Distrust of sharia in Parliament

Why does my own MP (Member of Parliament) not speak out for justice like this?  If he does then I never hear about it.

Kris Hopkins MP has written a brilliant article in the Yorkshire Post, republished here via the National Secular Society.  As he says, referring to a recent BBC documentary . . .

"On seeing the programme's evidence, the chief crown prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service in the North West said that he was disappointed, but not surprised. If the CPS is not surprised about such findings, why are we, as a Government, allowing such things to happen?"

Why indeed?

Surely the answer is that religion gets special treatment, whether it deserves it or not.  For what it is worth, it doesn't deserve it!

My two 'spirit guides'

A dear friend told me today that I have invisible companionship.

This is not just one spirit guide, but two!  Apparently not everyone is blessed in this way, but it is far from unusual.  My friend claims to have more guides than me.

I find it genuinely interesting that I know people who believe in things that I can't recognise in the world.  My Christian friends know God through his son Jesus (in spite of all that nonsense about the Trinity which makes no real sense to anyone as far as I can tell).  My Islamic friends have faith in Allah and his prophet Mohamed (upon whom I wish no peace or blessing whatsoever).  At least Islam is a little less 'spooky', even though I find it more frightening in other ways.  And my own sister sees ghosts and has always been much more sensitive to the paranormal than I am.

I'm almost jealous of them.  It seems that I am missing this special, interesting, sixth sense.

I don't even believe that we have souls in this dualistic sense, so I find it very difficult to believe in ghosts or spirits.  But I am still fascinated by the idea.

As for these invisible companions who (apparently) know so much about me, very little has been revealed.  They don't have names and nothing is known of the lives that they no longer have.  Both are (or were?) male, which I find genuinely surprising since the minority of my close friends would want to claim that. 

Apparently one is mischievous and the other is 'a free spirit'.  What that happens to say about me is unclear.

What questions can I ask my friend to find out more about my guides?  Your input would be useful.  Please leave a comment if you can help.  I can already think of a few questions.

• Have they chosen me of have I chosen them?
• Do they like me?
• Do they 'guide' anyone else?

Any more?

Kissing the Blarney Stone

Even before I realised that I was a skeptic, I thought the tradition of kissing the Blarney Stone was an example of the Irish getting their own back on the English - not to mention the other nationalities!

This is a view of my daughter trying to do it (a little while ago).

Kissing the Blarney Stone

So tell me this.  If this is truly the 'other half of The Stone of Scone', why would anyone build it into the outside of an Irish castle?

It doesn't ring true to me, but I'm open to being corrected.

Turn the other cheek

Another of the paradoxical teachings of Jesus today . . .

"Turn the other cheek" Christians are implored.  Whatever you do, don't fight back when you are assaulted by a fellow human.  Forgive them and move on - whether you're still standing or not, of course!

But the same doesn't apply to trees.  If a tree doesn't bear fruit, cut it down and burn it.

Is this as inconsistent as it seems?  It is hard to say, but perhaps the implication is that the tree is diseased and it should be treated in this way in order to prevent the disease spreading.

Or is there another explanation?

I long since stopped expecting the bible to be self-consistent though.

Unlinking the world's woes from atheism

I have been reading Michel Onfray's Atheist Manifesto, published 2005.  He has been described as "The French Richard Dawkins" but I think that description does justice to neither of the men.  Dawkins may be intolerant of religion, but Onfray attacks it head-on with the rhetoric of a priest giving a sermon. 

I came across this short passage (page 42) which addresses a topic that I covered recently in my series Things Christians Say.  It was a post called Atheists are responsible for all the world's ills,where I argued from the point of view that we atheists don't have time for such a daunting task.

"If the existence of God, independently of its Jewish, Christian, or Muslim form, had given us at least a little forewarning against hatred, lies, murder, rape, pillage, immorality, embezzlement, perjury, violence, contempt, swindling, false witness, depravity, pedophilia, infanticide, drunkenness, and perversion, we might not have seen atheists (since they are intrinsically creatures of vice) but rabbis, priests, imams, and with them their faithful, all their faithful (which amounts to a great many) doing good, excelling in virtue, setting an example, and proving to the godless and perverse that morality is on their side. Let their flocks scrupulously respect the Commandments and obey the dictates of the relevant suras, and thus neither lie nor pillage, neither rob nor rape, neither bear false witness nor murder—and still less plot terrorist attacks in Manhattan, launch punitive raids into the Gaza strip, or cover up the deeds of their pedophile priests. Then we would see the faithful converting their neighbours right, left, and centre through the example of their shining conduct. But instead . . .

"So let's have an end to this linkage of the world's woes to atheism."

Well said Michel Onfray!

Jesus died today . . . or did he?

