The end of God? A Horizon guide to Science and Religion is a special programme produced in the famous BBC Horizon series tradition that appears to have been made to link with the Pope's visit to Britain. I'm not sure when this was first aired in the BBC schedule but I am about to watch it on BBC four in the rather early hours of the morning after completing some work.
The program is fronted by historian Dr Thomas Dixon and the write up blurb on the BBC site for the programme suggests that he has used BBC archive material to explore the developing relationship between science and religion over the years. He will apparently look at the development of science over the years and ask whether the expansion of scientific knowledge still leaves room for God. Should be interesting.
Here is the link to the BBC iPlayer page for the programme. I'm not sure if overseas readers will be able to use the iPlayer to view the programme.
Review / Update: The end of God? was an hour long trip through the archives of some of the most memorable Horizon programmes over the years put together as a reasonably good overview of the range of issues that the development of science has posed for religion over the centuries. The program ranged from the challenge posed by Aristotle to the geocentric view through the challenges posed by evolution and the attempts by fundamentalists to resist this particularly in the US through their insistence on Biblical creation and the whole Behe irreducible complexity of the flagellum nonsense and its defeat when challenged in a US court.
Towards the final part of the programme Dr Dixon presented the grander view of God which religions have adopted to avoid the pitfalls of the God of the gaps approach. This is the God as grand designer of the Universe approach. The need for such a grand designer God as an explanation was again recently challenged by Stephen Hawking so even here we seem to be driven towards a God of the gaps.
In the final part of the programme Dr Dixon looked at issues relating to the biological basis for religious belief. It was in this area that there was , if anywhere, some small comfort for believers in a God.
The programme showed excerpts from an older Horizon programme which looked at research which had used a "God Helmet". This helmet - which appeared to be simply a motorbike helmet with some electrical gubbins taped on it - produces a magnetic field across specific portions of the brain. These same portions of the brain have been noted to shut down during Buddhist meditation and when nuns undertake devout prayer.
The explanation was that this area of the brain is linked to our sense of time and place - our rootedness - and that the religious experience in many different cultures has the common feature that it tends to result in less activity in this area. The result is a sense of otherness, religious aura and often an sense of the "presence" of something outside oneself. The god helmet at the flick of a switch was able to reproduce this experience in around 80% of volunteers. They recruited Richard Dawkins to try it out but it didn't work on him. It was hard to tell if he was relieved or disappointed !
In his end note Dr Dixon suggested that because of our cultural history, our desire for grand explanations and meaning and possibly because of such biological proclivities we may never see the final disappearance of religious belief systems. In that sense it was a programme to cheer both the atheists and the believers among us. It showed the logical non-necessity for god belief and how science is by the year squeezing the gaps within which god can hide. At the same time there was some comfort for believers that science isn't yet about to demolish the cultural edifice we call religion.
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Sep 22, 2010
Sep 19, 2010
Evidence of the relationship between Nazis and Religion
In my previous post I addressed the Pope's assertion that the horrors of the Second World War and the holocaust could be put at the door of Atheism and secularism. Leaving aside the fact that the Pope makes a category error in his assertion I pointed out that his remarks are, to put it mildly, historically and politically illiterate. The articles I linked to have numerous references to scholarly analysis about the relationship between the Nazis and religion and the nature of twentieth century dictator movements as "political religions".
I just want here to record a few additional remarks on this subject and record an interesting link to some photographic evidence..
One of the facts about the rise of anti-semitic National Socialism in Germany that the Pope conveniently ignores is that National Socialism and anti-semitism , far from being forced on the German people by nasty German atheists, was sown into a Germanic cultural soil that was already fertile with a long history of clerically led anti-semitism going back centuries.
Had there not been a widespread church inspired anti-semitism it is unlikely that the full storm of anti-semitism that culminated in the Holocaust could ever have been unleashed.
We should pause also to consider the wider political / religious context of that terrible time. Consider, for example, which birds were actually flocking together. In Catholic Italy and Spain, Catholic Hungary and other Catholic European states there was either active assistance in the Nazi "solution" to the Jewish "problem" or sometimes a turning away of the eyes. Indeed Germany itself was were the horror was unleashed was reportedly one of the most actively religious countries in Europe at that time ( largely Catholic and Lutheran).
We should also recall that it was a ( supposedly ) atheist state - Russia - that bore the heaviest burden in wiping out the threat of the Nazis and stopping their anti-semitic holocaust. Not that the Soviet Union, with a political religion built around Marxism / Leninism , should serve us as any beacon of rationality of course. There is another country ravaged by a leader who was crazed - not by his atheism - but by his thirst for power and control. Features that we have witnessed all too often also in religious leaders. Therein lies , of course , the category mistake that the Pope makes.
They do say though that a picture is worth a thousand words. It's interesting to explore the poor logical and evidential base for the Popes recent assertions but to save another thousand words I give you here a link to a historical archive which shows some photographic evidence of the relationship between the Church and the Nazi state in Germany.
I just want here to record a few additional remarks on this subject and record an interesting link to some photographic evidence..
One of the facts about the rise of anti-semitic National Socialism in Germany that the Pope conveniently ignores is that National Socialism and anti-semitism , far from being forced on the German people by nasty German atheists, was sown into a Germanic cultural soil that was already fertile with a long history of clerically led anti-semitism going back centuries.
Had there not been a widespread church inspired anti-semitism it is unlikely that the full storm of anti-semitism that culminated in the Holocaust could ever have been unleashed.
We should pause also to consider the wider political / religious context of that terrible time. Consider, for example, which birds were actually flocking together. In Catholic Italy and Spain, Catholic Hungary and other Catholic European states there was either active assistance in the Nazi "solution" to the Jewish "problem" or sometimes a turning away of the eyes. Indeed Germany itself was were the horror was unleashed was reportedly one of the most actively religious countries in Europe at that time ( largely Catholic and Lutheran).
We should also recall that it was a ( supposedly ) atheist state - Russia - that bore the heaviest burden in wiping out the threat of the Nazis and stopping their anti-semitic holocaust. Not that the Soviet Union, with a political religion built around Marxism / Leninism , should serve us as any beacon of rationality of course. There is another country ravaged by a leader who was crazed - not by his atheism - but by his thirst for power and control. Features that we have witnessed all too often also in religious leaders. Therein lies , of course , the category mistake that the Pope makes.
They do say though that a picture is worth a thousand words. It's interesting to explore the poor logical and evidential base for the Popes recent assertions but to save another thousand words I give you here a link to a historical archive which shows some photographic evidence of the relationship between the Church and the Nazi state in Germany.
Sep 16, 2010
An atheist response to the Pope
It seems the Pope doesn't entirely distance himself from the remarks made by Cardinal Kasper. The Pope wisely managed to avoid repeating the Cardinal's offensive reference to the UK being like a Third world country. It is clear though that the Cardinal was expressing Vatican views when he made reference to secularism in the UK.
The Pope said;
"Today, the United Kingdom strives to be a modern and multicultural society. In this challenging enterprise, may it always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate. Let it not obscure the Christian foundation that underpins its freedoms; and may that patrimony, which has always served the nation well, constantly inform the example your Government and people set before the 2 billion members of the Commonwealth and the great family of English-speaking nations throughout the world." 1
This comes of course from the man who leads an organisation responsible for covering up the sexual abuse of children by priests and which has sheltered paedophile priests within it's cloisters. Clearly the man has some interest in getting the agenda onto a different subject.
His reference to "aggressive forms of secularism" is of course no accident. It is his intention that his flock and others listening should make the mental connection between atheism /secularism and aggression and violence. This might wash with religious adherents who are already dumbed down by the deadening hand of religious mumbo jumbo but it really doesn't wash as a peace of analysis.
The fact is that almost none of the violence that we see in the world around us today has roots in either secularism or atheism. The vast majority of the violence we see today appears to have it's roots in a tangle of religious and cultural issues.
