13 April 1949 – 15 December 2011
One comment so far, add another ▶The Atheist Delusion?
Conor Kenny is a writer for the Irish student newspaper “The University Times” and recently penned an “The Atheist Delusion” – an article of such breathtaking ignorance and stupidity it demands a response.
Conor bleats about how mean the “militant atheists of our generation are” because they “are forever badgering people of faith”, pointing out that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens seem to have done more to disturb the peace than those of faith have ever done and pleads for rationalists to “just leave the rest of us alone”. Conor is so busy being offended by people asking simple questions about the existence and nature of god that he misses the obvious flaw in his rebuttal.
People of faith have a long history of being able to essentially believe whatever they like without question. The undeserved respect for religious ideas seems to be coming to an end, and the faithful don’t like it. No longer can they simply declare their insane ideas to be divinely inspired and therefore out of the reach of sceptical inquiry, they are now finding themselves having to justify them in the unforgiving teeth of evidence and reason. Unsurprisingly they are embarrassed to find there are few reasons to take any religious idea seriously, but rather than admit it’s “just a matter of faith” they go on the attack.
Pious clergy have excused the rape and molestation of thousands of pre-pubescent children by appealing to humanities innate wickedness, but rather than compensating the victims they retreat to their seemingly non-existent god to ask for forgiveness. Those born with sexual desires for the same sex are routinely vilified, discriminated, beaten, and murdered because some holy book says they are “an abomination unto the Lord”. Lifesaving medical research has stalled because a clump of cells contains an “immoral soul” which is precious to the Lord, who also seems decidedly disinterested in the suffering of full grown adults. Teaching student the spine tingling facts of evolution is hampered because it’s nobler to believe a deity made us from mud and spare ribs. Earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanos are not the result of tectonic movements, but punishment by a vengeful and indiscriminate god for our “sins”. Yet, somehow it’s the atheists who are causing a stir.
Conor also misrepresents Dr. William Lane Craig justification of genocide, saying he merely “read from the Old Testament”. Good old Bill Craig did more than that unfortunately, he argues the people most affected by the massacre of the Canaanites when he says:
“Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.”
Richard Dawkins is justified in refusing to share a stage with someone whose mind is so poisoned by religion that he thinks murderers of women and children have it tough. Based solely on this piece we can ignore everything William has to say on the topic of morality.
Conor goes on to claim “conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine has nothing to do with religion; it’s about the illegal occupation of someone else’s land”. Perhaps he didn’t pay attention in Sunday school and missed the part where Israel was promised to Abraham and all his descendants because he was willing to slice open son’s throat and burn him upon the mountain top. Ah, those wonderful Biblical values.
I am sorry, but pointing out these passages a horrific is simply factual and tearing apart the arguments that a god exists is merely the application of logic. You are free to have your own illogical and irrational views of how the universe actually works, but please keep them to yourself. Not all of us wish to live by your deeply held beliefs, personal delusions, and superstitions.
4 comments so far, add yours ▶Jack’s Immoral God
On the 17th April 2011 I posted a video featuring Jack Schaap – a preacher for the First Baptist Church of Hammond Indiana which is of the fundamentalist baptist persuasion, and promotes misogynistic and sexist beliefs, which was the focus of Jack’s summon that fateful day.
As I mentioned at the time, I was rather surprised when a DCMA claim was filed against the publication of Jack’s Biblical message, since during the video he states:
“You know what they’re going to say about you? Pfft – who cares?”
And …
“If they’re quoting me while I’m quoting the Bible, then Hallelujah God’s word is getting out!”
As a result of the DCMA claim I started researching who I was dealing with in order to inform any subsequent decisions. I would probably not have bothered if the First Baptist Church of Hammond Indiana hadn’t prevented me from spreading God’s word as I was encouraged to do. As a result of this process I discovered a few things:
- Mr. Jack Schaap is married. Here is Jack’s wife Cindy asking if it’s alright for Pastors wife’s to have close friends. Why in the Hell would it NOT be OK? Where are people getting the idea that a pastor’s wife cannot have close friends?
