Login |
New User
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Face to faith
by David Bradnack - The Guardian
Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/06/religion
Face to faith
The Christian creed is full of bad science that makes it a religion of deception, argues David Bradnack
'Had I but served God as diligently as I have served the king, he would not have given me over in my grey hairs," said Cardinal Wolsey.
Had I but tried to understand mankind as diligently as I tried to understand your God, I would not in my grey hairs be given over to such bitter anger about the spiritual and intellectual energy that in my teens and 20s I put into trying to believe what I thought I had to believe for the salvation of my soul. My salvation finally came when, well into adulthood, I found that there was at least one intellectually respectable way of explaining that whatever happened about AD33 was not a resurrection as understood by the pious, and that the gospels are not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I think I remember my reaction on first being confronted with the creed, but I have only fairly recently been able to put it into words, because only fairly recently has "So what?" become a current expression.
The creed is arranging the deckchairs on a fantasy ship, concerned with who sitteth at the right hand of whom and who had - or did not have - relations with whom, not the icebergs ahead.
You can deduce little or nothing from the creed on how you should live. As you believe in the holy Catholic church, you must do what the Roman Catholic church tells you to do - or if you have been taught to interpret catholic not as Roman Catholic but as universal, then you must do what the universal church tells you, but what does the universal church agree on?
The creed is your mission statement, but for all the guidance in it, our common enterprise could be burning heretics and stoning adulterers, marching to an unjust war, one in selfish hope of everlasting life for ourselves and one in enforcing intolerant doctrine upon others. It is left to a hymn-writer to add: one in charity. Much as I deplore Paul's theology, charity is a better rallying cry than belief in Mary's virginity and in Jesus surviving after death. Though you believe in the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Creed of St Athanasius, and have not charity, you are as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. Though you have all faith in the virgin birth, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting, and have not charity, it profiteth us nothing.
Obviously some believers are very good people, but this is a placebo effect. They have been persuaded that faith will make them better, so it does. Their goodness lies in their attitude to other people, not in their faith in the resurrection.
The resurrection is a gimmick to catch the attention of the gullible. It does not prove that your sins have been paid for. If Christ paid for your sins by dying, and was subsequently made alive, the payment is fraudulent. It does nothing to show us that we shall survive death, let alone do so for all eternity. Manifestly we do not flit around in some semi-corporeal form for 40 days after our death as Jesus did in the gospels, and if Jesus could only manage 40 days, what hope of eternity is there for the rest of us?
Overcoming physical death confers no moral authority. It does not prove the divinity of Christ - other people have survived execution or been found to be alive after being pronounced dead, and no new religions have been started in their names.
Teaching the virgin birth and the resurrection is irresponsible bad science, preventing us from understanding the real world, just as opposing Galileo and Darwin was bad science and astrology and homeopathy are bad science.
The creed makes Christianity the religion of deception. Either you deceive yourself into believing in the virgin birth and the resurrection as literal fact, or you know they are a metaphor, but you mouth the words to deceive the gullible that they must believe them. I wish I could lay on those responsible the iniquity of it all.
· David Bradnack is a retired teacher
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/06/religion
Face to faith
The Christian creed is full of bad science that makes it a religion of deception, argues David Bradnack
'Had I but served God as diligently as I have served the king, he would not have given me over in my grey hairs," said Cardinal Wolsey.
Had I but tried to understand mankind as diligently as I tried to understand your God, I would not in my grey hairs be given over to such bitter anger about the spiritual and intellectual energy that in my teens and 20s I put into trying to believe what I thought I had to believe for the salvation of my soul. My salvation finally came when, well into adulthood, I found that there was at least one intellectually respectable way of explaining that whatever happened about AD33 was not a resurrection as understood by the pious, and that the gospels are not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I think I remember my reaction on first being confronted with the creed, but I have only fairly recently been able to put it into words, because only fairly recently has "So what?" become a current expression.