Religionists love to give Nazism and Communism as examples of what happens when Atheists take control. Again this is simplistic nonsense. These movements , just like religions, had their own Holy Books - Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto, which the believers followed as though they were the words of some inspired being. They were in fact political religions. Indeed the record is clear that in Germany many churchmen provided moral and religious cover to the Nazi regime. So such arguments hold little weight and the Pope clearly doesn't understand his history. ( see for example the Wikipedia article on the religious aspects of Nazism )
In Pakistan, India , Northern Ireland and many other places we see terrorism and communal violence which comes from a tangle of religious and cultural issues. In the USA we have seen right wing Christians bomb and murder people involved with family planning clinics. I can't recall the last time I heard of an Atheist strapping on a suicide vest and blowing themselves up - possibly because they dont think they'll be met by scores of virgins in some fictional afterlife. Perhaps there is a secret cadre of "Darwinists " somewhere planning suicide attacks on Churches and Mosques?
The Pope will be happy of course for his flock to make simplistic connections between real violence and secularism or atheism but the Catholic Churches' real fear , and the fear of other religionists, isn't that Atheists are starting to hoard kalshnikovs for some mythical anti-religious revolution.
No my dear Pope, you see us as "aggressive" because we no longer sit passively and quietly while god-botherers like you have the stage of public discourse all to yourself. Secularists and Atheists are increasingly out there, in force, setting out the arguments for the irrationality of religion and pointing out the iniquity and hypocrisy that often accompany religions. That's what you and your like fear. That's why my dear Pope you see us as aggressive.
The problem is that we are parking our logical tanks on your theological lawns and taking you and other religionists on in a battle of rationality and reason. And you know you can't win in the long run. So you and other religious leaders must scare your flocks and make us bogeymen.
The reality is that no atheist or secularist that I know of talks about actually banning religion or religious observance or indeed trying to stop people enjoying their associated "cultural practices" - within reason. The trouble is that one man's religious cultural practice is anothers abuse of human rights.
If you are / were a believer in some forms of African witchcraft ( ** ) then you might think that abuse of so called witch children is religiously and culturally justified. I don't. Sorry - but you dont get to to do that in my country. (** I wonder if turning bread and wine into the body and blood of christ qualifies as witchcraft or sorcery?)
The Catholic Church has it's own set of backward religious / cultural practices - a primitive and repressive approach to birth control and attitudes to homosexuality that offend peoples sense of human rights. So the Church doesn't get to set the agenda in this country on these issues. If that counts as "aggressive" secularism then so be it. If pointing out the hypocrisy and evil of the Church covering up the sexual abuse of children makes us aggressive secularists then so be it. If we have you trembling in your Prada slippers worrying that your flocks may start to think for themselves rather than passively swallowing your religious nonsense then so be it. We need more such aggressive secularism - not less.
The Pope said;
"Today, the United Kingdom strives to be a modern and multicultural society. In this challenging enterprise, may it always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate. Let it not obscure the Christian foundation that underpins its freedoms; and may that patrimony, which has always served the nation well, constantly inform the example your Government and people set before the 2 billion members of the Commonwealth and the great family of English-speaking nations throughout the world." 1
This comes of course from the man who leads an organisation responsible for covering up the sexual abuse of children by priests and which has sheltered paedophile priests within it's cloisters. Clearly the man has some interest in getting the agenda onto a different subject.
His reference to "aggressive forms of secularism" is of course no accident. It is his intention that his flock and others listening should make the mental connection between atheism /secularism and aggression and violence. This might wash with religious adherents who are already dumbed down by the deadening hand of religious mumbo jumbo but it really doesn't wash as a peace of analysis.
The fact is that almost none of the violence that we see in the world around us today has roots in either secularism or atheism. The vast majority of the violence we see today appears to have it's roots in a tangle of religious and cultural issues.
Religionists love to give Nazism and Communism as examples of what happens when Atheists take control. Again this is simplistic nonsense. These movements , just like religions, had their own Holy Books - Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto, which the believers followed as though they were the words of some inspired being. They were in fact political religions. Indeed the record is clear that in Germany many churchmen provided moral and religious cover to the Nazi regime. So such arguments hold little weight and the Pope clearly doesn't understand his history. ( see for example the Wikipedia article on the religious aspects of Nazism )
In Pakistan, India , Northern Ireland and many other places we see terrorism and communal violence which comes from a tangle of religious and cultural issues. In the USA we have seen right wing Christians bomb and murder people involved with family planning clinics. I can't recall the last time I heard of an Atheist strapping on a suicide vest and blowing themselves up - possibly because they dont think they'll be met by scores of virgins in some fictional afterlife. Perhaps there is a secret cadre of "Darwinists " somewhere planning suicide attacks on Churches and Mosques?
The Pope will be happy of course for his flock to make simplistic connections between real violence and secularism or atheism but the Catholic Churches' real fear , and the fear of other religionists, isn't that Atheists are starting to hoard kalshnikovs for some mythical anti-religious revolution.
No my dear Pope, you see us as "aggressive" because we no longer sit passively and quietly while god-botherers like you have the stage of public discourse all to yourself. Secularists and Atheists are increasingly out there, in force, setting out the arguments for the irrationality of religion and pointing out the iniquity and hypocrisy that often accompany religions. That's what you and your like fear. That's why my dear Pope you see us as aggressive.
The problem is that we are parking our logical tanks on your theological lawns and taking you and other religionists on in a battle of rationality and reason. And you know you can't win in the long run. So you and other religious leaders must scare your flocks and make us bogeymen.
The reality is that no atheist or secularist that I know of talks about actually banning religion or religious observance or indeed trying to stop people enjoying their associated "cultural practices" - within reason. The trouble is that one man's religious cultural practice is anothers abuse of human rights.
If you are / were a believer in some forms of African witchcraft ( ** ) then you might think that abuse of so called witch children is religiously and culturally justified. I don't. Sorry - but you dont get to to do that in my country. (** I wonder if turning bread and wine into the body and blood of christ qualifies as witchcraft or sorcery?)
The Catholic Church has it's own set of backward religious / cultural practices - a primitive and repressive approach to birth control and attitudes to homosexuality that offend peoples sense of human rights. So the Church doesn't get to set the agenda in this country on these issues. If that counts as "aggressive" secularism then so be it. If pointing out the hypocrisy and evil of the Church covering up the sexual abuse of children makes us aggressive secularists then so be it. If we have you trembling in your Prada slippers worrying that your flocks may start to think for themselves rather than passively swallowing your religious nonsense then so be it. We need more such aggressive secularism - not less.
Jan 8, 2010
Atheism or Critical Thinking
Is Atheism the same as Critical or Rational Thinking? Should atheists organise around atheism or around the ideas of rational thinking? It's a debate that crops up regularly in atheist circles. My view is that atheism and rational thinking are closely related but distinct things. Atheists should not therefore simply organise under a banner of "rational thinking" or "critical thinking".
Atheism at it's most basic is simply defined as an absence of belief in a god - any god of any kind. There can never be absolute proof or disproof of the existence of god. The non belief of Atheists is, in it's deepest roots, always a conclusion that rests on probabilities. Atheists see no evidence for the existence of a god and are unafraid to conclude that there is no probability worth speaking of that there is a God. Absence of evidence though is not conclusive evidence of absence. It does not prove that God is absent - it merely makes it highly unlikely that there is a God.
For most people who choose Atheism ( and few Atheists were brought up as Atheists) the lack of absolute proof either way is not a problem. Atheists by and large in my experience generally understand that the realm of absolute proof doesn't apply to the real world. The idea that humans may not posses the absolute truth is not one that many religious believers, and particularly fundamentalist literalists, are comfortable with. Their faith rests on believing that they have been handed down absolute truths - that our ancestors had dealings with gods and that we have been handed down holy works which contain absolute truths.
So atheism and rational or critical thinking are very closely related but even so I think it would be misleading to wholly equate the two. It is entirely possible for an Atheist to be less than rational on other issues.
The essential elements of critical or rational thinking is a willingness to examine arguments rationally and, importantly, a willingness to change your views if the evidence points in another direction.
This is the essential contrast between rational thinking and most fundamentalist type religious thinking. For believers faith is the key - not evidence. Religious faith without faith becomes merely the following of ceremonies and rules. The religious believer must have faith if they are to believe and faith is not the same as evidence.
Just like an atheist may be rational in their atheism but not rational on other subjects then also a god believer may be irrational in that respect but perfectly rational in the way they think about other issues.
A prime example of this is the way that most of the mainstream churches have accommodated to science over the last few hundred years. As the evidence about the real nature of the earth, the universe and man's place in it has stacked up so most non-fundmantalist believers have accepted this evidence.