- Jack Schaap has his very own web site. While the site seem to have been abandoned since June 2010, it does provide helpful links to Jack answering questions about his faith and the central text on which it rests. On June 7th 2010 Jack was asked by Ralph:
“Is it Biblical for ladies to say amen at church services?”
He answers:
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.” – 1 Corinthians 14:35
Yes Jack, the Bible is clear on the woman’s role within the church – they are not allowed to speak, nor are they allowed to ask questions. This must wait until they get home and their husbands can teach them. It says so in the very next sentence:
“And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” – 1 Corinthians 14:34
However, even Jack shies away from a straight reading of scripture perhaps honest Biblical values are too strong, even for Jack?
More interestingly, on the 21st May 2010 Kevin:
“What do you think God’s reasoning was for requiring a lady to marry the man who forced her into fornication in Deuteronomy 22:28-30?”
Before we get to Jack’s answer, let’s familiarise ourselves with the passage again:
“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-30
A simplified summary of this passage would be “if a man rapes a women, he must pay the father some cash and marry his victim.” Charming. Jack also plays down the rape by continually stating they were “immoral together”? This is not a passage about consensual sex, it pertains to rape – hence the phrase “lay hold on her”.
I think we should pause here for a second to consider what it means to be “immoral”.
To my mind morality pertains to the beneficial or detrimental effects on others by your actions. Actions which are beneficial are considered “moral” while actions which are detrimental are considered “immoral”. However, this condensed summary of morality does not address consensual behaviour between adults. In most cases such things have no implications beyond the scope of their relationship, thus have no moral dimension. None. Zero.
What Jack is talking about is “sin”, which can be defined as behaviour which a God disapproves of. Note this is distinct from any considerations regarding the effects of actions upon others, this is why many things are considered “sins” which have no harmful effects on individuals or the even the society at large. However I acknowledge there may be many overlaps between “sin” and “immorality”.
Deuteronomy 22 also says women cannot wear men’s clothes, bans ploughing with an ox and ass together, wearing mixed fabrics, promotes the public display of the “tokens of a daughter’s virginity” on her wedding night (and stoning her to death if she wasn’t a virgin), and stoning rape victims to death if they do not cry loudly enough. Are we to uphold these Biblical values as well?
What is truly horrifying is that Jack seems to have read these passages, but rather than view them as the rudimentary and raw beginnings of a fair and just system he maintains they are the perfect law of God. Jack wishes to throw away 2,000 years of argument, reason, evidence, and legal progress because some men living in the desert of another country partook of “the burning bush” one too many times.
Having reverting to pre-medieval times, Jack continues by slurring the name of the rape victim, accusing her of being seductive and unworthy of the title “lady”. Even IF the woman were seductive, this is no excuse for a man to force himself on her and commit rape. What defines “seductive” in any case? Making sexual advances? No, since this would indicate consent and not count as “laying hold on her”, IMHO.
Would wearing skimpy outfits be described as “seductive”? Possibly, but this still does not imply sexual consent – although in Jack’s world it may do. It seems Jack’s line of thinking leads directly to Burka’s and oppression of women.
No where in this short passage does it mention the sexual act was consensual. No where are the wishes of the woman considered or even factored into the decision.
No, what we have here is an unambiguous and hard ruling on what must be done in *every* similar situation. The rape victim MUST marry their rapist despite their personal wishes, circumstances, or howls of protest.
This is an abominable and unjust law reminiscent of an ancient past where women were property which men wished to conquer, subdue, and own. It runs against our modern hard fought sense of fairness, equality, justice, compassion, and empathy. Let’s leave “god’s law” in the past where it belongs.
Leave the first comment ▶
Small Fish
Yesterday I posted a long over due response to Andrew Finden’s blog regarding the search for god, fish nets, and scientism. In the article I tried to outline the approach science uses to model and predict reality (the net) and how verifying the existing of small fish (spirits) would require the use of other means, or a better net. Happily Andrew responded with a rather lengthy comment, but rather than address the points he raises in discussion I thought it warranted another blog post of my own. (I am also trying to get back into the habit of posting here again)
Andrew seems to identify a contradiction in my view by contrasting this statement:
Philosophical naturalism asserts that all that exists can be detected via empirical means, and it is a view I reject for a number of reasons.