Jesus died this day, one unidentified year, a couple of millennia ago.  It was Good Friday.

Or did he?  I would say "of course not"!

Surprisingly serene - Reni's view of the crucifixion from Wikimedia

Did the crucifixion actually occur?  If (for today) we assume that it did, might it have been on a Thursday instead of Friday?  After all that would be more consistent with the biblical account of him being in the grave for three days and three nights.  Many believe that this fits better with the accounts of the short time that Jesus is supposed to have spent in Jerusalem too . . . as described in the bible.

Of course it would be nice to have some independent, contemporaneous, eye-witness accounts of this important part of history, but oddly enough none are to be found in spite of all the miraculous events that were going on around the city.  Isn't it rather surprising that nobody else mentions the crucifixion darkness, the ripping of the temple veil, and the miraculous resurrection of so many dead bodies.

The gospels aren't exactly clearly about the story either - surprise surprise!  They have a variety of timelines and nobody has yet found a consistent explanation of the accounts of the four canonical gospels as far as I know.  That is, consistent from a rational point of view, at least!

As Christians wallow in the self-pity that they traditionally feel on Good Friday, isn't it time to start to ask whether the story might just be a myth told by members of a cult that only wrote it down many decades later? 

Isn't this just bronze-age scape-goating updated to iron-age myth, or is it something that is actually sensible or useful?

Small point of pedantry: I have always found it surprising that Christianity has an instrument of torture as its primary symbol but it is even stranger to see pictures like the one above where the barbarity and suffering are thinly disguised as something serene and beautiful.

Sanal Edamaruku in Oxford this week

Sanal Edamaruku, President of the Indian Rationalist Association, was in Oxford this week, and he took the opportunity to speak to an audience of about 50 at Oxford Skeptics in the Pub.

This was not the usual 45 minute talk that we are accustomed to.  I thought I saw an interesting twinkle in his eye when he was introduced with the statement that he would talk for about that long.  In fact he treated us to and hour and three quarters of interesting anecdotes about the role of superstition in otherwise progressive India.

For example, Indian technology has enabled the country to launch satellites, but astrologers are still consulted when deciding the best time to launch them.  We were treated to a long list of more and less shocking anecdotes on similar topics included fire-walking, 'The Milk Miracle' (where statues appeared to drink milk from a spoon), the Prahlad Jani hoax (where he pretended to have fasted for 70 years) and tales of the famous Sai Baba who has been debunked many times by Sanal and his crew.  You can see more of the tales on  this video from Vimeo (which I shared with you a few days ago).

He described how his organisation runs 'Inspire Camps' in schools all over India, teaching the children how to do the tricks that a lot of gurus and holy men use to fleece their customers.  They then give the kids a kit of the ingredients that they need so they can go and show their parents and friends how it is done.

A few other interesting facts:

• The average age of an Indian is currently 22.  Within 10 years the average will be 18.  By comparison in most EU countries the average is over 40 and sometimes over 45, and increasing.
• The terms Humanist and Skeptic are used little in India.  Generally the two groups are combined and referred to as Rationalists.
• You will see people in India rubbing their hands in a particular way because they believe it will stop them going grey.
• There is still a culture of child marriage in India, even though it is illegal.
• Until the 1930s, people suspected of theft could be tried by fire - fire-walking that is!  If they were not burnt then they were considered innocent.
• I was a bit surprised to hear him invoke ball-lightning as an explanation for some events in Utna Pradesh.  Still - even 'Rationalists' can have areas of non-skepticism.

All-in-all he did not disappoint.  He concluded with the story of the recent event that resulted in him having to leave the country.  You can read more about that in a previous post on Something Surprising, here.

I was most surprised by events the next day when I was telling a Christian about him.  She dismissed him out-of-hand and said she thought people shouldn't go round debunking other people's beliefs like that, whether or not they happen to be harmful beliefs.

I disagree. 

Reminded of me?

A friend, colleague and fellow blogger sent my this picture today.  She commented that it made her think of me, which amused me a lot.

Odin promised the end of ice-giants!

My beard is not exactly as flowing as his, but I do have a few hammers.  The mystery is how she knew about that hat! (Ha ha!)

Odin apparently promised the end of all ice giants and I could believe that.  Is this more believable than the claim that Jesus promised the end of all wicked people?  Did he actually promise that?

Still - its fun!

The Rocks Don't Lie - Noah and other floods

This week's episode of the popular and increasingly informative podcast Skepticality featured an interesting interview with a geomorphologist, David Montgomery, (Professor of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington), about how his work led him to write his latest book The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood.

You can listen to Episode #203 at read the show notes here. Montgomery talked about flood myths worldwide, and how Christians use the existence of these myths in so many cultures as evidence that a global flood really happened.  However, he notes that some of them pre-date the time of the Old Testament significantly (as I have mentioned before in my series of blog posts about the flood, starting here.