If atheists try to grab for themselves the "rational thinking" label then we deny the rationality of the many millions of people around the world who are rational enough to understand basic scientific evidence and theories but who happen also to be less than rational in their god believing.
For me Atheism is the rational conclusion that I come to when I consider the evidence for and against the existence of a god - any god. I am also anti - religious because again I think that on balance religion is a more destructive force in the world than a constructive one. Not all religions or religious views however are equally damnable. I know that I share many political and ethical views with moderate believers of different faiths. There are also atheists whose political and ethical views I may not share.
Essentially Atheism is a subset of rational or critical thinking. It is rational or critical thinking as applied narrowly to one question - the existence or non existence of a god - any god.
Atheism at it's most basic is simply defined as an absence of belief in a god - any god of any kind. There can never be absolute proof or disproof of the existence of god. The non belief of Atheists is, in it's deepest roots, always a conclusion that rests on probabilities. Atheists see no evidence for the existence of a god and are unafraid to conclude that there is no probability worth speaking of that there is a God. Absence of evidence though is not conclusive evidence of absence. It does not prove that God is absent - it merely makes it highly unlikely that there is a God.
For most people who choose Atheism ( and few Atheists were brought up as Atheists) the lack of absolute proof either way is not a problem. Atheists by and large in my experience generally understand that the realm of absolute proof doesn't apply to the real world. The idea that humans may not posses the absolute truth is not one that many religious believers, and particularly fundamentalist literalists, are comfortable with. Their faith rests on believing that they have been handed down absolute truths - that our ancestors had dealings with gods and that we have been handed down holy works which contain absolute truths.
So atheism and rational or critical thinking are very closely related but even so I think it would be misleading to wholly equate the two. It is entirely possible for an Atheist to be less than rational on other issues.
The essential elements of critical or rational thinking is a willingness to examine arguments rationally and, importantly, a willingness to change your views if the evidence points in another direction.
This is the essential contrast between rational thinking and most fundamentalist type religious thinking. For believers faith is the key - not evidence. Religious faith without faith becomes merely the following of ceremonies and rules. The religious believer must have faith if they are to believe and faith is not the same as evidence.
Just like an atheist may be rational in their atheism but not rational on other subjects then also a god believer may be irrational in that respect but perfectly rational in the way they think about other issues.
A prime example of this is the way that most of the mainstream churches have accommodated to science over the last few hundred years. As the evidence about the real nature of the earth, the universe and man's place in it has stacked up so most non-fundmantalist believers have accepted this evidence.
If atheists try to grab for themselves the "rational thinking" label then we deny the rationality of the many millions of people around the world who are rational enough to understand basic scientific evidence and theories but who happen also to be less than rational in their god believing.
For me Atheism is the rational conclusion that I come to when I consider the evidence for and against the existence of a god - any god. I am also anti - religious because again I think that on balance religion is a more destructive force in the world than a constructive one. Not all religions or religious views however are equally damnable. I know that I share many political and ethical views with moderate believers of different faiths. There are also atheists whose political and ethical views I may not share.
Essentially Atheism is a subset of rational or critical thinking. It is rational or critical thinking as applied narrowly to one question - the existence or non existence of a god - any god.
Jan 5, 2010
The Atheist Ten Commandments
1. Do not believe in any god or gods or be bound by any religious doctrine. Neither shall you make for yourself an idol in the form of a god or bow down to a god or worship any god whatever name they may go by.
2 You shall only say "oh Jebus" or OMG! when the car breaks down or in other severe circumstances.
3. Do not work everyday - take at least one day a week off work and chill out..
4 Honor your father ( if you know who he is) and your mother.
5 You shall not murder but you shall mock.
6 You shall not lust after re-touched photos of glamour models.
7 You shall not get caught downloading file shared copyrighted materials from the internet.
8 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour even if he is a lying toe-rag.
9 You shall not covet your neighbor’s MP3 player; your neighbor’s trophy wife, or your neighbours 4x4
10 Start again at commandment 1
As you can see my Atheist Ten commandments actually consist of nine commandments plus a tenth recursive commandment . This is in keeping with the spirit of the Biblical ten commandments which come in at least three different flavours ( two in Exodus and one in Deuteronomy) and also don't add up neatly to ten.
2 You shall only say "oh Jebus" or OMG! when the car breaks down or in other severe circumstances.
3. Do not work everyday - take at least one day a week off work and chill out..
4 Honor your father ( if you know who he is) and your mother.
5 You shall not murder but you shall mock.
6 You shall not lust after re-touched photos of glamour models.
7 You shall not get caught downloading file shared copyrighted materials from the internet.
8 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour even if he is a lying toe-rag.
9 You shall not covet your neighbor’s MP3 player; your neighbor’s trophy wife, or your neighbours 4x4
10 Start again at commandment 1
As you can see my Atheist Ten commandments actually consist of nine commandments plus a tenth recursive commandment . This is in keeping with the spirit of the Biblical ten commandments which come in at least three different flavours ( two in Exodus and one in Deuteronomy) and also don't add up neatly to ten.
May 7, 2009
How men create their Gods
"Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life." Aristotle.
Agnostic and atheist rejection of religious belief has a long history and stretches back even to the ancient Greeks. Sometimes Atheism is projected by creationists as the handmaiden of those who accept the facts of Evolution and the theory of natural selection but this is a distortion.
Aristotle shows that even thousands of years ago there were great thinkers who questioned where the belief in gods came from. In many ways it is remarkable that Aristotle was able to see so clearly that the foundation of the belief in the existence of Gods is to be found in the nature of men themselves.
Aristotle sets out that not only do men create their own gods but that they shape them in an images of themselves and their culture.
It is interesting to think about this in relation to the various strands of thought that we see in the world today.
One of the things that all religions appear to have in common is the belief in some form of afterlife. For the Christian, Jew or Muslim this is some form of imagined heaven. In more eastern religions there are supposed cycles of rebirth leading to Nirvana or to eventual release.
Invariably the imagined heaven offers a release from and a contrast with the hardships of this life. Grieving for a deceased relative or worried that in death you will lose your family for eternity? Fret not for you will see them in heaven. Weighed down by care or the pain of illness? Take comfort for in heaven all will be well.
For those who live the affluent lifestyle of the US there are the fundamentalist christian interpretations. Aristotle would I am sure not be surprised to have found that it was in the US, where so much emphasis is placed on material possessions, that there are preachers who promise rewards on earth for those who are born again.
In many Muslim ( and fundamentalist Christian) cultures women are traditionally tightly under the control of men. And guess what? Surprise surprise - their concept of God is of a supreme being who is essentially male and who supports their cultural prejudices.
Living in a culture which heavily controls free association of the sexes and sexual activity outwith marriage? Hey! - No sweat! - there will be forty virgins waiting for you if you die for Allah.
Want your religion mixed with some female emancipation? - Don't worry! The faithful can create gods in that image as well. Become a Pagan and worship "mother earth" !
In all this we see that belief and worship of gods is about wish fulfillment.
There is of course no obvious reason why an omnipotent god or gods would care a jot about humans collectively - let alone any individual human being. But believing in those types of Gods would be singularly unfulfilling - so it seldom happens.
Perhaps the argument that there is an omnipotent creator would be more compelling if the nature of this being wasn't so obviously tied to the hopes and fears of the humans who believe in this stuff.
Agnostic and atheist rejection of religious belief has a long history and stretches back even to the ancient Greeks. Sometimes Atheism is projected by creationists as the handmaiden of those who accept the facts of Evolution and the theory of natural selection but this is a distortion.
Aristotle shows that even thousands of years ago there were great thinkers who questioned where the belief in gods came from. In many ways it is remarkable that Aristotle was able to see so clearly that the foundation of the belief in the existence of Gods is to be found in the nature of men themselves.
Aristotle sets out that not only do men create their own gods but that they shape them in an images of themselves and their culture.
It is interesting to think about this in relation to the various strands of thought that we see in the world today.
One of the things that all religions appear to have in common is the belief in some form of afterlife. For the Christian, Jew or Muslim this is some form of imagined heaven. In more eastern religions there are supposed cycles of rebirth leading to Nirvana or to eventual release.
Invariably the imagined heaven offers a release from and a contrast with the hardships of this life. Grieving for a deceased relative or worried that in death you will lose your family for eternity? Fret not for you will see them in heaven. Weighed down by care or the pain of illness? Take comfort for in heaven all will be well.