The creed is arranging the deckchairs on a fantasy ship, concerned with who sitteth at the right hand of whom and who had - or did not have - relations with whom, not the icebergs ahead.
You can deduce little or nothing from the creed on how you should live. As you believe in the holy Catholic church, you must do what the Roman Catholic church tells you to do - or if you have been taught to interpret catholic not as Roman Catholic but as universal, then you must do what the universal church tells you, but what does the universal church agree on?
The creed is your mission statement, but for all the guidance in it, our common enterprise could be burning heretics and stoning adulterers, marching to an unjust war, one in selfish hope of everlasting life for ourselves and one in enforcing intolerant doctrine upon others. It is left to a hymn-writer to add: one in charity. Much as I deplore Paul's theology, charity is a better rallying cry than belief in Mary's virginity and in Jesus surviving after death. Though you believe in the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Creed of St Athanasius, and have not charity, you are as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. Though you have all faith in the virgin birth, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting, and have not charity, it profiteth us nothing.
Obviously some believers are very good people, but this is a placebo effect. They have been persuaded that faith will make them better, so it does. Their goodness lies in their attitude to other people, not in their faith in the resurrection.
The resurrection is a gimmick to catch the attention of the gullible. It does not prove that your sins have been paid for. If Christ paid for your sins by dying, and was subsequently made alive, the payment is fraudulent. It does nothing to show us that we shall survive death, let alone do so for all eternity. Manifestly we do not flit around in some semi-corporeal form for 40 days after our death as Jesus did in the gospels, and if Jesus could only manage 40 days, what hope of eternity is there for the rest of us?
Overcoming physical death confers no moral authority. It does not prove the divinity of Christ - other people have survived execution or been found to be alive after being pronounced dead, and no new religions have been started in their names.
Teaching the virgin birth and the resurrection is irresponsible bad science, preventing us from understanding the real world, just as opposing Galileo and Darwin was bad science and astrology and homeopathy are bad science.
The creed makes Christianity the religion of deception. Either you deceive yourself into believing in the virgin birth and the resurrection as literal fact, or you know they are a metaphor, but you mouth the words to deceive the gullible that they must believe them. I wish I could lay on those responsible the iniquity of it all.
· David Bradnack is a retired teacher
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Saturday, September 6, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 45 of 45 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #243600 by crusader234 on September 6, 2008 at 10:54 am
the virgin mary? more like the the lying two timing mary.... Other Comments by crusader234
3. Comment #243601 by Apathy personified on September 6, 2008 at 11:00 am
or been found to be alive after being pronounced dead, and no new religions have been started in their names.
Shall we start a religion that worships John Darwin? (yes, him, the canoe man)
Good article - but in fairness, christianity is not the only religion guilty of deception and trading in lies and distorted truths.
Other Comments by Apathy personified
4. Comment #243603 by Jack Rawlinson on September 6, 2008 at 11:03 am
This article shocked me to my core, this morning.Because it's the first time I've seen an atheist writing in the reprehensible "Face to Faith" column.
Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
5. Comment #243605 by Quetzalcoatl on September 6, 2008 at 11:04 am
Apathy Personified-
Why not start a religion worshipping Quetzalcoatl? The Spaniards thought they'd killed off all my followers and banished me, but now I'm back stronger than ever!
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
6. Comment #243606 by Titania on September 6, 2008 at 11:09 am
Quetz, I'll sign up, if you resurrect your cute avatar. ;) Other Comments by Titania
7. Comment #243608 by Apathy personified on September 6, 2008 at 11:16 am
Quetz,No worries, i can be a spiritual whore and worship more than one diety/prophet. :)
Other Comments by Apathy personified
8. Comment #243610 by epeeist on September 6, 2008 at 11:40 am
It gets responses from some of the usual suspects over there. Peitha I suspect is a low level lab worker, obviously trying to impress with his scientific credentials.BromleyBoy tends to beg the question (as he does in this response).
Niclas is an idiot.
If you want to try poking the animals with a stick then I wish you joy!
