feel free to comment.

Dear David,

I hope you are well and managed to get back to Scotland safely after your visit to Brighton a few weeks back. I wondered if you have had the chance to read the copy of Steve Taylor's The Fall yet? I'd be very interested in your thoughts on his comments about the early gatherer-hunters and the amicable ways of life pre-religion.

I have been reading the copy of Ravi Zacharias' The End of Reason that you gave me and I've found it very interesting. I'm afraid I'm still some way from being converted, but I have at least realised what frauds Dawkins and Harris are recently.

It's been a very interesting experience listening to you and reading the discussion from the "other side". I think some of my atheist friends are worried about me because I have a new-found sympathy for Christianity. I've made an effort to start reading the Bible and though I am a very slow reader (I'm currently at Genesis 28, and I started reading a month or so ago, but hey, at least it means I'm doing something useful while sat on the toilet), I'm starting to see how convincing it is. My problem thus far is that it's still all very convenient, and there's so little justification for so many of God's actions that I can't take it's moral structure seriously. Maybe that will change as I read through.

I'm also starting to believe that there's a significant middle ground here. I think previously I wanted to be an evangelist for atheism, but I think that was the effect Dawkins and Harris had on me. Though I still agree with a lot of what they have to say (i.e. I still don't believe that religion should be enforced on children), I'm more happy now to live and let live. Indeed, if atheism is to be successful in spreading then I think that is how it has to be. You said to me that only God can convert me to Christianity - no one else can do it. Well, I now think that only an individidual can convert oneself to atheism - through knowledge and understanding - because in my opinion, in atheism "God" is oneself. I think Zacharias makes a great point when he says

After years in the academy I have learned a trade secret: If you know enough about a subject, you can confuse anybody by selective use of the facts.

I believe this is the essence of the problem in the Christianity/atheism discussion. The reason that I did not dismiss you (or Zacharias) as I would many other religious writers is because of your forthright honesty. Dawkins and Harris have proved themselves (in my eyes) to be deceiptful and manipulative. This makes me dislike them as much as the street preacher with the megaphone and lecture of how we're all going to hell.

Your comment about your realisation that you are a bad person has also been resonating in my head lately. This is of course true for all people, religious or not, but something has been nagging away at me about that theory, I'm not sure what it is.

I'm not actually sure what I'm getting at here. I didn't intend to write this much but I'd be interested in your comments nonetheless. I've also been writing a blog: Love, Life and Reason which is more of a sketchpad for my thoughts. I may well post this email there for my own reference. I think this is what day sat on your own in your bedroom does to you...

Anyway, best wishes to you and your family. I do hope all is well.

Guy

Genesis 11

Look, let it not be said that I don't make an effort. I'm trying to get to know the Bible a bit better, but can someone explain this for me please?

1 And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech.

2 And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.

3 And each one said to his neighbour: Come let us make brick, and bake them with fire. And they had brick instead of stones, and slime instead of mortar:

4 And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven; and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.

5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building.

6 And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed.

7 Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech.

8 And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city.

9 And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries.

Why? It's quite possible that I've missed something here, but why would God stop people from communicating? Why would he not want everyone to get along and be able to speak the same language and develop the skills and knowledge that they had, especially if he wanted them to spread the word etc.

From what I've read so far, the Bible appears to be like a really bad soap opera...

Faith/Loyalty/Common Sense

This past week I had the pleasure (and I really do mean that) of meeting David Robertson, author of The Dawkins Letters. I have a lot to say on that, but I'm going to give that a miss for now as I'm in desperate need of some sleep. However, I have this to say:

The more I read, the more I hear, the more I see - the more I am convinced that following a religion, and indeed NOT following a religion, is like following a football team.

• You either follow the one your dad supports through family loyalty, or you rebel and choose another team just to wind him up
• You stick with the team no matter how good or bad they are
• Even when you don't like what's happening at your club, you stick by them because they are YOUR team
• On very rare occasions, when something happens to really test the patience, some people defect to another team
• Ultimately, that's your team and you will defend them with passion

From everything I've read, THIS is where everyone is going wrong when writing about religion and atheism. So much passion and so much good meaning, yet so little substance. I will no doubt fall foul of the same accusations as I write.

Dawkins is wrong. Robertson is wrong. Zacharias is wrong and Harris is wrong. And God knows that the bible is wrong (see what I did there?)

The tone is wrong, the argument is presented badly and we end up going around in one big circle. What is obvious is that at present there is no tangible answer, and there will probably never be one in your or my lifetime. But as human knowledge grows we are more likely to find the answers that we seek.

THAT is why I am an atheist.

And actually, not a lot else matters.

The ignorance of reincarnation

The funniest book that I've been reading recently is Coming Back, subtitled The science of reincarnation. Indeed, the sub-title is the reason that I parted with one of hard-earned English pounds in a charity shop in Brighton six months ago.