For those who live the affluent lifestyle of the US there are the fundamentalist christian interpretations. Aristotle would I am sure not be surprised to have found that it was in the US, where so much emphasis is placed on material possessions, that there are preachers who promise rewards on earth for those who are born again.
In many Muslim ( and fundamentalist Christian) cultures women are traditionally tightly under the control of men. And guess what? Surprise surprise - their concept of God is of a supreme being who is essentially male and who supports their cultural prejudices.
Living in a culture which heavily controls free association of the sexes and sexual activity outwith marriage? Hey! - No sweat! - there will be forty virgins waiting for you if you die for Allah.
Want your religion mixed with some female emancipation? - Don't worry! The faithful can create gods in that image as well. Become a Pagan and worship "mother earth" !
In all this we see that belief and worship of gods is about wish fulfillment.
There is of course no obvious reason why an omnipotent god or gods would care a jot about humans collectively - let alone any individual human being. But believing in those types of Gods would be singularly unfulfilling - so it seldom happens.
Perhaps the argument that there is an omnipotent creator would be more compelling if the nature of this being wasn't so obviously tied to the hopes and fears of the humans who believe in this stuff.
May 5, 2009
God has the all the best tunes - so far
There's an old saying that God has all the best tunes. That was probably true given that Western Music emerged from singing in Churches and continued its association with religion down the ages.
However in the twentieth century we had the outbreak of "the devils music". With African rooted rhythms and the emergence of blues, Jazz and a myriad of other styles of popular western music we had a music which was no longer religious but was quite secular. Attempts by the religious to colonise pop and rock music have been fairly unsuccessful and often Christian rock groups simply end up seeming tame camp and fairly uninspiring.
We don't often hear avowedly Atheist Music though. I got the link for the following video via the Friendly Atheist ( I'll update this with his link).
On the evidence of this video there is some atheist Music out there. The arrangement reminds me of a UK group called the Specials and the two tone label ( if I remember right).
Its about as persuasive as "Christian rock" though. I would still prefer my music untainted by proselytising for any side but I guess you have to play the believers at their own game.
However in the twentieth century we had the outbreak of "the devils music". With African rooted rhythms and the emergence of blues, Jazz and a myriad of other styles of popular western music we had a music which was no longer religious but was quite secular. Attempts by the religious to colonise pop and rock music have been fairly unsuccessful and often Christian rock groups simply end up seeming tame camp and fairly uninspiring.
We don't often hear avowedly Atheist Music though. I got the link for the following video via the Friendly Atheist ( I'll update this with his link).
On the evidence of this video there is some atheist Music out there. The arrangement reminds me of a UK group called the Specials and the two tone label ( if I remember right).
Its about as persuasive as "Christian rock" though. I would still prefer my music untainted by proselytising for any side but I guess you have to play the believers at their own game.
May 1, 2009
God made Phlegm? Why?
There is no God to hear your prayer
This earthen sod and natures lair
is all there is. For truth and reason;
the world and its wonders are enough.
Faith needs no proof yet brazenly questions science!
It never made a building or fixed a bad appliance.
WE create the gods and blindly hold them dear
Religion? It is the child of hope and fear
Teaching the unknowable to the ignorant
It makes its flocks intolerant
It holds their thoughts in chains
Till nought but faith remains
Good is for goodness sake and not for God's!
Don't heed the siren voice of priests and demi-gods
Wonder about the earth you children of the stars
Mans voygaging discovery, the moon , the sun, the stars
Be a dissatisfied thinker not a satisfied fool
The truth cannot injure you! Make this your rule!
Unreason makes you blind but reason makes you see
Do something to deserve the fact you top the living tree
Dont fetter your thoughts with those of ancient men
Dont waste all your life on some hoped for heaven
Science plants your feet in reasoned experience
It keeps your beliefs proportioned to evidence
Faith is blind. It cannot meet these tests
Will you sleep with the ancients while science never rests?
And if you find yourself scared and to religion must fly
Just seek an answer from your "Lord" - God made phlegm? Why?
This earthen sod and natures lair
is all there is. For truth and reason;
the world and its wonders are enough.
Faith needs no proof yet brazenly questions science!
It never made a building or fixed a bad appliance.
WE create the gods and blindly hold them dear
Religion? It is the child of hope and fear
Teaching the unknowable to the ignorant
It makes its flocks intolerant
It holds their thoughts in chains
Till nought but faith remains
Good is for goodness sake and not for God's!
Don't heed the siren voice of priests and demi-gods
Wonder about the earth you children of the stars
Mans voygaging discovery, the moon , the sun, the stars
Be a dissatisfied thinker not a satisfied fool
The truth cannot injure you! Make this your rule!
Unreason makes you blind but reason makes you see
Do something to deserve the fact you top the living tree
Dont fetter your thoughts with those of ancient men
Dont waste all your life on some hoped for heaven
Science plants your feet in reasoned experience
It keeps your beliefs proportioned to evidence
Faith is blind. It cannot meet these tests
Will you sleep with the ancients while science never rests?
And if you find yourself scared and to religion must fly
Just seek an answer from your "Lord" - God made phlegm? Why?
Jan 9, 2009
Christians complain about Atheist London Bus ads
The Atheist London Bus campaign which recently kicked of with the slogan "There's probably no God. Now Stop worrying and enjoy your life" appears to have triggered a complaint to the Advertising Standards Agency ( ASA) in the UK. A christian group is attempting to attack the advertising campaign by complaining that the adverts break the ASA rules which require that Advertising be factually correct.
Myself and many others had been concerned that the Atheist Ad campaign was if anything too wimpy in it's message but it seems that the use of the word probably had been included in order to try to thwart this very form of attack.
The ASA is now in the unenviable position, if it accepts the complaint as within its jurisdiction, of having to decide on the existence of god. They would be very very foolish to go down that route but it will be all to the good for us atheists. Whose god or gods will they decide exist? After all not all non-atheists are monotheists so a finding for monotheism could be the subject of complaints by atheists, pagans etc etc.
Christians may also risk opening up a can of worms here if they do force the ASA to take a position on this. If the ASA take that position then any future advertising by a single religious group becomes fair game to complaints to the ASA not only by Atheists but also by other religious groups who do not share their beliefs.
Religion and Atheism are essentially about belief and non belief. The "evidence" that Christians use to support their faith is not evidence in the way that facts are used for example if claims about a beauty cream treatment are decided as accurate or not. Equally the Atheist view that there is an absence of evidence for a God is not the subject of the sort of fact finding that an organisation like the ASA is capable of undertaking.
The state would do well to keep out of the arena of religious belief and the lack of religious belief and the right of people to state their case. Religious believers have had the public domain to themselves for far to long. They have had absolute freedom to advertise their messages and make claims about salvation through religion. Can they substantiate their claims with factual evidence? Hardly - otherwise it would not require faith.
But they better be able to because there is no doubt that Atheists will be looking up the ASA telephone number ready to make their own complaints if the ASA opens up this issue. I for one hope the ASA do open this up because then the fun will only just be starting and a massive debate about the existence of god will open up. This will provide space for atheists to raise a debate in the public sphere which doesn't get anywhere near enough airing.
Myself and many others had been concerned that the Atheist Ad campaign was if anything too wimpy in it's message but it seems that the use of the word probably had been included in order to try to thwart this very form of attack.
The ASA is now in the unenviable position, if it accepts the complaint as within its jurisdiction, of having to decide on the existence of god. They would be very very foolish to go down that route but it will be all to the good for us atheists. Whose god or gods will they decide exist? After all not all non-atheists are monotheists so a finding for monotheism could be the subject of complaints by atheists, pagans etc etc.
Christians may also risk opening up a can of worms here if they do force the ASA to take a position on this. If the ASA take that position then any future advertising by a single religious group becomes fair game to complaints to the ASA not only by Atheists but also by other religious groups who do not share their beliefs.
Religion and Atheism are essentially about belief and non belief. The "evidence" that Christians use to support their faith is not evidence in the way that facts are used for example if claims about a beauty cream treatment are decided as accurate or not. Equally the Atheist view that there is an absence of evidence for a God is not the subject of the sort of fact finding that an organisation like the ASA is capable of undertaking.