He added some facts that I hadn't come across before.  Apparently flood myths tend to be tailored to the environment of the cultures which propagate them.  It is not too surprising to find that those who live on the Pacific coast of the Americas describe floods that sound very much like tsunamis, whereas others sound more like overflowing rivers.

I was also interested to hear that the resurgence of biblical creationism that we witness today is a comparatively modern phenomenon.  Even in the early 1800s geologists had completely established that a global flood has never happened and by a century ago, very few people were concerned about the apparent contradictions between science and the bible.  The story of a regional flood that just seemed to the local people to have destroyed the whole world was mainstream Christian teaching.  It is only in the last 50 or 60 years that this topic has become so hotly debated, particularly (but not exclusively) in North America.  The resurgence of Young Earth Creationism can be traced back to a 1961 book by a theologian and an hydraulic engineer, called The Genesis Flood. I might come back to that topic another day soon.

One thing that I did find surprising was that Montgomery described two well-established flood events that could have been the factual origin of the Noah myth.  One was the breach of an ice barrier leading to a devastating flood in the Mesopotamia region, and the other was the filling of the Black Sea through the Bosphorus.  The former seems quite plausible, but the latter less so for one simple reason.  Noah's flood receded after a hundred days or so.  As far as I'm aware, the Black Sea is still there.  However, that is my only criticism of an otherwise excellent interview.

Have a listen to it.  While you are there, listen to the rest of the podcast.  It has a number of regular features contributed by fascinating people and I never miss an episode.  Also check out David's research group online.  Now I'll add another book to my wish list.  I just need to make time to read some of them!

Related posts:
Was the flood the only way?
2 by 2 - but not only 2 of each
Where is all Noah's water now?
Was the Ark big enough?Evidence in the geology - cliffs and varves
Noah's aquaria?
Noah in Islam
Rafts of Baramins
Before Noah came Gilgamesh
Kangaroos - the final evidence against Noah?

Off to the Land of Nod

Many of my well educated readers will know this already, but there is a biblical basis to the phrase 'off to the land of nod'.

As far as I remember, there is nothing to suggest that the inhabitants of this mythical land were particularly sleepy, but then again the book of Genesis is hardly notable for the accuracy or believability of the stories that it contains.

Of course this legendary area to the East of the Garden of Eden is where Cain was sent to after he had murdered his brother Abel.  (Genesis 4:16)

In fact, it seems likely that the people who were sent to Nod had a lot of hard work in front of them.  Having been banned form the Garden of Eden they had to start to work hard to survive.

Maybe that is why they were tired?

When did God invent the Trinity?

Christian Churches (in general) have a strange concept of a single God who exists as three parts, all equal and all divine.

Sometimes they even argue that Jesus influenced the progress of history through Old Testament times.  They do this when it seems necessary to rationalise the inconsistencies in the flow of history.  They try to make it seem that things defying the normal concepts of cause and effect are still consistent with some sort of truth.  I feel that this is intellectually dishonest and logically parsimonious, but let us set that aside for now.

Let us think about the question of the origin of the Trinity.  Where did this concept come from?  It sounds like a silly and trivial question.  Surely it is in the bible.  Or is it?

The Old Testament certainly seems not to mention the idea that God is in three parts.  It is not that it doesn't mention the host of heaven, a possible wife and concepts of a hierarchy of gods in heaven.  These ideas are found in profusion, especially in the early books.  But God himself never reveals to his chosen people that he has a split personality.  His son never gets a mention and the Holy Spirit is only present in other vague terminology, such as the will of God.  Neither of God's alter-egos really gets a look in for many centuries, and within Judaism nothing has changed to this very day.

If he really is a trinitarian God, wouldn't you think that he might have let something slip to his chosen people to that effect? 

So presumably the New Testament reveals something about it?  Well - you might expect this, but it is generally held that there is only one verse that might refer to the trinity.  This verse comes in one of the lesser books which has a somewhat unknown provenance.  The First Epistle of John might have been written by someone called John, but it is very unlikely to have been one of the significant Johns.  In this letter, there is one verse which says (in one translation):

There are three in heaven that bear witness . . . these three are one.  --  1 John 5: 7

But when you look at this in context, (and another translation) what does it mean?  Not much, I suggest!

7    For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8    And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9    If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

Now try to tell me that this is the best way to reveal the surprising fact that God is in three parts, and you will have trouble convincing me.  Something as important as this needs to be set out in much clearer words, not in flowery metaphor in an obscure letter written by an unknown author.


The apostle John opens his account of the life of Jesus Christ with this declaration: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made . . ."

