Things Christians say, part 48: How can there be goodness without a measure?

A (more-or-less) weekly series (although there was a pause for a while) of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

How can there be goodness without a measure to judge it by?

Piano

The human mind is good at finding meaning in patterns of the world around us.  Sometimes we find meanings that are real and measurable.  Sometimes our meaning detector misfires and we get a false sense of what is true.

We see faces in the clouds or the trees.  Does that mean that someone has put those patterns there for us to see, or does it just imply that our imaginations are exceptionally active?

By the same token, just because Christians think that there must be a fixed objective morality defined by their God it doesn't mean that it is true.

Even if we accepted that some individual god had set things up this way, it has to be said that it is not overwhelmingly probably that the Christian God was the one.  After all he has plenty of competition from other extant deities, let alone the extinct ones.

In fact, on the evidence of the bible alone God manages to be inconsiderate, immoral, unreasonable, violent and cruel.  Do you really suggest that  we measure 'good' and 'evil' by such a yardstick?

Christians - when you say things like this you might not realise that it opens up a much bigger topic than you expected!

***

Forte

Doesn't the bible (Matthew 7:1) implore us not to judge?  If so, how would it help to have a measure?

And as French philosopher Michel Onfray says

" . . . good has no need of God, of heaven, or of any intelligible anchorage. It is sufficient unto itself and arises from an immanent necessity - proposing a set of rules, a code of conduct among men."  - - Atheist Manifesto page 56


Last episode: Atheists have no reason to live
Next:  You don't want God to cramp your lifestyle

Things Christians say, part 47: Atheists have no reason to live

A (more-or-less) weekly series (although there was a pause for a while) of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

Atheists have no reason to live

Piano

In some ways you have hit the nail directly on the head.  Atheists would tend to say that they are not here for a reason; that nothing is pre-ordained; that there is no divine being who has directed the forces of good and evil (however incompetently).  But that is not to say that we don't like to be here and don't want to work for the benefit of the world or for future generations.

A lot of atheists are humanists.  In my own case, I still can't quite decide whether I am or not.  I do happen to be a strong secularist.  That means that I'm happy for you to worship whatever mythical being you like as long as it does affect my life.

That, for me, is a reason to live (even if I have no others).  I want to make it possible for other atheists to live without the threat of organised religion.  In many parts of the world that is a dream that will not be reached for many decades.

***

Forte

That kind of statement is hardly worthy of a response.  It is not exactly well defined; not clear and transparent what it really means.

And of course this is a typical hallmark of organised religion.  Its proponents like to keep things vague and transcendental for all sorts of reasons - none of them good! 


Last episode: Atheists are responsible for all the world's ills
Next: How can there be goodness without a measure to judge it by?

Things Christians say, part 46: Atheists are responsible for all the world's ills

A (more-or-less) weekly series (although there was a pause for a while) of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

Atheists are responsible for all the world's ills

Piano

Isn't it odd that Satan used to have the position of being responsible for the ills of the world.  Have atheists taken over from him?

I know quite a lot of atheists, and although I am sure that there are evil atheists in the world I don't happen to have met any of them yet.  Those who are indeed intent on spreading ills through the world would surely have their work cut out.

After all, there is a lot of competition from the people of all the world's religions.  I venture to suggest that you personally know more bad Christians than I know bad atheists.

***

Forte

Well, if atheists are responsible for ALL the world's ills then there must be a lot of atheists in the Roman Catholic Church and indeed even in the Vatican.

To claim that atheists are responsible for all the world's ills is manifestly mischievous, and indeed, as such, I think it is a self-refuting statement! 


Last episode: Can't you just make yourself believe?

Next: Atheists have no reason to live

Things Christians say, part 45: Can't you just make yourself believe?

A (more-or-less) weekly series (although there was a pause for a while) of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

Can't you just make yourself believe?

Piano

Some people can clearly find ways to make themselves believe in God.  That fact is inescapable, and this is not a question of intelligence or rationality.  Those people are free to believe what they want.  In fact, it is observed that the more intelligent the person is, the more innovative they are at finding ways to rationalise their beliefs.

Then again it works the same for the opposite opinion.  If you find it difficult to believe things without any evidence (as I do) then I can say that I can't just make myself believe.

Empirical evidence might change that, but I would be very surprised if such evidence is ever forthcoming.