I can't decide whether ignorance or arrogance is the correct word for the summary title of this piece. Now I have to say that I take this book completely on its own merits, and I make no secret of the fact that I am still reading up on many different religions, but this book reads like a petulant child looking around the room searching for the slightest tenuous link to back up his tantrum. The only 'evidence' that I can find within the book appears to be quotes from "His Divine Grace" (is that a title or an opinion?) A.C Bhaktivdanta Swami Prabhupáda, founder-Acárya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Let me quote some of his great teachings:

The Science of Reincarnation Is Unknown to Modern Scientists

This science of transmigration is completely unknown to modern scientists. So-called scientists do not like to bother with these things because if they would at all consider this subtle subject matter and the problems of life, they would see that their future is very dark.

Srímad-Bhagavatam (4.28.21)

Excuse me? Now I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure that if I was, I would find that pretty damn offensive. And is it just me or does that read like a threat? Yes scientists, that's right. In return for all your hard work in helping to protect the human race (which, according to His Divine Grace, is the highest of 8,500,000 life forms living on this planet) and providing invaluable insights into the history of the our planet, you will most likely return in the next life as an amoeba.

Or how about this cracker, from a section entitled Ignorance of Reincarnation Is Dangerous:

Modern civilisation is based on family comforts, the highest standard of amenities, and therefore after retirement everyone expects to live a very comfortable life in a well-furnished home decorated with fine ladies and children, without any desire to get out of such a comfortable home.

Srímad-Bhagavatam (2.1.16)

Read it again. Actually, I know you probably already have. I certainly had to. My guffaws on the train once again attracted unwanted attention, such was my inability to keep a straight face while reading this chapter (chapter five, The Soul's Secret Journey, for anyone wanting a good laugh). EVERYONE expects to live a very comfortable life in a well-furnished home decorated with fine ladies and children! Now admittedly it does sound good, but I can't say this has ever come up in the conversations I have had with friends about their retirement wishes. Hell, I'll be happy if I even MAKE it to retirement...

I don't know why I'm surprised. I recently picked up a copy of book called something like Why There is a God in a well-known bookstore. There were the inevitable pages of waffle, but a page near the start said something like "...if you want proof immediately, jump to page 89." Of course I did this without hesitation. And there was the answer (not verbatim):

Look at that horizon. Look at all of those colours. How could that have been created by anything other than a supreme being? Are you honestly telling me that something like this could be caused by accident?

Err... not quite. It's called natural selection, and thought may be inaccurate to call it an accident, it's certainly not intelligent design. You may have heard of natural selection, even if you walk around with your hands over your ears refusing to believe anything that inconveniences your bigoted beliefs. Yes, that's right, I called YOU bigoted. There cannot be a more perfect example of the definition of the word than someone who rejects evidence (note the difference between evidence and hearsay here, dear reader) to maintain an entirely unsubstantiated viewpoint.

Anyhow, I've slipped off-topic now. Needless to say, at two-thirds of the way through this 150-page 1982-edition book, I'm yet to come across anything that could be described as evidence. The whole book seems to be based around the fact that His Divine Grace says so, therefore it must be true. Oh, and there's some stuff about how when we dream, we can be in places that we've never been to before. Therefore that memory must have come from a former life.

I could go on forever picking holes in this book but it's already feeling a little tedious. So for now I'm going to stop worrying about the fine ladies I desire for my retirement, and I'm off to live my life for a bit.

You only live once - make the most of it.

Funny looks

I'm currently nearing the end of Dawkins' The God Delusion; an enthralling and evocative read. It has taken me the best part of a year to get through it, such is my easily distractable nature. I don't think Dawkins does himself any favours with the way puts some of his points across, and you have to work through some serious crust to get to the gold, but overall it's an enjoyable read and one that I would certainly recommend. Anyway, that's by the by...

Yesterday I was reading the book on the train on the way home from work. There is a paranoid part of me that likes to push the cover well down into my lap for fear of the religiously inclined taking offence, but on this occasion I was oblivious to all around me, infatuated by the examples of sheer vulgarity performed in the name of religion. I must admit that there is a part of me that would welcome the opportunity of an impromptu debate with a religious fanatic on the journey home from another dull day at work.

Towards the end of my journey I looked up and one guy was staring at my book. He was white, late thirties, casually dressed and appeared to be of sound mind. I looked up and as we made eye contact a look of fear came across his face. For the rest of the journey (only five minutes, thankfully) his face maintained that expression and as I stood up to get off the train he made sure to stand out of my way, shuffling backwards and letting me pass. As I ambled towards the exit gate he shuffled past me, keeping his eye on me as he walked as far away from me as he could.

WTF?