So that is clear too?  Beautiful prose, full of rhetorical devices, but it makes no sense unless you chose to claim that "the word" means Jesus.

Theophilus of Antioch, 170 CE first used the Greek word for Trinity.  Over a century later, in 325, the First Council of Nicaea established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and adopted the Nicene Creed, which described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father".

This isn't a biblical truth, it is just 4th Century Athanasian doctrine that happened to prevail over another point of view - namely that of Arius!

Arius held that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three separate essences or substances and that the Son and Spirit derived their divinity from the Father, were created in time, and were inferior to the Godhead.  Arianism was largely condemned to the annals of history at the Council of Nicaea (325), although a few sects still follow this point of view, including the Jehovah's Witnesses.

So, having started out with the assumption that the whole business of the Trinity was easy to interpret, I conclude that there is no end to the lengths theologians will go to to 'prove' a point, and that there is little to suggest a biblical basis.  The trinity was not invented by God at all, not explained by God in the bible and in fact it is a logically dubious invention of men.

Since I have grave doubts about the actual existence of an historical Jesus, due to the paucity of non-biblical evidence for any of the history of his life, I wonder why anyone would waste so much of their lives inventing doctrines like this. 

Indeed, why do I waste my time even thinking about it?

The answer for me is related to a search for truth.  For theologians I doubt they have such pure motives.

'And there is no health in us'? Ridiculous!

For all these years, at every Holy Eucharist and every Sunday, the same words have come from the mouths of Anglicans (and others):

“Almighty and most merciful Father;
We have erred,
and strayed from Thy ways like lost sheep.
We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts.
We have offended against Thy holy laws.
We have left undone those things which we ought to have done;
And we have done those things which we ought not to have done;
And there is no health in us.

But Thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders.
Spare Thou those, O God, who confess their faults.
Restore Thou those who are penitent;
According to Thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord.
And grant, O most merciful Father, for His sake;
That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of Thy holy Name.
Amen.”

I venture to suggest that most of them have never thought carefully enough about what the words mean, what the devices and desires of their hearts might have been.  How many have taken the time to decide whether they agree with them.  'And there is no health in us' is one of the most utterly ridiculous things that you ever hear Christians saying too.

For Anglicans this General Confession is the substitute for attending confession with the priest, which let's face it, is an even more peculiar tradition.

I'm sure that the concept of confession originates from the opportunity to (effectively, if not literally) blackmail the penitent.  Even if not deliberately and fraudulently demanding money, I'm sure that the tradition persuades people into being more compliant and perhaps paying a little contribution towards the cause of the church.  For centuries this was literally in the form of 'indulgences', and at least that particular manifestation has stopped.  Scientologists seem to take the concept even further, and I've heard stories of literal blackmail being used when people attempt to leave that particular cult.

Perhaps we need to work on a modern replacement.

Without requiring supernatural intervention and according to the law of the land, we all need to get off our knees to work constructively and enjoy life without hurting others.   Sometimes we fail; sometimes we forget; but we make the best of what life we have, and we endeavour to remain positive.

Since many of us do not trust the promises of any invisible friend in the sky, for all our sakes, surely it is our duty as citizens of the world to support each other to resist the religious strangle-hold on society.  Let's campaign for a rational and secular life in the name of reason and science, and not tolerate interference from those self-confessedly grovelling, miserable but penitent Christians who claim that all good works come from their particular god.

21 Questions for Muslims

Following on from the popular post 21 Questions for Christians, here is a set of questions for Muslims.  You might recognise some of the questions from the previous post, but they apply here just as well.

Ask you about Islam? OK I will!

1. If you had to choose which comes first, Islam or the laws of the state, what is the role of sharia in a non-Islamic country, and which law takes precedence? And do Muslims have to opt in or opt out?
2. Are you allowed to ask questions about Islam and if not, how can you ever learn about anything?  ("O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith." (Surah 5:101-102). )
3. Is the Qu'ran literally true and infallible?  It is so ambiguous that it is hard to argue this, but many of you do attempt to.
4. Which verses and surah of the Qu'ran are abrogated?  If you made this clear then it would be . . . well . . . clear! 
5. In your mosque, in what roles would it be acceptable for women to participate on an equal footing with men?
6. What does Islam teach about homosexuality, and what are the consequences for the participants?
7. What does Islam teach about apostasy, and what are the consequences for those who attempt to leave Islam?
8. What do you know about the pagan origins of the black stone of the Ka'ba?  In the bible, written long before Islam was invented, Acts 19:35 mentions the goddess Diana/Artemis and a meteorite.  Does this sound familiar?
9. Does hell exist, so that merciful Allah can torture us for ever?
10. Did humans and apes evolve from a common ancestor?
11. If Jesus was really rescued from the cross by an angel, wouldn't someone else have mentioned it long before the Qu'ran was written?
12. How old is the world? (just roughly)
13. If Allah created the universe just for us, why did he waste so much effort on the other stars and galaxies which we can never hope to reach?
14. At what moment is the soul created?  (If at conception, please explain what happens to mono-zygotic twins.)
15. If Islam is a religion of peace, why is there so much talk of jihad?  The inner struggle is different, as you well know, and if you use this argument then you are indulging in taqiyya again!
16. How often have you personally used taqiyyah - lying for Islam - in your dealing with non-Muslims?
17. If women are equal in Islam, why is it that all the spokesmen are men,and yet the most noticeable women are the apostates? (like Ayaan Hirsi Ali)
18. If women are equal in Islam, why does the word of one man count as much as the word of two women?
19. You probably know that progress in science was led by Islamic scholars for centuries.  Why did that progress falter and die? (If you doubt that it died, then see here.)
20. Do you really believe in flying horses that can see in the dark?