Other Comments by epeeist
9. Comment #243611 by Enlightenme.. on September 6, 2008 at 11:42 am
"Had I but tried to understand mankind as diligently as I tried to understand your God, I would not in my grey hairs be given over to such bitter anger about the spiritual and intellectual energy that in my teens and 20s I put into trying to believe what I thought I had to believe for the salvation of my soul"What a fantastic sentence.
I am constantly amazed at how little bitterness I feel at having my youth stolen from me by the big lie. I wish I still had the energy to save others from having their lives wasted by this mindrot.
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
10. Comment #243616 by Awesome on September 6, 2008 at 12:29 pm
The more I think about it, the more I'm amazed at how I was able to deduce as a child that all the religion being pushed on me was a total waste of time. I wish more people had the energy to try to get others to enjoy what little time they have, rather than content themselves with misery for the promise that doing so will earn them a spot in paradise.Other Comments by Awesome
11. Comment #243617 by MPhil on September 6, 2008 at 12:30 pm
epeeist, regarding your comments on the original site - when that guy tried to counter the mereological argument against the trinity by introducing "G={F}U{S}u{H}"...
he shouldn't get away with that... that unification negates "God is wholly present as..." - because F,S and H are not supposed to be more than God, nor God more than any one of them - hence "wholly present"... thus G=F and G=S and G=H leads to G=F=S=H and all the consequences.
The unification would only have changed something if God was comprised of three entities (F,S,H) which therefore each cannot be the whole of God, that is, if there was something to God which was not in Son, Father or Holy Spirit - But that's not what Christians believe.
Other Comments by MPhil
12. Comment #243622 by NewEnglandBob on September 6, 2008 at 12:58 pm
'Had I but served God as diligently as I have served the king, he would not have given me over in my grey hairs," said Cardinal Wolsey.
Fewer people have the Wolsey pulled over their eyes.
Other Comments by NewEnglandBob
13. Comment #243623 by Quetzalcoatl on September 6, 2008 at 12:59 pm
NewEnglandBob-
That joke was a Cardinal sin.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
14. Comment #243624 by AoClay on September 6, 2008 at 1:05 pm
A metaphor for what? Other Comments by AoClay
15. Comment #243628 by Stafford Gordon on September 6, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Astrology and homeopathy aren't bad science; they're not science at all.Good article though.
Other Comments by Stafford Gordon
16. Comment #243640 by DWLehning on September 6, 2008 at 3:06 pm
As with my recent exit from Christianity and religion in general, and in the attempt to rid myself of those memes, this article says it farbetter than I could. It reflects my feelings about the Creed which I use to parrot off, and millions of people continue to do every Sunday in their churches.
Other Comments by DWLehning
17. Comment #243652 by Border Collie on September 6, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Maybe a religion of self-deception. Religion does not force anyone to be deluded ... maybe it provides a path to walk for those who wish to be deluded. I know many or most of you guys aren't into myth and folklore. However, Fraser and Campbell and others have some, I think, pretty good writings describing the Abrahamic and eastern religions as symbolism for ... whatever. They were two of my steps out of taking religion literally. I don't know how anyone could read Fraser and still be a religious literalist. Even those videos on YouTube 'Christianity - Fraud of the Age' are pretty good ... maybe not perfectly historically or scientifically accurate, but informative. I think that anyway we can obtain perspective and move more toward rational understanding is good.Other Comments by Border Collie
18. Comment #243653 by ukvillafan on September 6, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I read the original article and then the comments section and went a bit overboard!! Other Comments by ukvillafan
19. Comment #243654 by Michael King on September 6, 2008 at 4:02 pm
The creed makes Christianity the religion of deception
Yes, but this seems to imply that there are religions that are not based on deception. All religions thrive on deception.
Other Comments by Michael King
20. Comment #243663 by Ed-words on September 6, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Dear Atheist-for-McCain - -"Mr. Maverick" let the fundies write his Party
Platform, which includes positions on stem cell
reaearch and abortion that are not even his.
What a maverick!