***

Forte

What do I have to do to get you to believe in the tooth fairy?  Or Santa Claus?  They are well documented in literature after all.  Yes, that literature is fiction, but then again many people believe the bible to be fictional too.  It is a collection of bronze age myths which are not well supported by historical evidence.



Last episode: Atheists are immoral
Next: Atheists are responsible for all the world's ills

Things Christians say, part 44: Atheists are immoral

A (more-or-less) weekly series (although there was a pause for a while) of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

Atheists are immoral

or  You just don't want moral restraints - which is also addressed in this post

Piano

It is very frustrating to hear this old chestnut repeated over and over again.  Those who make this claim seem to think that it will become more true if they say if more often.  I leave it to the integrity and judgement of the reader to decide whether there is an validity in this approach?

So is it true?

I know atheists who sometimes joke about this topic.  Usually this happens in a situation where there is a question of honestly being discussed.  Take an example of having a meal with a group of people in a restaurant.  The bill is complicated, and the waiter makes an error and misses several of the meals off the bill, or maybe gives you the bill for a neighbouring table.  The net result is that the bill is for a figure much less than the actual price of the meals that you have eaten.

What do you do?  Well in a recent case of this in a restaurant in Oxford the table of atheists had this discussion.

Shall we be good honest typical atheists and tell the waiter about the error and pay the full sum? Or should we be typical Christians and read the bill like they read the bible - picking the bits they like and discarding the rest as irrelevant.  The choice was very easy and the waiter was suitably grateful.

Does this count as morality?

***

Forte

In this week when a pope has retired into a life where he is going to have to hide himself very well to avoid the risk of prosecution, let's look at a couple of big moral issues.

What does Jesus say about contraception?  I think you have to agree that he was silent on the subject, and only with the most convoluted theology could anyone claim any biblical teaching on the matter at all.  And yet the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is against the will of God, even where it is a matter of life and death.  Millions of people in Africa have been infected with HIV AIDS because of the teachings of priests, under the direction of The Vatican.  Is this objective morality?

Apologising for being too predictable, the issue of systematic cover-up of child abuse within the church must also be considered. (It is not just the pope, but it has happened in other countries too, notably UK as described here.)  Not only is it immoral in the minds of most people to abuse children, but then to move priests to new parishes were they can offend again is only compounding the problem and confounding justice.  To refuse to give the evidence to the secular authorities is not only immoral but specifically and clearly illegal.

Now try to tell me that atheists have lower standards of morality!

Who is it that fails to demonstrate moral restraints?


Last episode: God bless the pope
Next: Can't you just make yourself believe?

Things Christians say, part 43: Bless the pope.

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

God bless the pope

Piano

Admittedly not all Christians would like God to bless the retiring pope. But on balance I have even found that died-in-the-wool Protestants are more likely to support the pope that to support my view that he should be prosecuted for all the evil done in the name of his church.

Many would like him to have a long private retirement, in solemn prayer, forgiven for all his deeds.

I suppose he could be allowed solitude without living in luxury.  Justice might be better served it it could be arranged for him to be solitary in a prison cell for the rest of his days.

After all, he has a hotline to God, so he wouldn't be lonely.

***

Forte

There's an alternative point of view about Pope Benedict, of course.  Tim Minchin presented it in quite a forthright song - The Pope Song.  Follow the link if you want to hear it, but I should warn you that it contains bad language from the very beginning.  Alternatively this one is a slightly more entertaining and less polished performance. 

You might be offended by the repetition of disrespectful terms and tha amount of swearing.  Does it need to be so offensive?  Well I think it was done deliberately to make a strong and valid point.  As Minchin sings (towards the end of the song), if you find  him more offensive than the Catholic Church's tacit approval of the activities of many of its priests, then you are the one who is morally misguided!

Last episode: Who are you to question the almighty?
Next: All atheists are immoral

Things Christians say, part 42: Who are you to question the almighty?

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

Who are you to question the almighty?

Piano

That is another interesting question because it leads us in unexpected directions.

Are you saying that nobody should ask questions?  What if the word of God has been misunderstood for all these centuries (as for example it seems to have been in the case of slavery).

If it turns out that some questions are allowed, then how do you decide who is allowed to ask them.  Clergy?  Theologians? Only the pope?  Surely none of those can be called unbiased, and therefore the questions should be asked by the only group of people who are absolutely unbiased about your God and all the other gods.