And finally, question 21 which is the most important of all:

If you are a moderate Muslim who claims that Islam is the religion of peace, why do you not publicly call out the extremists?

It would be easy for you to do this but you don't seem to do it nearly often enough. 

21 Questions for Christians

Christianity is 'a broad church' you know.

In fact, I venture to suggest that it is so broad that you probably don't know two Christians who would answer these twenty questions in exactly the same way as each other.

1. Can you (are you allowed to) contact God directly or do you need a priest to intercede for you?
2. What is the correct method of baptism, and at what age is it appropriate to baptise?
3. Is the future of the world predestined, or do you really have free will?  If so, how do you square this with your god's alleged omniscience?
4. When people 'speak in tongues', is it the holy spirit that is talking, or do you suspect that they are possessed by a demon?
5. What are your views regarding purgatory, an afterlife and personal resurrection?
6. Is it enough to accept Jesus into your heart, or do good works count for anything?
7. Is the bible literally true and infallible?  It is so ambiguous that it is hard to argue this, but many of you do attempt to.
8. In your church, in what roles would it be acceptable for women to participate on an equal footing with men?
9. At the Eucharist, does the bread and wine represent the body and blood, or does it literally become the body and blood?
10. To what extent should Mary, the mother of Jesus, be venerated?
11. Is it acceptable to worship other spirits (as many 'members' of African churches do)?
12. What does your church teach about homosexuality?
13. When will Jesus return for the second coming, and how do you explain your answer considering the original idea that he would return within the lifetime of some of the people living at the time?
14. Should priests live a life of chastity?
15. Does hell exist, so that merciful god can torture us for ever?
16. What are your expectations about the end of the world (and do you take the endless stream of such prophecies seriously or casually dismiss them)?
17. Will people of other faiths have any hope of salvation (even if they have never heard of Jesus)?
18. How old is the world?
19. If God created the universe just for us, why did he waste so much effort on the other stars and galaxies which we can never hope to reach?
20. At what moment is the soul created?  (If at conception, please explain what happens to mono-zygotic twins.)

I haven't even mentioned the classic questions about suffering, the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus etc.  Nor did I mention much in the way of theology.  These are mainly about doctrine - the stuff that isn't specified in that bible that apparently contains all the answers.

It must be very confusing for anyone who is tempted to convert, when doctrine is so diverse.  If, as I strongly suspect, any two Christians are not able to agree with each other on these points, how can a convert possibly know which Christian cult to join? 

And now the 21st question emerges from my observation that Christians who find it hard to answer the difficult doctrinal questions often brush them off as being unimportant.  Meanwhile they often indulge in irrationally cuddly ecumenism and even reason that any religion is (in general terms) better than no religion.  To them, I would ask question 21:

If these things are not important to you, what does it actually mean to call yourself a practising Christian?


Update: See the related post, 21 Questions for Muslims on 18th August 2012

St Swithun's sign for the 'Nolympics'

We have had an unusually wet summer in England - so far.  Yes - even for England it has been wet, ever since the fateful day when the local authorities and water companies announced that we needed to have a hose-pipe ban -  or for American readers, that's a hose ban.

Since April, we have had the wettest drought on record.  Now as the Olympic games approaches, people around me have actually started hoping that yesterday's weather might be a good sign.  Yes really!

The reason is that yesterday was St Swithun's Day.  There is an tradition in olde-England that if it rains on St Swithun's Day it will rain for 40 days, and if not, then the weather will be much drier. 

I can't speak for the rest of the country, but here in my part of rural Oxfordshire it did not rain.  That is not to say that we had clear skies.  We saw the sun sometimes, but at a few times throughput the day it looked very much as though it was going to pour with rain.

As for me - I don't mind whether it rains through the Olympics or not.  I'm so disgusted at the amount of money squandered on them that I am past caring now.