Other Comments by Ed-words
21. Comment #243667 by Darwin's Teapot on September 6, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Brilliant letter. Too bad this guy retired.www.darwinsteapot.blogspot.com
Other Comments by Darwin's Teapot
22. Comment #243668 by glenister_m on September 6, 2008 at 5:36 pm
This reminded me of an essay we had to write in high school, when studying 'Inherit the Wind', about whether we believed in god or not. One student wrote a hilarious essay that was read out to class. I wish I had a copy as all I still remember was: "An angel made Mary pregnant? What kind of excuse is that???!!! If I went home and told my mother that an angel made me pregnant, she'd say 'Oh yeah!?..."Other Comments by glenister_m
23. Comment #243672 by Beachbum on September 6, 2008 at 6:16 pm
How do we get the victims of this deception to learn the truth, we all know it and most of us feel better for the knowledge?My best weapon is still, "Read the damn Book".
"Show me proof you are not deluded with this insanity."
I was born in Indiana and then moved to Florida, probably two of the worst places for a natural born atheist to live unless one considers the work I can do in light of the victims I personally know.
My understanding of science bothers, my knowledge of history irritates, philosophy is a foreign language, appeals to famous intellects and personalities seems unconvincing.
I need to help more than I have to date. But now I live in Hawaii.
Religion is the deception of the masses, for the benefit of the few - who already have all the benefits.
Other Comments by Beachbum
24. Comment #243678 by rod-the-farmer on September 6, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Re Comment #243616 by Awesome
The more I think about it, the more I'm amazed at how I was able to deduce as a child that all the religion being pushed on me was a total waste of time.
Ditto. I was fairly sure by about 13, that it (religion) was codswallop. Many who post here have reported similar reactions at such a young age. I wonder what it is about us that caused such a rejection when our understanding of reason & science was minimal, at best. Others did not reach this stage until adulthood, or later. Why ? This question is probably worth pursuing as a thesis, or better a funded project/investigation. Maybe the Pew group ?
I am thinking of a 1-800 number like they use for kids to report bullying, or abuse. Sort of the opposite of Dial-A-Prayer. "Call this number if you are a young person under 16 years of age and don't believe in religion, and tell us why. Tell us if you are subject to any pressure to conform, and anything else. We are here only to listen, and we do not ask for or reveal your name to anyone, ever."
Maybe we would have to agree we do not "refer" callers, other than perhaps to suggest they visit the library, or search on the Internet. That might keep the fundies from attacking us.
I suppose if there are YECs (Young Earth Creationists) we could call ourselves YAs (Young Atheists). Or maybe HURAAY - Humans Using Rationality As A Youth.
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
25. Comment #243680 by mordacious1 on September 6, 2008 at 7:51 pm
rodHow about:
Atheists Simply Say How Our Lives Exist Scientifically?
That would be ASSHO...oops, better not use that one.
Other Comments by mordacious1
26. Comment #243698 by esuther on September 7, 2008 at 12:57 am
I had a "christian" childhood too, complete with singing in the youth choir. It was primarily a social and aesthetic experience, and it made my mother happy. I also began to have doubts around the age of 14, but I recall one christian lady hearing about me and counseling me "You are so young. You don't know anything yet. When you are my age, you will understand so much more about the love of god."I smile at the recollection of that moment, 50 years ago. Now, in my maturity I see she was right. I really do know alot more now about the love of god; it is the pathetic craving of the undeveloped mind.
The 14 year old that I was then had already evolved intellectually past that silly woman.
I have mixed feelings about the 'wasted youth' part. Sure, all that guilt about sex was a waste, but I did learn a lot of beautiful sacred music (including the Halleujah chorus). I also had a huge crush on the choir director. Decades later I found out she was not much of a Christian either.