Atheists should ask the questions.

***

Forte

Having said the above, we might reasonably point out that all the different churches have different approaches to matters of dogma and doctrine.  Are we allowed to ask questions of Christians of the 'wrong kind', (and specifically not of your kind)?  Or should we leave them in their current state of ignorance (as you seem to do)?

And I would like to point out that I definitely do exist.  I'm not sure that the same quality of evidence is available for any god.  Whether your God is almighty or not is clearly a moot point given the amount of suffering in the world.  So your question is really meaningless.

I'm me and I ask questions.  Your almighty is probably a figment of your imagination.


Last episode:  You confuse Christianity with religion
Next: God bless the pope

Things Christians say, part 41: You confuse Christianity with religion

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

You confuse Christianity with religion

Piano

I hope you will find it understandable that we might do that in the circumstances!

***

Forte

No! I think you confuse me with someone who is incapable of using a dictionary.


Last episode:  Eventually God (or Jesus) will touch your heart
Next week:   Who are you to question the almighty?

Things Christians say, part 40: Eventually God will touch your heart.

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

Eventually God (or Jesus) will touch your heart

Piano

I find this argument very similar to the one that I described in part 24 of this series.  Just as Christians claim that God or Jesus will find a way into my heart, other people have told me a similar story about other invisible entities.  One friend has assured me that their spirit guide has informed them that they will be able to convince me of the possibility of speaking with the dead.  I would be surprised if that is the case, but not surprised any more than I would be if Jesus did find a way into my heart.

***

Forte

For a start, I disbelieve in the possibility of the existence of a theistic God of the type that Christians claim.  Even if he did exist, then he is surely a cruel and barbaric being, hardly deserving of a place in my heart . . . whatever that expression really means anyway.

The very phrase "a place in your heart" is a rhetorical device harking back to ancient times when the heart was credited with roles other than pumping blood, and although there is nothing specifically wrong with rhetoric in itself, it is more like a catchphrase to convince the credulous than an accurate description of a state of being.

I expect everyone would describe it slightly differently.  That's the beauty of rhetoric isn't it?  It doesn't actually have to be accurate to achieve its aims.


Last episode:  God doesn't believe in atheists
Next week:   You confuse Christianity with religion

Things Christians say, part 39: God doesn't believe in atheists

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

God doesn't believe in atheists!

Piano

Trying (very hard) not to chuckle openly at this one.  Apologies for failing to come up with anything better than that.

***

Forte

How do you know that?  You can't.


Last episode:   Aw - that's sad.
Next week: Eventually God (or Jesus) will touch your heart 

Things Christians say, part 37: Something from nothing?

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

It doesn't make any sense - you're saying that something came from nothing?

Piano

Interestingly, it is now quite well established that the things that we perceive as 'something' are rather precisely balanced by anti-somethings.  I'm not talking about matter and anti-matter, but something a little more subtle.

Matter and energy are closely related.  Mass doesn't come in negative quantities but believe it or not energy does.  And it turns out that the negative energy in the universe is rather accurately equal to the positive energy (which includes the energy that is tied up in matter.

In other words, our obvious somethings can indeed come from nothing.

Sometimes common sense doesn't work as our intuitions predict, but that doesn't mean that we are wrong.  Try going on a children's roundabout and throwing a ball to someone on the other side and see whether you can work out how the flight path of the ball makes sense.  With a bit of practise you would find that it did.  You have to do the same thing in physics.

This might be quite tricky physics that is not obvious to the ordinary reader - not that any of my readers are ordinary.    But I have much more trouble with theological arguments about the Trinity than I do about something coming from nothing.

Read some Lawrence Krauss.  You might enjoy it.


***

Forte

It doesn't make sense.  You're saying that God is three and yet one.

Where do arguments like that get us?

Anyway, wherever all the 'somethings' in the universe came from, you still have all your work in front of you to demonstrate that it was your particular God was involved.



Last episode: Faith is evidence of things unseen
Next week:  Aw - that's sad.

Things Christians say, part 35: Faith is evidence of things unseen.

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

Faith is evidence of things unseen.

Piano

We know that there are many things in the universe that are unseen.  X-rays, dark matter, electric fields, love, and envy all fit that description.