The state would do well to keep out of the arena of religious belief and the lack of religious belief and the right of people to state their case. Religious believers have had the public domain to themselves for far to long. They have had absolute freedom to advertise their messages and make claims about salvation through religion. Can they substantiate their claims with factual evidence? Hardly - otherwise it would not require faith.
But they better be able to because there is no doubt that Atheists will be looking up the ASA telephone number ready to make their own complaints if the ASA opens up this issue. I for one hope the ASA do open this up because then the fun will only just be starting and a massive debate about the existence of god will open up. This will provide space for atheists to raise a debate in the public sphere which doesn't get anywhere near enough airing.
Nov 10, 2008
In the name of ( their) God
Well after all the excitement of the US presidential elections I decided it was time to do another bit of a swoop around the Internet to see what our friends the God believers are doing these days in the names of their God(s). I was not the least bit surprised of course to find the usual stories of butchery, carnage and intolerance in the name of religion.
In the eastern Indian state of Orissa around 60 Christians have been murdered in the last couple of months by Hindu's incensed by the murder of a Hindu leader in August. The odd thing is that Maoists killed the Hindu leader but the Hindu reprisals were taken against Christians. Still I suppose logic and rationality was never the strong point for religious believers. If you can't find a Maoist to take revenge on in India then I guess a Christian must be the next best thing.
Meanwhile those cuddly Jewish settler types in Palestine continue to honour their God by regularly beating up Palestinians in the West Bank. The latest act of bravery by these heroes of the Jewish faith was to beat up a six year old child. No doubt they feel that their God is fully supportive of such despicable behaviour. Mind you the God of the Old Testament Bible isn't noted for his peacefulness is he?
Not to be outdone in the religious nutter stakes the Christians staged another flare up of violence in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem when Greek and Armenian priests resorted to punches and kicks as they yet again dispute access to the supposed tomb of Christ.
And finally to round of this carnival of religious madmen we have Islamic terrorists sowing more death and destruction and murdering more members of their own faith in synchronised car bombings in Baghdad which left around 28 dead. The suicide bombers will no doubt have faithfully worn their white underpants and been dreaming of the virgins that awaited them in heaven as they plotted to blow apart their fellow countrymen.
So it seems that all around the world the faithful are continuing to do God's work.
In the eastern Indian state of Orissa around 60 Christians have been murdered in the last couple of months by Hindu's incensed by the murder of a Hindu leader in August. The odd thing is that Maoists killed the Hindu leader but the Hindu reprisals were taken against Christians. Still I suppose logic and rationality was never the strong point for religious believers. If you can't find a Maoist to take revenge on in India then I guess a Christian must be the next best thing.
Meanwhile those cuddly Jewish settler types in Palestine continue to honour their God by regularly beating up Palestinians in the West Bank. The latest act of bravery by these heroes of the Jewish faith was to beat up a six year old child. No doubt they feel that their God is fully supportive of such despicable behaviour. Mind you the God of the Old Testament Bible isn't noted for his peacefulness is he?
Not to be outdone in the religious nutter stakes the Christians staged another flare up of violence in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem when Greek and Armenian priests resorted to punches and kicks as they yet again dispute access to the supposed tomb of Christ.
And finally to round of this carnival of religious madmen we have Islamic terrorists sowing more death and destruction and murdering more members of their own faith in synchronised car bombings in Baghdad which left around 28 dead. The suicide bombers will no doubt have faithfully worn their white underpants and been dreaming of the virgins that awaited them in heaven as they plotted to blow apart their fellow countrymen.
So it seems that all around the world the faithful are continuing to do God's work.
Oct 21, 2008
Atheism on the move
Religious groups have been used to having the world of "philosophical advertising" all to themselves for far too long. Now it seems that Atheists are fighting back with an advertising campaign on London Buses.
Walk past any church and the chances are that they will have a big billboard outside shouting at you in big red letters something about Jesus saving you. Open your daily paper and there will be some space devoted to some religious type moralising about the world and adverts for various religious charities and organisations. Atheists and Humanists have however, until recently, been reticent about getting out there and displaying their message to the world. It is interesting to see , therefore, that the British Humanist Association have raised money to purchase advertising on the side of London buses.
The adverts are, to be honest, a little timid. "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." It's hardly a war cry to man the Atheist barricades. Never mind though. It's a start. Religious groups can no longer count on having the public space to themselves in the discourse about who we are as a species and what life is all about.
So, well done to the British Humanist Association for getting the message out there and lets hope that this is just a start. The big problem I suspect will be that Atheism, unlike religion, isn't a very organised affair. Groups like the BHA tend to be fairly small and don't raise large sums of money. So while this is a good start it's unlikely that religious groups will lose a lot of sleep over this particular advertising campaign.
Walk past any church and the chances are that they will have a big billboard outside shouting at you in big red letters something about Jesus saving you. Open your daily paper and there will be some space devoted to some religious type moralising about the world and adverts for various religious charities and organisations. Atheists and Humanists have however, until recently, been reticent about getting out there and displaying their message to the world. It is interesting to see , therefore, that the British Humanist Association have raised money to purchase advertising on the side of London buses.
The adverts are, to be honest, a little timid. "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." It's hardly a war cry to man the Atheist barricades. Never mind though. It's a start. Religious groups can no longer count on having the public space to themselves in the discourse about who we are as a species and what life is all about.
So, well done to the British Humanist Association for getting the message out there and lets hope that this is just a start. The big problem I suspect will be that Atheism, unlike religion, isn't a very organised affair. Groups like the BHA tend to be fairly small and don't raise large sums of money. So while this is a good start it's unlikely that religious groups will lose a lot of sleep over this particular advertising campaign.
Oct 15, 2008
Official: this blog is smarter than Looney's blog
I stumbled across a blog widget that caught my eye earlier. It's a widget that tells you what reading comprehension level your blog is pitched at. The blog I saw it on was showing a Junior school level and I wondered what this blog would rate as.
Blog readability level
Apparently it rates as Post Grad College. Which immediately set me wondering what comprehension level my creationist blogging sparring partner Looney's blog would come in at. High School it appears. That's what fundamentalism does for you I guess. So it is clear from this (hrrr hum) "scientific" experiment that your average Atheist blog is a bit brighter than your average fundamentalist blog. Nothing surprising there then.
I fully expect that Looney will fail to see the force of this argument and I anticipate a full blast response from my High School correspondent as part of his course essay submission. I can already anticipate a few of his likely counter arguments.
I must remember to get out of the right side of the bed tomorrow .....
Blog readability level
Apparently it rates as Post Grad College. Which immediately set me wondering what comprehension level my creationist blogging sparring partner Looney's blog would come in at. High School it appears. That's what fundamentalism does for you I guess. So it is clear from this (hrrr hum) "scientific" experiment that your average Atheist blog is a bit brighter than your average fundamentalist blog. Nothing surprising there then.
I fully expect that Looney will fail to see the force of this argument and I anticipate a full blast response from my High School correspondent as part of his course essay submission. I can already anticipate a few of his likely counter arguments.
I must remember to get out of the right side of the bed tomorrow .....
Sep 20, 2008
Now the Rabbis are defending evolution
It seems we have an outbreak of common sense among sections of the world religious community. Not only did we have the US United Methodists recently acknowledging the scientific theory of evolution as the only game in town when it comes to explaining mans origins but we now have a further outbreak of rationalism - this time from senior rabbis. The "blog of the airtightnoodle" refers to news "out of Chicago" that Rabbis are arguing that Evolution is not detrimental to faith but may in fact strengthen it.
Now of course whether accepting both the facts of Evolution and the explanations of those facts through the modern theories of Evolution strengthens or weakens faith is not a matter that greatly concerns me. Certainly for me understanding the fact of evolution was not a critical factor in me losing the faith I was indoctrinated into. Certainly it didn't strengthen or cause me to recover my faith, but it wasn't the thing that made me convinced that belief in gods is hogwash.
As I have said before though when the religious stop parking their tanks on our lawn and trying to rubbish a science which most of them clearly know nothing about then perhaps that will be the day that I stop blogging for Atheism. If we have a breakout of rational thinking among Jewish Rabbis on the subject of Evolution then that day has come one day closer.
And it gets even better -
The Washington Post reports that Gennaro Auletta, a professor at Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University (a Vatican-sponsored university) expressed dismay that some Christians reject the theory of evolution and said that recent popes have "recognized the scientific value of the theory of biological evolution."