Other Comments by esuther
27. Comment #243705 by Alun ap Rhisiart on September 7, 2008 at 2:28 am
I still think religious 'education' is much to blame. If you study music you start with scales. If you study maths, you start with addition. If you study religion, you start with whatever the local flavour is - what? In the local primary school they teach Christianity, Judaism and Islam (ie only one religion, one god). No context.So in conversation with Christians, I say, 'who am I describing? Someone from the Middle East a long time ago. Born on December 25th, his mother was a virgin, three Magi came to his birth bearing gifts. He grew up as an itinerant teacher with 12 disciples, and performed miracles. He was called The Good Shepherd; The Way, the Truth and the Light; Saviour; and Messiah. He had a last supper, and was killed, but came back to life after three days. His followers celebrate this every year, and baptise themselves with water'.
You are correct, of course, I'm talking about Mithra, first mentioned in the Rig Veda, perhaps 1200 - 1700 years BCE. The story was well known to the greeks and the romans. Christians think their copy is unique and incredible, however.
Other Comments by Alun ap Rhisiart
28. Comment #243706 by the great teapot on September 7, 2008 at 2:46 am
What did he teach?RE perhaps.
Is it just me or is debating with likes of Pietha deadly dull.
I mean, in response to the person who said he gave up believing in god at 5 when he realised god would also require a creator Pietha replies "so you don't believe in the Universe then."
No that's right Pietha, he probably doesn't believe in the universe he can see, hear, smell and touch. For fecks sake. What is the point in debating the deluded.
Other Comments by the great teapot
29. Comment #243708 by the great teapot on September 7, 2008 at 3:01 am
Is there written evidence for Mithra and if so where?Which part of the Rig veda is this Mithras charachter in Alun. I would love to read it.
I have just read some of it. I think I'll pass.
It makes the koran look like a good read.
No mention of virgin births or ressurections, just nonsense hymns.
Other Comments by the great teapot
30. Comment #243711 by Roger Stanyard on September 7, 2008 at 3:20 am
Rod The Farmer Says: "Ditto. I was fairly sure by about 13, that it (religion) was codswallop. Many who post here have reported similar reactions at such a young age. I wonder what it is about us that caused such a rejection when our understanding of reason & science was minimal, at best. Others did not reach this stage until adulthood, or later. Why ? This question is probably worth pursuing as a thesis, or better a funded project/investigation. Maybe the Pew group ?"
I;m not sure it has anything to do with "rejection" as such. We are all faced with a huge varierty of opinions and views in life, most of which we don't accept. My own experience wa that I found religion to be unconvincing - it was not a matter of rejecting it, but much more of a matter of never having accepted it in the first plae.
I no more "rejected" Christianity" that I rejected Judaism, or Islam or any other of the 400 or so main religions in the world.
Whatever position we come to in the big issues that surround us, it always involves not accepting a lot. It's absoulutely innevitable. It is not about science and our reasoning and intellectual skills honed as we grow up. All people do it all of the time and at every age.
I also have to say that a critical factor is not rejecting the message because of its arguments. We also intuitively fail to accept because of how we perceive the messanger.
My own experence of not being convinced by religion dates back to when I was 11. I listened to an evangelist proselytiser in a Baptist church. I couldn't understand what the heck he was talking about and left thinking he was part nuts. He probably was, btw. Was the issue the message or the messanger?
I don't think it really matters gievn my age at the time. It wasn't a developed intellect that led me to being unconvinced. More like nothing more than intuition.
I don't think there is much mileage in a thesis on this!
Other Comments by Roger Stanyard
31. Comment #243712 by King of NH on September 7, 2008 at 3:20 am
I was raised Catholic and always wanted to be a priest. Then in about 5th grade I read the Illiad. We were discussing it in class (a Catholic School) and people thought it was funny what people used to believe. I mentioned how people of the future would think our "God" was so silly. ---silence--- This was obviously a terrible thing to say, and I caught a bit of trouble for it. Which of course only made me think on why it was such a terrible thing to think on. The idea evolved and I never did become a priest. Other Comments by King of NH
32. Comment #243713 by epeeist on September 7, 2008 at 3:22 am
Comment #243706 by the great teapotIs it just me or is debating with likes of Pietha deadly dull.It is deadly dull, whether it is done on the pages of the Guardian or whether we tackle the likes of Joe Morreale or txpiper here.