We know these things because we do have real evidence for them, on the basis of logical criteria that anyone can apply.  These observations and measurements are independent of the views of the observer.  Anyone with a logical mind and enough training in the detailed disciplines can achieve the same results repeatably.

Can the same be said of any faith based position?  I suggest not.  If you go into any detail at all about any faith-based claim, I think you will find it difficult to find any two people who 'know' exactly the same things about the universe on the basis of faith alone.


***

Forte

In one sense you are right.  Faith is evidence of workings of the brain.  You have to hope that your brain and its inner workings remain unseen.

In no other sense does the argument that faith is evidence for anything at all make logical sense.

There are books about this sort of thing, and unlike the bible these books are logically coherent.   They are (at least) much more self-consistent than the bible or any other holy book.

I recommend you to go to Amazon and look for The Believing Brain by Michael Schermer, which I reviewed here, in The Believable Michael Schermer.




Last episode: Well, why don't you try praying?
Next week: It doesn't make any sense - you're saying that something came from nothing?

Things Christians say, part 34: Well, why don't you try praying?

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

Well, why don't you try praying?

Piano

I often hear people saying that prayer does not change what happens but it changes the person who is praying.

After a mere few decades of prayer I think I can say that I never found it to work very well for me.  There comes a point where it is pointed out to you that there are other options instead of prayer, and if you open your heart to that message that brings a whole new world of possibilities.

A change in philosophy has not wholly changed my life, but why should I expect that?  However, I do feel a certain intellectual honesty in my life that was missing before.  Things are much more satisfactory, and nothing is missing.


***

Forte

Why don't YOU try 'not praying'.  Just for a change, get off your knees and do something useful.


Last episode:  You're not really an atheist!

Next week:  Faith is evidence of things unseen

Things Chrisitans say, part 32: Arrogant and offensive

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

I can't believe that you are so arrogant (or offensive)

Piano

I was listening to a discussion on the radio a couple of weeks ago.  One of the interviewees expressed her honest beliefs about the topic and the other claimed to have empirical evidence to the contrary.  The topic was not religion, and you can read more about it here, but in a minute you might see a parallel.

Discussing this matter a bit later with (as it happens) a Christian, I was told that the guy with empirical evidence was just arrogant, and that by the very process of offering this evidence (which he never actually had chance to present) he had essentially lost the argument.  He was the politest of the three people involved, and allowed his arguments to be shouted down before he made his point. 

At the time I was surprised to hear this point of view but then I realised what was going on.

Does this seem familiar?  It seems to me to be like the war between science and religion.  Some people trust evidence.  Others trust heartfelt emotion and well wielded rhetoric and call people arrogant if they disagree.

Christians might claim to be in the former category but I suggest that it doesn't work out that way very often.


***

Forte

What would you call someone who uses a logical argument that you can't defeat?

If I were a Christian, I would call them 'an atheist'.  There is no need for any pejorative adjectives.



Last week:  To be an atheist you would have to go everywhere in the universe and search for god and not find him to really be sure that there is no god.
Next week:  You're not really an atheist!

Things Christians say, part 31: To the ends of the universe

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

To be an atheist you would have to go everywhere in the universe and search for god and not find him to really be sure that there is no god.

Piano

I think there is a small matter of definition to be sorted out here.  I wonder how you define 'atheist', because I am almost sure that it is not the same way that dictionaries define it.

I think the proper definition is that an atheist is someone who does not believe in any gods (whereas agnostic is someone who does not know whether there are any gods).  One can be both agnostic and atheist.

Now if you think it means 'someone who believes that there is no god' then you still have all your work ahead of you.

Since, presumably, you actively disbelieve in all other gods than your own I believe I have you at a disadvantage, as you need to prove a great deal more than I do.

***

Forte

What an interesting thought.  Even if you were right about the atheist having to prove something - which you are not - somehow I have to go to the trouble of searching the whole universe to disprove something that you claim to be here and now, all the time, wherever you are.

Even if we had to prove anything, it would be sufficient to prove that God is not here, now.  That in itself is no small task, but it is a lot smaller than the one you suggest.

Why do I clam this?  Well, its easy.  Christians claim that God set up the whole of the universe so that humans could live here on Earth and that he is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient.  As many people have pointed out for the last thousand years or more, the big three O's are not even mutually consistent and compatible. (e.g. Can omnipotent God make a stone that is so heavy that he is unable to move it?)