With this one made a few paragraphs later:
While existing scientific technology may not be sensitive enough to detect a particular force, it nevertheless exists awaiting some future scientific advancement to discover.
As predicted, I have been accused of “scientism” and “that anything that actually exists will be detectable by some scientific inquiry”. He seems to have missed the paragraph where I explain that forces beyond our detection may actually exists, however if we cannot detect them then how can we determine whether they truly exist or not? How do you differentiate between fanciful ideas and actual reality Moreover, what methods shall we employ to determine how these forces might interact with our universe, or within themselves? This seems an intractable problem to which I have yet to see a coherent response.
I will concede that all great ideas in science have started out as mere germs of ideas within a single person’s mind. Through careful observation, trial and error, experimentation, argument, and many false starts we have clawed our way out of the darkness of ignorance towards the spotlight of knowledge. I do not contend that we are anywhere near knowing everything there is to know, however the scientific method has proven to be a formidable weapon against self deception, bias, and superstition.
Science is a broad field which encompasses everything from pure mathematics, physics, and chemistry to more so called “soft sciences” of art, literature, and history. Each discipline uses a slightly different bag of tools and methods to achieve the same goal – to determine the truth. Admittedly, the “truth” of art or literature can be difficult to define since the subjects are inherently subjective. What I take away from world class poetry or paintings may be very different to someone else’s, but neither experience can be said to truly represent “the truth” of the work. We all personalise these works, which is part of their power and majesty.
History is not the same. Historians are attempting to piece together the factual events of the past. Their task is not an easy one as many of the puzzle pieces are missing, and those that remain may have degraded, or contradict each other. The historian must also be mindful of the potential ambitions of those who recorded the information. Were they inventing a story to please those in power or solidify existing arrangements? Were they casting their enemies in a deliberately bad light to enrage their readers and ignite a war? Or were they honestly attempting to record the facts of their time without injecting personal bias?
Hard science has none of these problems (they have their own), but that does not make the historian’s task worthless. While the pictures historians produce may be fuzzy in places or completely blank in others, the shapes and colours of past events can be seen and conclusions made. However our protagonist dives deeper, presenting this gem:
“The rational intelligibility of the universe is, as some have called it, an article of faith …”
I am not sure I would classify the intelligibility of the universe of “article of faith”. I think it’s more a required axiom to function in this universe. Simply imagining what it might be like to live in a universe in which what happened yesterday is not necessarily what will happen today. If the causal links between events were shuffled each night, with random links being completely deleted, how would any of us know how to achieve anything that day? Without rational intelligibility I see little option but complete chaos, which cannot be the bed rock of any philosophical understandings. Uniformity is an axiom of understanding not an article of faith, but perhaps I am playing schematics?
Our protagonist continues by explaining that if he catches an apple he may be intervening, but this does not nullify the laws of gravity, and that somehow this demonstrates I blindly adhere to philosophical naturalism. However there is such an obvious retort to Andrew’s analogy I am surprised he did not address it in his comment. Reaching out to catch an apple is an inherently empirical event.
In each and every analogy presented thus far has followed the same lines. We knew fish smaller that 3 inches exist because we have other means apart from 3 inch nets with which to capture and observe them. We can also witness people catching apples. Both are empirical verification which fall completely within the realms of scientific inquiry. So what’s left? Realities which exist and do have an effect?
“Ah, but what about other realities that might exist which do have effect on our universe?”
Once again, how can another reality have an effect on this universe which is not (at least theoretically) measurable? Remember, the non-existent and the invisible look very much alike, and we are back to square one.
Rather than asserting that all things “must be physical” I am proposing that all things which matter must have an effect of the universe. And here is where I think we have reached the key point of difference, which I must be careful to try and communicate effectively: all realities discovered by science have been pulled under the umbrella of “the physical”. Rather than treating forces (spiritual or not) as something “non-physical”, science reclassifies those things shown to be real. So in a sense, nothing supernatural can exist using the scientific method.
Perhaps this was Andrew’s point all along?