They are not important, the important people are the lurkers and the uncommitted. Show the likes of Peitha to be what they are, froth-mouthed loonies.
Other Comments by epeeist
33. Comment #243716 by epeeist on September 7, 2008 at 3:58 am
Comment #243617 by MPhilregarding your comments on the original site - when that guy tried to counter the mereological argument against the trinity by introducing "G={F}U{S}u{H}"...Thanks for that.
I was at a competition yesterday and browsing on my phone, so I couldn't make many responses.
I think it fails earlier than that where he says
{G}={F};. He is saying that the two sets are equal, now sets are only equal if the contain the same members, so G and F must just be names for the same thing. In effect he is saying there is no such thing as the existence of the trinity, just the existence of names for the same thing.
I thought that Niclas, having slagged me off for posting your and Steve's argument would then slag me off for posting the Kalam argument. Instead Peitha walked straight into it.
Other Comments by epeeist
34. Comment #243723 by Richard Morgan on September 7, 2008 at 5:53 am
WARNING - Attention-seeking post!I would like to invite you to listen to a song I have composed, kindly interpreted by a friend of a lovely person I met here.
HEALING
http://www.myspace.com/morgansoriginals
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
35. Comment #243730 by dvespertilio on September 7, 2008 at 6:18 am
This article resonates strongly with me as I, too, wish I had back all the wasted years, the time and effort I spent trying to "square the circle" of religious belief. I am now teaching my children, and anyone else who will listen, not to waste their lives on religious nonsense. Had I not spent my twenties feeling guilty and confused about my roman catholic upbringing, perhaps I would be a doctor or scientist today. The rc church and its deluded priests and nuns stole a large chunk of my life. But now, at least, I am free of all that, and I'll never go back. Reciting the credo in church on a Sunday morning and singing meaningless ditties is a total waste of time. Now, if I could just get some of those tunes out of my head......early conditioning is so insidious!Other Comments by dvespertilio
36. Comment #243735 by Dhamma on September 7, 2008 at 8:04 am
Richard Morgan:Considering I know you entered this site as an atheist and ended up a christian, I'd like to ask a few questions.
When you all of a sudden had your epiphany, did all the arguments about atheism I suppose you had agreed upon before, just vanish? Russel's teapot etc...
Why did you become certain YHWH was the true god?
Are all the other religions all wrong?
Anyway, I think epiphanies can happen both ways. When religious people become clear-thinkers it appears many of them felt it as an epiphany too.
Seriously, if you'd like us to convert to theism, recommending your "music" will only make us EVEN more certain we're right. Horrible stuff, to say the least.
Other Comments by Dhamma
37. Comment #243742 by stptrck75 on September 7, 2008 at 8:28 am
Mr. Morgan, I just read your myspace blog (nice sounding song, btw). I can't help but think that throughout your whole ordeal you were really just in search of a friend. You felt rejected by RDnet, so you became aligned with the the church of Scotland and its faith. Just because a particular belief makes a person fell warm and fuzzy, comforted and loved, does not automatically qualify it as the truth. Hence religions and faiths as delusions. I'm afraid your re-discovered faith in a god will only leave you once again feeling abandoned. Other Comments by stptrck75
38. Comment #243773 by D'Arcy on September 7, 2008 at 10:04 am
Of Richard Morgan, srptrck says:
You felt rejected by RDnet, so you became aligned with the the church of Scotland and its faith.
Not any church of scotland, but The Free Church of Scotland, of which David Robertson is a leading light. In fact the same "Wee Free" that opposed the sailings of Sunday ferries to the Western Isles, and the imbibing of alcohol on the Sabbath and promoted countless other prohibitions on personal and sexual life. Yes the "Wee Free" makes McKain look like a veritable libertine. Perhaps Richard Morgan would like to tell us what he has gained by joining.