So since there is no objective evidence for the existence of God here and now, and since he is a logically inconsistent being I think it is obvious that the burden of roof rests with the believer, and not the atheist.

Your move!



Last week:  I can't stand the idea of there being no life after death. That's why I believe in god.
Next week:  I can't believe that you are so arrogant (or offensive).

Things Christians say, part 30: Life after death

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

I can't stand the idea of there being no life after death. That's why I believe in god.

Piano

The idea of life after death is one that seems common in most cultures.  Some would claim that this observation reinforces the evidence that it is true.

The main flaw with this argument is that there really is no evidence for the claim at all, so reinforcing nothing gives you the same amount of nothing.

If your faith is mainly based on this then it is fragile indeed.

***

Forte

Just because you would like to believe something comforting, it does not make that something true.  Life after death is something that we can never disprove.  All sorts of urban myths about near death experiences fuel the fire, but there are good neurological explanations for the common experiences now, and they seem far more believable than the idea that the soul can somehow survive without a brain.

Honestly!  Just because ancient peasants who knew virtually nothing about the explanation of the world around them wished to have an afterlife, why should anyone think it is true now?

In fact, I'm developing an idea that the only true atheists are the ones who do not expect to survive their own deaths, and in a day or two I will expand on the idea and link it from here.


Last week:  Why do you hate god?

Next week:   To be an atheist you would have to go everywhere in the universe and search for god and not find him to really be sure that there is no god.

Things Christians say, part 29: Why do you hate God?

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

Why do you hate God?

Piano

Do you hate fairies?  Do you hate Zeus, Thor, Mithra, or Osiris?

I rather suspect that the answer is that you are simply indifferent to the concepts of fairies or of other gods than your own.

And that is how atheists feel about them too.  The only difference between you and an atheist is that the atheist takes it one god further than you do. 

In order to be an atheist, we simply don't believe in gods who intervene in the natural world.

There might be another term for someone who hates God and although I can't currently think what that word might be, I do know that 'atheist' is not the one. 

***

Forte

You might think that someone who does hate God is likely to be an atheist too.  To reply to that assertion I would simply say that you need to think a bit harder about what you are saying.  How can you hate something that you do not believe in?

If you hate god you are not an atheist!
(Image from here)

I'm not going to ask the same question as above about your feelings toward Allah or Baal as many Christians seem to reserve a special dark place in their hearts for those particular deities.  I assert that this hatred actually demonstrates that you do believe in them and regard them as being a significant threat to your own religion.

I think you would be partly right about the threat, but wrong to believe in their existence.  It is not that it is necessary to believe in any of the deities involved, but the religions that follow other gods tend not to be favourable towards yours.  As such, human religiosity is its own enemy.  I wonder whether any wars have ever been fought over religion! (By the way, as you might have guessed, I only wonder ironically!)


Last week:  There are no contradictions in the bible.
Next week:  I can't stand the idea of there being no life after death. That's why I believe in god.

Empirical confusion - a lesson about faith based claims

One day recently I was listening to a radio programme where two people were being interviewed.  The subject hardly matters, except that it serves to illustrate a point that applies equally well to the way that people think about faith in god(s).

As it happens, it was about the effects of tobacco advertising.  This is not a subject that I find particularly interesting, but it is one that others have strong feelings about, and I could summarise the two sides of the discussion as follows: 

• One of the protagonists in the debate was arguing that advertising attracts new people into smoking. Her argument was very much faith based.  It was simply obvious to her that this was true, and she found it impossible to accept any aspects of the opposing view.
• Her opponent was making the point that advertising was demonstrably unsuccessful at converting people to smoking, but that it was much more successful at redistributing the market share between different brands of tobacco.  Smokers of one brand could be converted to another brand much more easily than non-smokers.  He said that he based his claim on empirical evidence.

Now I'm not going to try to judge the merits of the two arguments.  I'm not a smoker and never have been.  The point that annoyed me was that the faith-based claim was allowed a lot more air time then the evidence-based claim.  The poor guy only had to start a sentence and the interviewer (John Humphrys I think) would immediately interrupt him with another question.  It annoyed me that we were not able to hear enough about the evidence to enable us to form our own opinions.