2 comments so far, add yours ▶Fishing for god
Quite often in serious philosophical discussions the concept of “truth” arises. Various methods which may be at our disposal to discern reality are discussed, which would naturally include the supernatural – should it exist. In discussion with religious folk we are often informed science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria. Both tools are methods for discerning truth, and “expecting physical evidence or evidence via a physical methodology is as circular as expecting to find two-inch fish with a three-inch net“.
“Quite often, evangelical atheists will defend their philosophical naturalism by pointing to science.”
Science relies on empirical evidence and employs methodologies to remove bias and subjectivity wherever possible. It detects and correct errors and does not concern itself with the deeply held personal beliefs its practitioners. Science ruthlessly peruses knowledge of the universe. However, science does have one limitation – it rests on methodological naturalism – that reality can be empirically measured.
In the physical world each force and form of matter will have a corresponding and theoretically measurable effect. Any force which exists but has no discernible effect on the reality is irrelevant by definition, and the slippery slope of philosophical naturalism appears.
Philosophical naturalism asserts that all that exists can be detected via empirical means, and it is a view I reject for a number of reasons. For example, other realities may indeed exist but have no effect on our universe – some versions of the multiverse hypothesis propose exactly this scenario. While such parallel universe could be said to exist they are irrelevant to our existence. However, this is not the kind of reality our religious friends are promoting, apparently we require different tools to discern “evidence of the spirit”:
“Science is not the only way of knowing… Scientists who deny this would be well advised to consider limits of their own tools… (Eddington) described a man who set about to study deep-sea life using a net that had a mesh size of three inches. After catching many wild and wonderful creatures from the depths, then concluded that there are no deep-sea fish that are smaller than three inches in length! If we are using the scientific net to catch our particular version of truth, we should not be surprised that it does not catch the evidence of the spirit.”
While existing scientific technology may not be sensitive enough to detect a particular force, it nevertheless exists awaiting some future scientific advancement to discover. All we require is a suitably designed “fishing net” to detect and measure “spiritual forces” at which point we might be able to hypothesis models to explain and predict this elusive force.
However, religionists assert we already have the necessary tools to detect the supernatural. It’s just that none of these methods are scientific in nature, so any attempt to overlay the scientific method is meet with shrieks of “scientism” and “circular reasoning”. Some even resort to erroneous claims that their “wife loves me, not because of any kind of empirical scientific experiment“.
While emotions such as love are currently difficult to empirically verify within the brain of their owners, there seems to be no reason to expect their origins to be supernatural. We know emotional states, personality, and motor function are affected by chemistry, physical trauma, and other measurable forces. The reasonable inference is that all emotions are the result of an enormously complex interaction between brain structure, biology, chemistry, and electrical impulses. Moreover, the behavioural interactions between two individuals certainly fall into the domain of science, for they can all be directly observed, classified, catalogued, mapped, and predicted.
It should also be noted that any “fish” less than three inches in length have been shown to exist using empirical methods. Given our religious friends have not supplied any scientific method which demonstrates the existence of “the spirit” how can we conclusive say if it exists at all, let alone determine anything about its nature?
17 comments so far, add yours ▶Is the NSCSWP truly secular?
Much has been written here and elsewhere on the National School Chaplaincy Program (NSCP), which represents a substantial leak in the flimsy wall of separation between church and state here in Australia. Contradicting a layman’s reading of section 116 of the Australian constitution and the general notion of “a fair go”, the program heavily favours religious people to provide support services to public school students. Both the government and the predominately evangelical Christian organisations promoting the NSCP have attempted to obfuscate the true nature of the program by weaselling through procedural loopholes, poorly defined criteria, badly written guidelines, and inadequate oversight – including an extremely poor complaints procedure.
Concerned citizens were gleefully informed that non-religious people were able to obtain chaplaincy positions (as long as no religious person can be found to perform the task), the government were not hiring chaplains (merely funding organisations who do), and the commonwealth has entered a commercial arrangement with a cattle producer so the constitution is irrelevant (I kid you not). In deciphering the guidelines of the NSCP its purpose became clear – to place Christian evangelists in front of every school child in the country. Even the instigator of the program, then Prime Minister John Howard, admitted using the term “chaplain” to “conjure up a specific connotation”.