Now of course whether accepting both the facts of Evolution and the explanations of those facts through the modern theories of Evolution strengthens or weakens faith is not a matter that greatly concerns me. Certainly for me understanding the fact of evolution was not a critical factor in me losing the faith I was indoctrinated into. Certainly it didn't strengthen or cause me to recover my faith, but it wasn't the thing that made me convinced that belief in gods is hogwash.
As I have said before though when the religious stop parking their tanks on our lawn and trying to rubbish a science which most of them clearly know nothing about then perhaps that will be the day that I stop blogging for Atheism. If we have a breakout of rational thinking among Jewish Rabbis on the subject of Evolution then that day has come one day closer.
And it gets even better -
The Washington Post reports that Gennaro Auletta, a professor at Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University (a Vatican-sponsored university) expressed dismay that some Christians reject the theory of evolution and said that recent popes have "recognized the scientific value of the theory of biological evolution."
A Vatican official at the same press conference said, "Creationism from a strictly theological view makes sense, but when it is used in scientific fields, it becomes useless."
The same article reports Pope Benedict XVI in Paris last week warning against literal interpretations of the Bible and saying "the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text."
Just those redneck fundamentalist American protestant sects now that need to see the light I guess, oh and fundamentalist Muslims with whom they seem to share so much in common.
Sep 18, 2008
Two plus Two is Five - Teach the alternative now
What are mathematicians afraid of? For years they have brainwashed our children with their atheistic mathematics. We know that the Bible tells us that five loaves and five fishes are able to feed thousands of people. This is FACT, because the Bible tells us that this actually really happened. Yet these same mathematicians would deny the universal truth of Fiveism! They are WORSE than the Evolutionists!
Two plus two equals four they will tell you. And don't you dare ask them to respect your alternative Fiveism world view or tell them that two plus two equals five. We know that some religious sects believe that two plus two equals six of course but the Sixists are wrong in their interpretation of the Holy books even though we still love them dearly because they believe in the great creator ( Bless his noodly appendages)
Where in the Bible does it tell us about the properties of a right angle triangle? Nowhere! Yet these primitive beliefs that came from pre-christian greeks have been handed down to us as though they are gospel and our children are not allowed to question these unfounded assertions.
Mathematicians try to baffle us with Atheistic rationality and logic and claim that they can prove these things but this is rubbish. When you have studied this like I have done you will realise that even the mathematicians don't agree on the properties of triangles. Its all THEORY !! Its not FACT like the Bible!
They teach our children that the angles in a triangle always add up to the same number but THEY DONT ! In other types of spaces they add up to different numbers! But do they teach our children in their primary classes about such non-euclidean spaces? No they do not. Because they know that their mathematics is based on lies and they don't want our children to know this.
What does ten sheep and ten sheep equal for example? These mathematicians will tell you that it equals twenty sheep ! But this is atheist propaganda! Ten sheep and ten sheep equals A FLOCK OF SHEEP !!! The Bible says nothing about ten sheep but it does tell us about flocks of sheep and the Bible is HIS word.
We must demand equal time for the teaching of Fiveism in the Bible and challenge the hold of these atheist mathematicians on the minds of our children. Just think of the wonders our engineers could perform if they were properly educated in Fiveism! Why , with five bricks and five nails they could build five thousand houses! Praise the Lord!
So join the campaign for Fiveism and don't let these atheist mathematicians ruin your children's morals!
Two plus two equals four they will tell you. And don't you dare ask them to respect your alternative Fiveism world view or tell them that two plus two equals five. We know that some religious sects believe that two plus two equals six of course but the Sixists are wrong in their interpretation of the Holy books even though we still love them dearly because they believe in the great creator ( Bless his noodly appendages)
Where in the Bible does it tell us about the properties of a right angle triangle? Nowhere! Yet these primitive beliefs that came from pre-christian greeks have been handed down to us as though they are gospel and our children are not allowed to question these unfounded assertions.
Mathematicians try to baffle us with Atheistic rationality and logic and claim that they can prove these things but this is rubbish. When you have studied this like I have done you will realise that even the mathematicians don't agree on the properties of triangles. Its all THEORY !! Its not FACT like the Bible!
They teach our children that the angles in a triangle always add up to the same number but THEY DONT ! In other types of spaces they add up to different numbers! But do they teach our children in their primary classes about such non-euclidean spaces? No they do not. Because they know that their mathematics is based on lies and they don't want our children to know this.
What does ten sheep and ten sheep equal for example? These mathematicians will tell you that it equals twenty sheep ! But this is atheist propaganda! Ten sheep and ten sheep equals A FLOCK OF SHEEP !!! The Bible says nothing about ten sheep but it does tell us about flocks of sheep and the Bible is HIS word.
We must demand equal time for the teaching of Fiveism in the Bible and challenge the hold of these atheist mathematicians on the minds of our children. Just think of the wonders our engineers could perform if they were properly educated in Fiveism! Why , with five bricks and five nails they could build five thousand houses! Praise the Lord!
So join the campaign for Fiveism and don't let these atheist mathematicians ruin your children's morals!
Sep 8, 2008
Creationism fails at even basic biology
Doing my usual round of the creationist vs evolutionary theory blogs and articles I came across an excellent short post on the "For Knowledge" blog. There the author makes the point that evolutionary theory is the least of the problems that creationism has.
The author points out that creationism has problems even with basic biology as it was understood long before the theory of evolution was developed and, in particular he shows how it is challenged by taxonomy and by the work of Carl Linnaeus, who laid the foundations of taxonomy.
Belief in a mankind made "in the image" of God has to be reconciled to the undeniable similarity between humans and the great apes in their bodily structure and form and in their behaviour both individually and in groups.( See this recent example). Even if Evolutionary theory was dismissed, this glaring inconsistency must be explained away by Bible literalists. Did God make mankind in his image and the great apes "almost" in his image? This cannot be squared with Bible accounts without a great deal of wriggling.
I have made the point before and made the same comment in the "For Knowledge" blog that we should be challenging Creationism and IDiocy not just on their fallacies in respect of Evolution but also on their other challenges to modern scientific understanding.
In another post on another blog, the "ParisTampaBlog" the author eloquently makes essentially the same point. As rationalists, we need to be taking the fight to the Creationists and IDiots and showing how their "explanations" are contradictory not only to modern Evolutionary science but also how they are refuted by a vast range of evidence across a number of scientific disciplines.
The author points out that creationism has problems even with basic biology as it was understood long before the theory of evolution was developed and, in particular he shows how it is challenged by taxonomy and by the work of Carl Linnaeus, who laid the foundations of taxonomy.
Belief in a mankind made "in the image" of God has to be reconciled to the undeniable similarity between humans and the great apes in their bodily structure and form and in their behaviour both individually and in groups.( See this recent example). Even if Evolutionary theory was dismissed, this glaring inconsistency must be explained away by Bible literalists. Did God make mankind in his image and the great apes "almost" in his image? This cannot be squared with Bible accounts without a great deal of wriggling.
I have made the point before and made the same comment in the "For Knowledge" blog that we should be challenging Creationism and IDiocy not just on their fallacies in respect of Evolution but also on their other challenges to modern scientific understanding.
In another post on another blog, the "ParisTampaBlog" the author eloquently makes essentially the same point. As rationalists, we need to be taking the fight to the Creationists and IDiots and showing how their "explanations" are contradictory not only to modern Evolutionary science but also how they are refuted by a vast range of evidence across a number of scientific disciplines.
Sep 2, 2008
Warning, Lunatic Christian Cult active in UK
Joels Army, a lunatic US christian cult, would appear to be active in the UK. The "dominionist " militaristic Christan cult has been associating itself with "Revival Fires"" a revivalist ministry in the Midlands who organise an event called the "Dudley outpouring". Joel's Army have had similar events in the US one of which was called the "Florida outpouring". Revival fires seem quite unembarrassed about proclaiming their link to Joel's Army on their website.
This leads to an obvious question about the exact link between revival Fires in the UK and Joel's Army group - are they one and the same?
The Joels Army groups leader Todd Bentley and other "hyper-charismatic" preachers see Joel's Army as the prophesied Armageddon-ready military force of young people with a divine mandate to physically impose Christian "dominion" on non-believers.