Rumour has it, that for the amount spent by the UK government on the Olympics, they could have afforded to send everyone in the country to the Bahamas for a two-week holiday. I'm quite sure which option I would have preferred, but nobody asked me for my opinion.

Looking on the bright side:

• It is the rain that makes England green - I'm happy with that.
• The cultural benefits of the Olympics are apparently worth the cost.  Yeah - right!

Of course there is a technical term for this old wives tale, as has been shown by the observation that it rained for much of the day today.

Bo***cks!

Index Librorum Prohibitorum - questions for Catholics

Many of us are disturbed by the Roman Catholic church's strangle-hold on much of Christianity, and its effect on the lives of all who live in countries with even a few Catholics, like here in England.  You might ask what effect such a minority can have, but you should rest assured that it infuses government.  The present Prime Minister is not a Roman Catholic, but Tony Blair was - and worse still he was a Catholic convert.  Those who are converted to a different viewpoint are often the greatest zealots - much as I have taken the opposite view and spend a lot of writing against religions of all flavours.

However much they may deny that their faith has affected their political views, this claim simply must be in doubt.  Science is now strongly indicating that everyone always starts from what they believe and then finds ways to rationalise those views to minimise their own cognitive dissonance. 

A few times recently, I have taken up the challenge suggested by Richard Dawkins.  At a barbecue that I attended, I found myself speaking with a lady who came from the town where my father was born.  In the first ten minutes of conversation, she had told me twice that she had converted to Catholicism when she got married, and had brought up her children accordingly.

Each time I hesitantly hinted that I had parted from Christianity, and that it had been largely thanks to the overtly Catholic activities of our previous Anglican vicar in my village.  Usually I use the phrase "These days I'm a member of the church of Richard Dawkins" and watch for the reaction - which is commonly the smile that I aim to get by making that comment.   She seemed not to be offended - a good start - and a after I had answered a few questions about the subject I asked whether I might venture 'the Richard Dawkins question'.

"Do you actually believe in transubstantiation?"

Now this is a question that I have asked of colleagues who come from various 'Catholic countries' from Poland to Portugal.  I'm glad to say that all of them still speak to me, because if I found that they were avoiding me because of my questions then I would have to stop asking them.

My mother has asked it of Roman Catholic friends too and she reports that their answers show that they seem to regard their faith as a religion of convenience. 

The answer I got at the barbecue fell very much into the normal catalogue of possible responses to any of 'the difficult questions' which include:

• Well - everyone's journey of faith takes them in different directions.
• That is not actually one of the teachings of the church [Oh yes it is!] 
• In our country we look to the church for guidance, not for absolute rules
• The bible tells us that . . .  [and usually it doesn't]
• That is left very much to our own conscience.

I've been wondering what other questions might be lined up for Catholics.  Some of them are obvious, but not necessarily the type of question you would ask people unless you know them well.  To each of these I have heard variants on the above replies.  What are your views about birth control?  Do you think the church should tell lies in African countries, saying that condoms cause AIDS? Is the pope infallible?  Why are you more likely to pray to Mary and the Saints before you pray to Jesus?  And do you agree that the pope is criminally liable for covering up crimes against innocent children and failing to cooperate with police?

Here is one that I have never yet asked.  "The Index Librorum Prohibitorum was only 'repealed' within the last half-century.  If you had had chance to read any of the literary works that were forbidden by the Index, would you have taken an interest?"

The Index Librorum Prohibitorum is/was a list of works that, in the view of a bunch of hysterical, elderly, male virgins, might adversely affect the morals of the ordinary people.  The Roman Catholic church must have wanted to keep the world's immorality within the church itself, and it has to be said that although it has failed, it has at least fostered extreme immorality in its own ranks without revealing enough about it to the rest of us.

The Index was only abolished by the Vatican in 1966.  Some say that a form of censorship is still in place, in that the Vatican libraries store many ancient manuscripts that can't easily be found elsewhere.  Putting these documents in the Index would have got them on the radar.  Leaving them off, they might disappear into obscurity and anonymity and never be allowed to cause embarrassment.

Fortunately there is already enough evidence to embarrass the church, and the bible itself is a good foundation for that evidence.

"The Old Testament is responsible for more atheism, agnosticism, disbelief - call it what you will - than any book ever written; it has emptied more churches than all the counter attractions of cinema, motor bicycle and golf course." -- A. A. Milne (author of Winnie the Pooh).

Any more questions for Catholics?

Sunday Selection 4

Continuing a new series where there is little additional content from me, but I simply share a few items, new and old, that have pleased me this week.  As almost every week, I see items on the web that I find interesting, amazing or  or amusing.  This disjointed ramble might be on any of my normal topics - or on other topics entirely.  My thanks go to the friends who helped me to find them.