Earlier this year I was staying in a house which had been built upon the foundations of a deserted "Wee Free" church. The best possible use of land!
Other Comments by D'Arcy
39. Comment #243816 by Peacebeuponme on September 7, 2008 at 12:28 pm
EpeeistDo you understand JMcD's point about time and space on the Guardian thread?
I was posting as "Siman2" and muct say I haven't the foggiest understanding of the point he is making.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
40. Comment #243855 by No Religion on September 7, 2008 at 2:37 pm
After reading this and others that have posted here, I must count myself as being lucky. As a child, I was not burdened by any religious doctrine. My parents felt that I should be free to choose. The only down side to not having an intimate knowledge of Christianity is that it made High School American Literature a little more difficult because I didn't automatically catch the religious references and metaphors that seem to plague so many 2oth Century novels.Other Comments by No Religion
41. Comment #244010 by Miles on September 8, 2008 at 7:10 am
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=366241924&blogID=409997984
Richard Morgan,
Thank you for taking the time to post such a personal account of your theological journey on your blog. I'd first like to say that I too share much of the same disdain and resentment for some of my fellow atheists. The lack of basic etiquette or any concern for other human beings shown by some members of RD.net is absolutely sickening and I am so sorry that there were so few of us who came to your defence when you issued well-reasoned and polite responses towards these uncouth vulgarians. As I'm sure you understand (since you've demonstrated a concise and accurate knowledge of many of the atheistic arguments), the underlying reason behind all this senseless behaviour is the necessity of not showing special respect and tolerance for religious opinion; since this clearly prevents free philosophical debate, thereby fossilising ignorance and allowing fundamentalists the freedom to espouse their sick ideas without opposition. However, this important argument against the ingrained custom in society that religion should be respected has been either inadvertently or perniciously misunderstood, by some of us, to mean that any kind of disgusting mentality towards people of a mere difference of theological opinion is justifiable. I'm glad that you recognise that some (if not many) theists are guilty of the same behaviour, as regards to your comments about the 'arrogance' of David Robertson. I'm also glad that the faith which you have reached is of the nuanced variety, which poses little threat to the welfare of other human beings, apart from perhaps their intellectual values concerning the importance of scientific truth.
However, if this seemingly perennial debate of ideas is ever to reach a conclusion that is accepted by the majority, I believe that it will have done so by some form of mutual understanding and moderated exchange between human beings. As such, I would respectfully like to provide some rebuttal to a few of your claims, since I feel that you are a fairly free-thinking person who will give them due thought and consideration. First off is your argument referring to the limits of scientific understanding and empirical perception, illustrated through your 'honey-bee' analogy. The obvious retort to this argument is that religion is no more qualified than science to provide answers to things which we currently do not understand (due to an absence of empirical data), nor to things which we will probably never understand, since (to borrow Kantian terminology) they lie outside the 'phenomenal' realm of scientific scrutiny, residing in the 'noumenal' realm of the unknown. But this is where the true arrogance of religion comes into play, in its claims that it can somehow mystically provide certain and unequivocal knowledge of that which science has so far not answered, even if it might be "working on it". This is more than a 'God of the Gaps' fallacy, it is a philosophically unjustifiable glorification of 'intuition' and 'non-sensory perception' over the scientific ideals of reason and empirical evidence. The realisation, that you show some rudimentary awareness of, is that there is a huge amount that we do not know about the universe, and that as such, we should basically stick with what we know and with what we can defend in an argument. The only form knowledge that conforms to this standard is scientific knowledge, which can be certified time and time again under experimental conditions. You'll forgive the simplified claim, but it does illustrate the point well: "Aeroplanes fly ... magic carpets do not." Scientific evidence is the only form of evidence that we use from day-to- day, since it is contingent and is therefore talking about the real-world. You would not defend yourself in a court of law under a muder accusation, replacing an allibi about where you were during the time of the murder (backed with geographical, scientific evidence), with something like "Well, I had an intuitive awareness that I couldn't possibly be at the scene of the crime since I was told by a higher-being, (one which you are somehow incapable of also discovering), that I would never commit murder because He would shield me from evil." This would never convince an open-minded judge, and rightfully so.