A little later I was expressing my opinion - my outrage - about it, as sometimes I do!  I was very surprised by the reaction that I received, although in retrospect I shouldn't have been!

I was told - believe it or not - that the guy with the empirical evidence had come across as arrogant and unyielding.  The reason for this was simply that he had used the expression "empirical evidence".

Now I think you can see the parallel that I am drawing.  Those who believe in gods take the faith-based approach and they are sometimes frightened away from even considering the opposite viewpoint because of empirical evidence.  There are at least two aspects to this.

• First, I have noticed that even intelligent and well qualified people misunderstand the term.  Empirical evidence is not just another faith claim.  It is evidence that has actually been measured, and brings you to a conclusion without having to rely on inference or deduction.  Even if it might later turn out to be wrong, it should not be ignored.  Surely it must at least be useful unless it is shown not to be true by further measurements.
• Second, if you take the attitude in life that all claims are equally valid, as many do, then the presence or absence of evidence is not of much importance.  This is why such a way of thinking is fundamentally flawed.

The net result is that those who argue with the certainty that comes from putting the effort into detailed analysis of a topic are trumped by those who just know the truth in their hearts.  This very effectively demonstrates that rationality is not the primary trait of the human mind, as mentioned last week in my review of Michael Schermer's book, The Believing Brain.

The wisest words from Bertrand Russell

The words of of one of the greatest philosophers of modern times spring to mind (as you can hear at this link)

When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only "what are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out?" Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe or by what you think would have benificent social effects if it were believed, but look only and solely at what are the facts. -- Bertrand Russell 

Shouldn't this be our crusade as rationalists?

Things Christians Say, part 28: No contradictions in the bible

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

There are no contradictions in the bible.

Piano

It is often said that there are no contradictions in the bible.  Even to the casual observer, this seems not to be true and it is surprising to observe the verbal gymnastics that people employ in order to prove their claims.

In fact, the more you look at the details the less true the claim appears to be.  I happened across this excellent diagram recently.  The image at the top identifies in the white histogram columns the number of apparent contradictions in each book of the bible, Old Testament and New.  The red lines show the connections between the claimed contradictions.  The text below the diagram gives the questions and the references of the verses involved.  I think you might find it worthy of a little study. 

Contradictions in the bible - reduced scale.
Find the original diagram at this link.

You won't be able to read the text on that reduced version but you can find the full resolution diagram at this link.(8 Mbytes)

***

Forte

Looking at the diagram above, notice also that the New Testament is a hotbed of 'self-inconsistency'.  You can see that from the high concentration of red links to the right hand end of the picture. 

This is in spite of its 'questionable' provenance.  By that I mean, of course, the way that the contents of the cannon of the bible were cherry-picked from the available works to make what was intended to be a consistent story.  Wouldn't you think that the experts who agreed the contents of the bible might have been a little more careful?

Ultimately the resolutions of these contradictions are not important to those of us who are no longer Christians.  They appear to me to be a very considerable headache to those who wish us to believe in the inerrant truth of their bible.



Last week:  Atheists just don't want to be held accountable for their own actions
Next week:  Why do you hate god?

Things Christians say, part 27: Accountable for your own actions

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

Atheists just don't want to be held accountable for their own actions

Piano

Did you really say that?  Would you like a moment to reconsider?

***

Forte

When Christians start to say things like this you just know that they are reaching the point of desperation.  Finally there is compelling evidence that they are opening their mouths and putting their foot straight in!

Just think about what has been said.  Somehow it is the atheists who reject the concept of a father-figure in the sky that are accused of not making themselves accountable by that very action.  By rejecting gods we are actually taking upon ourselves the responsibility for our own actions and we are holding ourselves accountable in this life.

For us atheists, there is no more running away from accountability by claiming that God told us to do things.  We also tend to believe that it is important to be held to account in this life, not just in a fictitious after-life.

Why is this important?  Well, for a start ask the high officials in the Vatican that question.  They are not making any of the offenders in the Catholic Church accountable for for their crimes (whether they be against children, the poor or wealthy financial investors).  Somehow that church makes its own bronze age beliefs a reason to defy the secular authorities who would take legal action against the criminals that the Vatican is protecting.

How can anyone defend such outrageous behaviour?

Only by invoking God can that be achieved!



Last week: All the evidence you need is right here in the bible.
Next week: There are no contradictions in the bible