First:  'Hotwheels double loop dare' - although one son tells me that 'everyone has seen this, the other one hadn't.

Next: I just love the tango used in Arnie's humorous movie, True Lies.  The Movie version is here, and another version of the whole of Carlos Gardel's beautiful, passionate Por Una Cabeza can be found here.  Just seeing that makes me want to watch the movie again - worth a good smile!

Podcast of the week:  Radiolabs Podcast 'Talking to Machines'
Maybe some of us find ourselves talking to machines without realising it.  This podcast from June 2011 had some interesting surprises.

Atheist blog post of the week:  “Dear Atheists, We Ex-Muslims Are Waiting For You”, from The Friendly Atheist.  I think you can follow my 'Creeping Islam' tag to see that I'm supporting his campaign to some extent, at least.

Physics of the week: This has to be the announcement of the discovery of the Higgs boson.  You can't have missed that.  Here's Lawrence Krauss's take on it.  The question is - what does it mean?  I feel that this is too difficult a concept to explain in terms that we can all understand and since I don't get it myself, I'm not going to try.

Parody of the week:  Homeopath to start offering ‘assisted-suicide’ remedy.
" . . . as proof of its effectiveness, last week a man came in having a heart attack. The remedy was so good that he died before we could administer it.’  Read on and laugh out loud

Controversial atheism site of the week: Somehow, the most religious people in Israel seem to think they are too pious for the army, and yet they expect the more secular Israelis to risk their lives on their behalf. 

And finally . . .

Favourite places: Fingal's Cave

Fingal's surprising cave on the island of Staffa.

Creationist makes nearly ALL the common mistakes

If you would like to practise spotting almost all the common mistakes that creationists make when the are speaking about evolution, I recommend you to listen skeptically to an episode of the Discovery Institute's podcast, ID The Future.  On 11th June 2012** there was an interview interview with Dr Ben Carson who kindly provided a lesson in the recitation of persistently regurgitated and easily answered bunkum.

The show notes give some background:


On this episode of ID the Future, host David Boze speaks with Dr. Ben Carson, renowned paediatric neurosurgeon and Darwin doubter. Dr. Carson was recently invited to deliver the commencement speech at Emory University. Unfortunately, upon uncovering his non-allegiance to Darwinian ideology, 500 faculty members and students alike signed a letter in protest of his welcome. Listen in to hear Dr. Carson discuss this ill treatment and why his acute knowledge of the brain has led him to reject Darwinism. Dr. Ben Carson is the Director of the Division of Paediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins. An internationally renowned physician, Dr. Carson has authored over 100 neurosurgical publications, along with three best-selling books, and has been awarded 38 honorary doctorate degrees and dozens of national merit citations. 


Dr Carson might indeed be a renowned neurosurgeon and in that capacity he has my admiration.  However, I think he should also now become renowned for his misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution, which he pejoratively refers to as 'Darwinism'.

To take a few of them with my comments in small text:

• Darwinians are so closed minded.  Yes that's always an argument that convinces people.
• In the history of science, people have come up with some 'pretty outlandish things' that have turned out to be wrong.  True but only the evidence will tell us whether evolution is one of them.  I wouldn't put money on it myself.
• Evolution does not explain the origin of life.  That's true, and well spotted!  his is classic error number one.  It is just as relevant to say that the Theory of Gravitation does not explain the origin of life either.  Evolution doesn't claim to be able to do that.
• How does anything come out of nothing and how does life evolve from non-life.  Just saying that we don't yet know makes the existence of a designer no more likely.  For example - we do know about self-replicating proteins, called prions, that are not alive themselves but they do replicate.
• Although 'fully accepting the concept of natural selection' he thinks that it is taking it a little bit too far to claim that it is the foundational pillar of proof that evolution occurs.  Yes - and what does that mean?  This is not an unusual claim.  I think it means that they don't think natural selection goes as far as speciation, so one wonders what use it is after all..
• Evolutionists [not Darwinists in this case] look at similarities between life forms and infer that they are related, but wouldn't a designer use the same designs if they were successful?  He then uses an analogy - and all analogies are wrong - different models of cars from the same manufacturer share common components.  He says that they have not evolved from each other - which is clearly not true anyway.
• The human genome is a complex sophisticated coding mechanism.   He then makes an analogy to computer programming with 4 digits instead of 2, which he claims is twice as complex.  In fact it is 4!/2! = 12 times more complex - but hey!  What is a factor of six between friends?  It still explains nothing about the need for a designer - this is the argument from personal incredulity.  [The 4! symbology indicates a factorial = 4x3x2x1]
• Complexity of the brain is amazing.  To say that it came about randomly doesn't make sense.  Shades of Michael Behe's 747 from a junkyard here - often rebutted.  Randomness is involved, but it is absolutely not the key to natural selection.  Survival is the key.
• Apparently there are no intermediate species.  No-one has ever found them.  Actually ALL species are intermediate, including our own.  See this Dawkins video for a lovely explanation.
• A single neuron in the human brain can process 50K interactions per second.  If true, that's a very impressive thing that evolution has developed isn't it.
• His message to the young scientists in his field is to 'be wise'.  [i.e. don't tell them until you get tenure?]  Is this just 'lying for Jesus'? He was rather careful not to go as far as actually recommending this though.