Furthermore, you make a mistake in thinking that even though it is possible that an entity exists outside the realm of scientific perception, it means that it exists or that we have any reason to believe that it exists (I refer you to Russell's Teapot). In addition, this tells us nothing of the attributes of such an entity; be it omnipotence, omniscience, or benevolence. Therefore, even if it does exists, we have no idea about whether it is worth worshipping, nor whether it is closer to the Islamic, Judaic or Christian thoughts about what such an entity would be like. Given the huge presence of evil and suffering in the world, if it is an interventionist God, then it would be reasonable to conclude that all the available evidence suggests that it is deficient, as Epicurus claimed, in power, knowledge, or love. The more claims that are made about its activities in the world, the more complicated the entity becomes, the more unlikely it is that it exists when faced with the enormous lack of scientific evidence in support of the claims. That which can be asserted without evidence, can also be rejected without evidence.
Finally, I'm very disappointed in how casually and dogmatically you fling about assertions such as 'The Bible is the word of God', given the huge historical inaccuracies, as well as other contradictions, contained in the Bible. It seems that you are guilty of the same circular reasoning shared by many unsophisticated theologians - I believe in God because the Bible is the word of God, and it says that God exists and that he loves us e.t.c. e.t.c.
You may feel that the immense sense of false comfort and pseudo-enlightenment that you are experiencing is testament to the existence of God, but to anybody knowledgeable about psychology; it demonstrates the sheer power of the human mind. It saddens me to think that you recanted atheism because you did not feel emotionally fulfilled (evident in your appreciation of emotive statements such as 'We can love him because he loved us first'). Sure, the scientific worldview is admittedly at times bleak, but if you could have only persevered then you might have discovered the profound appreciation of the magnificence and beauty in the world that science can provide. Your conversion to theism is something of a footnote to Freud or Marx - it seems that you long for a sense of transcendental love from something akin to a father-figure, a longing to the extent that you are prepared to open your mind up so much for that, be strong now when you read this ... I cannot phrase it with any more respect and concern; you lose a sense of reality. Such is the sigh of the oppressed creature.
Other Comments by Miles
42. Comment #244120 by William Carlton on September 8, 2008 at 11:00 am
"If Christ paid for your sins by dying, and was subsequently made alive, the payment is fraudulent."Hehe, a friend of mine once replaced "Jesus: He died for you," to "Jesus: He took the weekend off for you".
Also, Richard Morgan's account smells like a stunt.
Other Comments by William Carlton
43. Comment #244137 by epeeist on September 8, 2008 at 11:14 am
Comment #243816 by PeacebeuponmeDo you understand JMcD's point about time and space on the Guardian thread?
No, all of his posts were basically gibberish. His thing about Godel (Goedel) and formal systems was a nonsense. He showed that one could not prove arithmetic was complete or consistent using arithmetic. However, one can from outside the system. However, one cannot show that your meta-system is complete or consistent from within your meta-system, you have to go to a meta-meta-system etc.
Other Comments by epeeist
44. Comment #244181 by notsobad on September 8, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Either you deceive yourself into believing in the virgin birth and the resurrection as literal fact, or you know they are a metaphor
It wasn't supposed to be a metaphor. It's just today's explanation of moderates to save their face.
Other Comments by notsobad
45. Comment #245607 by hexhunter on September 11, 2008 at 7:14 am
What could resurrection or virgin birth possibly be a metaphor for?Nice to see Face to faith has an Atheist writer finally, BBC, take notice!!
Other Comments by hexhunter
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #243597 by Nails on September 6, 2008 at 10:51 am
Short, sharp and to the point.
The religion of deception, I will rememeber that one.
I only hope that this retired teacher was as forthright in his class - and if so, many others should follow suit.
Other Comments by Nails