So it was with great interested we noticed the Department’s rebrand and relaunch the NSCP as the cumbersomely worded National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program (NSCSWP). This “new” program was announced shortly after Ron Williams High Court challenge was heard but before the decision has been handed down, or after the Department’s review of the program, depending on your point of view. So what does the new NSCSWP (urgh) state in relation to secular workers? Let’s have a look at the newly published guidelines (I strongly recommend my readers download their own copy and read through the document).
Section 1.5 of the NSCSWP guidelines states:
“Services and actions could include: Supporting students to explore their spirituality and providing guidance about spirituality, values and ethical matters or referring students to, or sourcing appropriate services, to meet these needs; and facilitating access to support agencies in the community, where applicable.”
That seems fair and reasonable, but one wonders what defines “spirituality”. Without a clear definition it is not clear if the Department is referring to emotional, philosophical, or existential matters; or something else entirely. Once again the vagaries of spiritual beliefs seem to deny rational inquiry.
Section 3.1.2 outlines a number of services which cannot be provided “during program funded hours”. Reading between the lines it is clear that the subsequent list of prohibitions (which includes religious education, converting students, proselytising and evangelising, and initiating faith discussions, undermining students’ religious or other beliefs, and using social media among other things) may not apply when the chaplain is “off the clock” or funded via other means – say a local church. This potentially blurs the line between official departmentally approved services and anything else the school chaplains/student welfare worker may provide. How is a primary school student supposed to discern the difference?
Section 5.1 informs us the services provided school chaplains/student welfare workers are not compulsory. Parents are able to opt their children out (not into) the services provided – that is unless you have enrolled your child in a faith based school, and therefore implicitly granting your consent. The guidelines helpfully point out that opt-in consent is not required because the school community “determine the role and the choice of school chaplain/student welfare worker” – again the majority bludgeon any minority views.
The opt-out consent form (found in appendix H) gives the following advice to schools:
“Integrating consent arrangements for chaplaincy/student welfare services into the school’s current welfare services governance system.”
It would be easy to envisage all welfare of the services the school provides being inexorably integrated with the NSCSWP funded chaplain/student welfare worker, or the consent form tying these services together. In such situations a parent must decide if they wish their child to receive any welfare services, or potentially expose their child to a chaplain. At least parents can rest easy if their school has chosen a secular student welfare worker – right?
Wrong.
The department allows “secular” student workers to be supplied by the following organisations (and I’ll limit this this to Queensland only, however a cursory glance suggests each state encounters the same issue):
- ACCESS Ministries – “…affirms its faith in God, as One-in-Three-Persons, whose redemptive purpose for the world is revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ.”
- Chaplaincy Australia – “committed to communicating the Christian faith in a hands-on, compassionate and meaningful way” and “using the Chaplaincy Ministry as a tool to minister to local communities”
- Children of the Dreaming – Centre for Self Healing – an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander providing “a range of programs/activities to children and young people” through “EMPOWERMENT” and “SELF HEALING”.
- Cornerstone Community – “…exists to expand and enrich the Kingdom of God”
- Eagle Edge Solutions Inc – “Empower young people for LIFE.” (Looks like a proper secular option, but only provides services in Cunnamulla, Roma, Charleville & surrounding area)
- esenef Spiritual Management – Who are these people?
- Fusion Australia – “…gives each of its people a chance to fulfil their God-given potential.”
- Hymba Yumba Community Hub – “…proud Indigenous identities in a caring, nurturing school environment.”
- Ormeau Community Church Ltd – “…a group of Christians who believe and teach that Jesus is the only way to God (John 14:6).”
- Scripture Union Queensland – “…an interdenominational Christian organisation”
- Townsville Catholic Education Office – ‘nuff said.
- Young Life Australia Inc – “.. a non-aligned Christian charity”
So unless you happen to be near Cunnamulla your chances of obtaining a truly secular student worker are essentially nil. While the name of the NSCP may have changed, and we have taken some steps towards an inclusive, non-discriminatory, secular system we still have an awfully long way to go.
One comment so far, add another ▶