Dominionists believe that America and the rest of the world should be governed by conservative Christians and a conservative Christian interpretation of biblical law. There is no room in Dominionist thinking for such non-christian ideas as democracy or pluralism.
Joels Army is reportedly an anti-intellectual group who really believe that it is their mission to help bring on the "end times" and to be the military force that will help to usher this in.
According to one website which has an article on Joels Army;
"Despite their overt militancy, there's no evidence Joel's Army followers have committed any acts of violence. But critics warn that actual bloodletting may only be a matter of time for a movement that casts itself as God's avenging army."
According to the same article it is not only secularists who are concerned about this lunatic bunch; even christian organisations are getting anxious about them;
"The pitch and intensity of the military rhetoric of this branch of the global Dominionist movement has substantially increased since the beginning of 2008," writes The Discernment Research Group, a Christian watchdog group that tracks what they call heresies or cults within Christianity. "One can only wonder how long before this transforms into real warfare with actual warriors."
Accordng to the same article Rick Joyner, a pastor associated with the group posted a sermon in 2006 in which he claimed that a last-day army is now gathering and where he called believers "freedom fighters."
Joyner is quoted as saying;
"As the church begins to take on this resolve, they [Joel's Army churches] will start to be thought of more as military bases, and they will begin to take on the characteristics of military bases for training, equipping, and deploying effective spiritual forces. In time, the church will actually be organized more as a military force with an army, navy, air force, etc."
Given the problems that the UK has had with Militant Islam do we really want to see the development of such christian "end of times" lunacy in this country? If these are the types of messages being preached by this group at meetings like the Dudley gathering then it is to be hoped that the Authorities are keeping a very close eye on this group and that they will consider the wisdom of letting lunatics like Todd Bentley into the country.
This leads to an obvious question about the exact link between revival Fires in the UK and Joel's Army group - are they one and the same?
The Joels Army groups leader Todd Bentley and other "hyper-charismatic" preachers see Joel's Army as the prophesied Armageddon-ready military force of young people with a divine mandate to physically impose Christian "dominion" on non-believers.
Dominionists believe that America and the rest of the world should be governed by conservative Christians and a conservative Christian interpretation of biblical law. There is no room in Dominionist thinking for such non-christian ideas as democracy or pluralism.
Joels Army is reportedly an anti-intellectual group who really believe that it is their mission to help bring on the "end times" and to be the military force that will help to usher this in.
According to one website which has an article on Joels Army;
"Despite their overt militancy, there's no evidence Joel's Army followers have committed any acts of violence. But critics warn that actual bloodletting may only be a matter of time for a movement that casts itself as God's avenging army."
According to the same article it is not only secularists who are concerned about this lunatic bunch; even christian organisations are getting anxious about them;
"The pitch and intensity of the military rhetoric of this branch of the global Dominionist movement has substantially increased since the beginning of 2008," writes The Discernment Research Group, a Christian watchdog group that tracks what they call heresies or cults within Christianity. "One can only wonder how long before this transforms into real warfare with actual warriors."
Accordng to the same article Rick Joyner, a pastor associated with the group posted a sermon in 2006 in which he claimed that a last-day army is now gathering and where he called believers "freedom fighters."
Joyner is quoted as saying;
"As the church begins to take on this resolve, they [Joel's Army churches] will start to be thought of more as military bases, and they will begin to take on the characteristics of military bases for training, equipping, and deploying effective spiritual forces. In time, the church will actually be organized more as a military force with an army, navy, air force, etc."
Given the problems that the UK has had with Militant Islam do we really want to see the development of such christian "end of times" lunacy in this country? If these are the types of messages being preached by this group at meetings like the Dudley gathering then it is to be hoped that the Authorities are keeping a very close eye on this group and that they will consider the wisdom of letting lunatics like Todd Bentley into the country.
Aug 23, 2008
USA United Methodists join the modern world
In one sense it is reassuring to see that within the Christian community in the US there are some significant movements away from the lunacy that is creationism and the pseudo science of "intelligent" design.
In a significant victory for rationalism and common sense it seems that the United Methodist Church in the US has accepted proposals which make clear that the United Methodist Church stance on Evolution is that there is no conflict between Evolution and Church theology. From the article it would seem that this advance in rationalism is intended to make clear that the Church has no issue with modern science and defend against the possibility that younger members would leave the Church if it did not make this clear.
While I am reassured by this advance of rationalism within the US Christian community I must be honest and say that it does of course make the Atheists job a little harder when Theists stop spouting anti-science nonsense. We then are back on philosophical debates about the existence of God etc rather than the much easier job of showing what an irrational bunch Theists are as demonstrated by the Anti-evolutionist movement.
I have found that my own inclination to get out and about on the Internet and "take on" Christians and others over their Theism has been very strongly motivated by the vociferous positions that Creationist IDers were taking in public debate. In some ways had they not been doing this I suspect that I and many others would still have been "quiet" Atheists debating with friends after dinner. In that situation I probably never would have started writing and commenting on the Internet about the issue. Hopefully at least a core of creationists will continue to spout their nonsense otherwise I am going to end up with nothing to get riled about.
In a significant victory for rationalism and common sense it seems that the United Methodist Church in the US has accepted proposals which make clear that the United Methodist Church stance on Evolution is that there is no conflict between Evolution and Church theology. From the article it would seem that this advance in rationalism is intended to make clear that the Church has no issue with modern science and defend against the possibility that younger members would leave the Church if it did not make this clear.
While I am reassured by this advance of rationalism within the US Christian community I must be honest and say that it does of course make the Atheists job a little harder when Theists stop spouting anti-science nonsense. We then are back on philosophical debates about the existence of God etc rather than the much easier job of showing what an irrational bunch Theists are as demonstrated by the Anti-evolutionist movement.
I have found that my own inclination to get out and about on the Internet and "take on" Christians and others over their Theism has been very strongly motivated by the vociferous positions that Creationist IDers were taking in public debate. In some ways had they not been doing this I suspect that I and many others would still have been "quiet" Atheists debating with friends after dinner. In that situation I probably never would have started writing and commenting on the Internet about the issue. Hopefully at least a core of creationists will continue to spout their nonsense otherwise I am going to end up with nothing to get riled about.
Apr 20, 2008
Christianity is a beacon of peace and er well
Christianity shines the candle of peace and tolerance in this dark world and christs followers ..... No. It's just rubbish isn't it? Sure there are some nice Christians. But you know what? Many of these people would be just as nice whether they were Buddhists, Zoroastrans or followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ( Bless your noodly appendages oh great al dente).
And , conversely, there are as many idiotic , don't quite get it, fanatics among Christians as among any other sect of "believers". We tend to get blinded by this because recently it has mostly been Muslim fanatics blowing themselves and others ( mostly their Muslim brothers) up.
But just as a timely reminder, that in religion all things are equal, we have the rather unedifying spectacle of fists flying between religious clergy at the tomb of christ.
Yep - they are fighting over the Big Yin's tomstone. No doubt the cassocks and Bibles were flying as they argued about which sect is the true guardian of the "word". Ever watch "The Life of Brian" and the bit with the followers of the shoe? Its so funny because it's so crazily true to life.
Thats what these religious believers do. They have no real objective evidence for their beliefs, because for them the belief is the evidence. It's all ends up with arguments over the meaning of words in books. Or the meaning of words in handed down songs or myths.
There's no testing of the beliefs against observation and reality. And so they fight and kill each other; for, of course, each of them is the "true" believer.
This punch up between Christian sects is the real face of religion, a true example of what religion brings to this world and a reminder about just how fanatical the "faithful" can be.
And , conversely, there are as many idiotic , don't quite get it, fanatics among Christians as among any other sect of "believers". We tend to get blinded by this because recently it has mostly been Muslim fanatics blowing themselves and others ( mostly their Muslim brothers) up.
But just as a timely reminder, that in religion all things are equal, we have the rather unedifying spectacle of fists flying between religious clergy at the tomb of christ.
Yep - they are fighting over the Big Yin's tomstone. No doubt the cassocks and Bibles were flying as they argued about which sect is the true guardian of the "word". Ever watch "The Life of Brian" and the bit with the followers of the shoe? Its so funny because it's so crazily true to life.