All in all this interview is remarkable, even compared with the Discovery Institute's usual fair.  The God of the Gaps argument/fallacy is thinly disguised, but visible to anyone who looks at it.

** Beware that the Discovery Institute tends to recycle its podcasts, so you might have heard this a few times before if you enjoy the masochistic experience of listening to ID The future.  It is good practise!

Writing to a Christian nation

For the first time in as long as I can remember, I just read a whole book in one day.  My recent previous record was to complete Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth in fewer than 72 hours, and I am still amazed that I managed that.  Christopher Hitchens' God is not Great did not take much more time, but Daniel Dennett's excellent books always seem to take longer.  My education would not be complete if I failed to read more of the work of the 'fourth horseman'.

This was not a long book - 91 small pages - but it was by an author who I haven't always found to be interesting.  It had also taken me a long time to buy it because it seemed to me to be rather expensive in terms of pence per page, (or cents per page if you are not in UK).

However . . .  in terms of brilliant ideas and amazing information per pound (or dollar or page), this book can have few competitors.

You might have guessed by now that I am talking about Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.  I have seen Sam speaking with Richard Dawkins in Oxford and quite enjoyed it, and I had read his book The End of Faith quite early in my journey into atheism, but neither of those experiences prepared me for this small volume which contains almost everything that you would ever need to read on the subject.

It is quite complete, very concise, and although he claims that it is "a product of failure" I think he has more than made up for that fault.  As Roger Penrose's review says:

"Sam Harris's elegant little book is most refreshing and a wonderful source of ammunition for those who, like me, hold no religious doctrine.  Yet I have some sympathy also with those who might be worried by his uncompromising stance.  Read it and form your own view, but do not ignore its message"

I can only agree with that.  It takes no prisoners.  It is direct and forthright . . . and right!

Another big surprise came late in the book when Harris started to speak about Islam.  Starting on page 83 (in my copy) he addresses many of the same points that I raised in my recent post Should intelligent people fear Islamism?  The fact that his words were so close to thing I had written was honestly a surprise.  I can only guess that I had unwittingly learned some of his opinions, but forgotten where they came from.

**********

Update 2012-06-16 - here is a Youtube version of the audiobook for your delectation!


Small note: To those of you who might still be put off by the price - as it is definitely a little more expensive than you might expect - I can only recommend Amazon's amazing second-hand service.  Sorry Sam.  You deserve to benefit from my pleasure.  I hope this blog post goes a small way towards making up for my typical ex-Yorkshire thrift!

Snake-handling pastors

In some of the more bizarre strands of the pentecostal and charismatic Christian movements in North America, there is a surprising tradition of preachers dicing with death, handling venomous snakes as part of their ministry.  The tradition of snake-handling began in USA only about a hundred years ago and it has been made illegal in several states because of the danger posed to members of the public, attending a service.  Amazingly it is still permitted in West Virginia.

A deadly practice - Mack Wolford has met his maker
(Picture by Lauren Pond for the Washington Post).

The precedent comes from the words of Jesus himself.  In the story of his ascension into heaven he is said to have specified five signs by which true believers can be recognised.

And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (Mark 16:17-18)

Snake handling preachers are sometimes bitten and suffer the consequences.  For many of them, it is a matter of faith that they shun medical intervention and rely on God to heal them (or not).

In the news last week, it was revealed that flamboyant Pentecostal pastor Mack Wolford died in West Virginia after being bitten by one of his own snakes.  His own father had died in the same way in 1983, and he himself had survived several previous injuries.

Three of the other signs from those words of Jesus can be recognised in many churches around the world, but I wonder whether there are other pentecostal traditions that encourage the drinking of poison in order to complete the set.

preacher Mark Randall “Mack” Wolford, who was one of the last serpent-handling preachers of his kind in the U.S., passed away on Sunday after being bitten by one of his snakes

Source: Raw Story (http://s.tt/1d7z1)

preacher Mark Randall “Mack” Wolford, who was one of the last serpent-handling preachers of his kind in the U.S., passed away on Sunday after being bitten by one of his snakes

Source: Raw Story (http://s.tt/1d7z1)flamboyant

What a strange world we live in!