Thats what these religious believers do. They have no real objective evidence for their beliefs, because for them the belief is the evidence. It's all ends up with arguments over the meaning of words in books. Or the meaning of words in handed down songs or myths.
There's no testing of the beliefs against observation and reality. And so they fight and kill each other; for, of course, each of them is the "true" believer.
This punch up between Christian sects is the real face of religion, a true example of what religion brings to this world and a reminder about just how fanatical the "faithful" can be.
Mar 7, 2008
The Atheists Creed
This is by PZ Myers, author of the much read Pharyngula blog. Myers is an associate professor and biologist at the University of Minesota and writes frequently about issues to do with Evolution, Bible thumping creationists and the like. His blog is well worth a read if you haven't already found it.
He wrote this little creed in response to an infantile graphic that some Bible Thumper had created which supposedly illustrated the lot of the Atheist. It's worth reading the comments on that post. Like many of the commentators there I thought his little creed was worth reproducing. We are a fairly disparate bunch us Atheists but it does capture something of the common view shared by many Atheists;
An atheist's creed
I believe in time,
matter, and energy,
which make up the whole of the world.
I believe in reason, evidence and the human mind,
the only tools we have;
they are the product of natural forces
in a majestic but impersonal universe,
grander and richer than we can imagine,
a source of endless opportunities for discovery.
I believe in the power of doubt;
I do not seek out reassurances,
but embrace the question,
and strive to challenge my own beliefs.
I accept human mortality.
We have but one life,
brief and full of struggle,
leavened with love and community,
learning and exploration,
beauty and the creation of
new life, new art, and new ideas.
I rejoice in this life that I have,
and in the grandeur of a world that preceded me,
and an earth that will abide without me.
He wrote this little creed in response to an infantile graphic that some Bible Thumper had created which supposedly illustrated the lot of the Atheist. It's worth reading the comments on that post. Like many of the commentators there I thought his little creed was worth reproducing. We are a fairly disparate bunch us Atheists but it does capture something of the common view shared by many Atheists;
An atheist's creed
I believe in time,
matter, and energy,
which make up the whole of the world.
I believe in reason, evidence and the human mind,
the only tools we have;
they are the product of natural forces
in a majestic but impersonal universe,
grander and richer than we can imagine,
a source of endless opportunities for discovery.
I believe in the power of doubt;
I do not seek out reassurances,
but embrace the question,
and strive to challenge my own beliefs.
I accept human mortality.
We have but one life,
brief and full of struggle,
leavened with love and community,
learning and exploration,
beauty and the creation of
new life, new art, and new ideas.
I rejoice in this life that I have,
and in the grandeur of a world that preceded me,
and an earth that will abide without me.
Mar 4, 2008
How to understand the Bible Genesis Account
In a previous post I had commented on the internal inconsistencies of the Biblical account of Genesis and how these are problematic for Biblical Literalists and creationists. I had not highlighted all the inconsistencies, for there are many, but just a few which occur early in the Genesis account.
I had also noted that a more sensible approach to reading the Bible is to see it as a book written in a particular historical and cultural context. I suggested that it was important that the Genesis account be understood in its relationship to the Genesis accounts of other cultures and, in particular, those of nearby Middle Eastern Cultures and I promised more on this topic.
Browsing around the web I was delighted therefore to come across a blog by Mike Beidler - The Creation of an Evolutionist - which is his personal story of developing his thinking from a belief in Biblically Literal Young Earth Creationism to an acceptance of Evolutionary science and a more sophisticated understanding of the Biblical text in it's cultural and historical context.
Now don't get me wrong - Mike and I ultimately won't see eye to eye on the issue of the existence of God. Although Mike has made the journey to a more sophisticated understanding of the Bible, he still essentially sees it as the word of God - in the sense that 1) he believes in God and 2) he sees the Bible as communicating Gods will to people.
Mike has, I suspect, travelled far down the path of reconciling his Christian beliefs with the real scientific evidence of evolution and the age of the Earth, but is unlikely to ever take what I personally see as the next logical step. This is a position though that I can respect albeit not one that I personally hold. For me the wider scientific explanations of the way the world works leave no need for God type explanations. But then that is the ultimate difference in our positions - Mike believes that God is ultimately the root of all things and I don't. Fair enough.
There's a lot of discussion on Mike's blog about his journey in terms of the development of his understanding and the reconciliation of his faith and scientific understanding and it's worth a read by Christians and Atheists. In particular he rehearses the evidence for a more sophisticated understanding of the Bible in a cultural and historical context.
He was kind enough to send me a link to a talk by a Dr John H Walton who is a Christian, and interestingly, not himself an evolutionist.
Dr Walton outlines briefly in his talk how Christians have failed to understand the real meaning of the Genesis account because their interpretation is done through the eyes of our modern cultural understanding and not through the eyes of the people who actually owned this account. He shows how translations of some of the words in the Genesis account result in us interpreting Genesis as a story about the act of physical creation rather than what he describes as the act of "assigning functions".
It is worth listening to his lecture. You can access the Lecture by Dr John H Walton on Genesis interpretation here. (There are lectures by three other academics on faith and science related issues which I haven't yet listened to so this is a good link) - thank you Mike.
Mike Beidler suggests that Dr Waltons work;
"is sure to assist biblical literalists in understanding Genesis from an ancient Near Eastern perspective, which is how Genesis should be read ... his writings are a must-read for anyone still reading Genesis in a strictly literal manner. This goes for Young-Earth Creationists and atheists alike, both groups of which (generally speaking) tend to read Genesis through a 21st-century lens."
Dr. Walton is an Old Testament professor from Wheaton College and has two major works published;
(1) Genesis (NIV Application Commentary series)
(2) Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible/
I had also noted that a more sensible approach to reading the Bible is to see it as a book written in a particular historical and cultural context. I suggested that it was important that the Genesis account be understood in its relationship to the Genesis accounts of other cultures and, in particular, those of nearby Middle Eastern Cultures and I promised more on this topic.
Browsing around the web I was delighted therefore to come across a blog by Mike Beidler - The Creation of an Evolutionist - which is his personal story of developing his thinking from a belief in Biblically Literal Young Earth Creationism to an acceptance of Evolutionary science and a more sophisticated understanding of the Biblical text in it's cultural and historical context.
Now don't get me wrong - Mike and I ultimately won't see eye to eye on the issue of the existence of God. Although Mike has made the journey to a more sophisticated understanding of the Bible, he still essentially sees it as the word of God - in the sense that 1) he believes in God and 2) he sees the Bible as communicating Gods will to people.
Mike has, I suspect, travelled far down the path of reconciling his Christian beliefs with the real scientific evidence of evolution and the age of the Earth, but is unlikely to ever take what I personally see as the next logical step. This is a position though that I can respect albeit not one that I personally hold. For me the wider scientific explanations of the way the world works leave no need for God type explanations. But then that is the ultimate difference in our positions - Mike believes that God is ultimately the root of all things and I don't. Fair enough.
There's a lot of discussion on Mike's blog about his journey in terms of the development of his understanding and the reconciliation of his faith and scientific understanding and it's worth a read by Christians and Atheists. In particular he rehearses the evidence for a more sophisticated understanding of the Bible in a cultural and historical context.
He was kind enough to send me a link to a talk by a Dr John H Walton who is a Christian, and interestingly, not himself an evolutionist.
Dr Walton outlines briefly in his talk how Christians have failed to understand the real meaning of the Genesis account because their interpretation is done through the eyes of our modern cultural understanding and not through the eyes of the people who actually owned this account. He shows how translations of some of the words in the Genesis account result in us interpreting Genesis as a story about the act of physical creation rather than what he describes as the act of "assigning functions".
It is worth listening to his lecture. You can access the Lecture by Dr John H Walton on Genesis interpretation here. (There are lectures by three other academics on faith and science related issues which I haven't yet listened to so this is a good link) - thank you Mike.
Mike Beidler suggests that Dr Waltons work;
"is sure to assist biblical literalists in understanding Genesis from an ancient Near Eastern perspective, which is how Genesis should be read ... his writings are a must-read for anyone still reading Genesis in a strictly literal manner. This goes for Young-Earth Creationists and atheists alike, both groups of which (generally speaking) tend to read Genesis through a 21st-century lens."
Dr. Walton is an Old Testament professor from Wheaton College and has two major works published;
(1) Genesis (NIV Application Commentary series)
(2) Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
