One might have thought an excellent marriage would be filled with love, understanding, forgiveness, tolerance, and equality – amongst other things.  But not so, at least according to the administrators of the associated Facebook page.  In the spirit love, forgiveness, understanding, and equality I posted the following comment:

Pretty good I though. Hell, even my wife liked the post, so I must be doing something right.  Although I would not bother visiting Facebook to find this comment, or any like it. Those good, loving, tolerant, understanding, crusaders for equality and human decency Jesus followers have deleted the posts and banned me from their treehouse.  I might have a persecution complex, but it looks like our comments were targeted for some reason because the God loving comments remain.

I cannot say I am completely surprised at this behaviour given some of the people who will be speaking about the warm forgiveness blood of Jesus at this free event about marriage (not religious, shhh  How dare you! ).  For example, Margret “you can get married if you’re not a poofter” Court will be there with Guy “children deserve the right to grow up with at least the chance of both a Mum and a Dad” Barnett, and let’s not forget local Minister Campbell “Jesus was so into straight marriage he had two dads, and hung around with 12 guys and a few prostitutes” Markham.

Anyway, while you wait for this most excellent event you could endlessly watch the inspirational movie they have produced (see below), or visit their page and report it as hate speech.  The decision is yours.

It is encouraging to read the opening statement of this section where Andrew admits “that one can cannot prove that God exists”, however he quickly (and rightly) dismisses philosophical materialism – the position that everything which exists can be empirically observed or measured. This differs from methodological materialism which maintains that phenomenon may exist outside our empirical observations but if we have no methods for measuring or observing them we cannot say anything about them. Methodological materialism is the basis of science and gives rise to its agnosticism.

Contrary to the beliefs of some, I am open to the idea of the supernatural, spiritual, or metaphysical. However without a sample of one of these “things” we cannot say anything about them. We cannot list their properties. We cannot observe their interactions with other things. We cannot build models for how these things might work and make prediction of their future interactions. This interface is where the real meets the unreal, the natural meets the supernatural, the physical meets the metaphysical, and philosophical materialism meets methodological materialism.

The trap I see many religious people fall into is in placing “god” outside the universe and into the realm of the supernatural. This places “god” beyond the reach of direct empirical observation, yet they still proceed to make a multitudes of claims. For example:

• “God is love.”
• “God will judge the living and the dead.”
• “God will send you to Hell if you do not accept Jesus into your heart.”
• “God is all merciful.”
• “God is vengeful.”
• “God told me to run for President.”
• “God hates fags.”

Let’s not pretend that many religious people have vague beliefs in some “metaphysical entity”, they are often convinced their God is exactly as depicted in an ancient holy text. Typically and coincidently this text also happens to be the script most prevalent in their society. Their gods are saddled with many claims about their nature which the original authors could not have known unless their god has reached into this reality and made their presence unmistakeable. Of course this is a possibility, however rational people demand more evidence than a handful of ancient accounts written by unknown authors which have been translated innumerable times thorough the centuries.

Andrew has not launched to these points just yet (although I am sure they shall appear shortly), but starts with a much broader statement:

“One of the most persuasive reasons, to my mind, is that the universe is rationally intelligible. This points towards the existence of a rational intelligence behind it. I’ve not seen any examples of order or intelligibility from chaos and mindlessness.”

I think we can agree the universe is rationally intelligible – at least to some degree. Although we cannot be sure this is truly the case. The British geneticist and evolutionary biologists J. B. S. Haldane once said:

“Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we *can* suppose.” J. B. S. Haldane

If true, this would indicate the universe, at base, may actually be unintelligible. However, this is not the universe we reside in. The universe at our scale is reliably predictable – at least within reasonable parameters. Nevertheless, if this “rationally intelligible universe” can be explained by a “rationally intelligence” then I must ask the next question – is this “rationally intelligence” rationally intelligible? If so, then we are presented with the same problem we began with and we have solved nothing. If this “rationally intelligence” is in fact irrational (which is what we call anything which is not rational), then what *can* we say about it? This seems to be an insurmountable problem for the believer.

Moreover, the fact that Andrew (or anyone as far as I am aware) has “not seen any examples of order or intelligibility from chaos and mindlessness” does not make it impossible. I have often been accused of falling foul of the problem of induction, but it seems the shoe is now on the other foot. To play devil’s advocate, what if the smallest scales of the universe are chaotic, unintelligible, unpredictable, and mindless yet give rise to rationally intelligible, logical, predicable, and consistent universes all the time? While I have no evidence that this is the case, I cannot rule it out as a possibility and would be interested to see how Andrew Finden did so.

Andrew goes on to ask what may be the oldest philosophical question in existence:

“Why there is something rather than nothing?”

To my mind the fact we are here to ask this question does not render the question itself ridiculous, however every available answer to solve this riddle seems ridiculous. We cannot conceive that something could spring from nothing, or that the universe has always existed in some form, or some other unintelligible proposition. It is important to point out the question is equally applicable to the religious answer with slight modification – why is there a god rather than not? Once again, the proposed answer has inherented the problem it is attempting to solve and we have gained nothing.

In a similar fashion I have always found the idea “precise physical properties to allow this universe” (and our existence) possible to be slightly weird. I know am I somewhat of a loner here, but we simply do not have other universes to sample. We have no idea what the qualities potential universes may sustain. The “precise physical properties” are a result of *descriptive* laws which may not in fact be free to change. Our universe may be the *only* way a universe could exist, and in a similar way the universe may not permit absolutely nothing to “exist”. The default state may be existence rather than nonexistence.

I will save the next point for another post, since tackling the Kalam cosmological argument typically takes some space – and this post is already long enough.

Until next time.

So it is with a some disappointment I note that Andrew is wrapping up his religiously focused blog with “one last philosophical hurrah.” Andrew’s post is rather lengthy and covers many topic,  however I wish to adequately address the points he has raised which means this post is only the first of many replies.

Andrew first raises the spectre of “agency verses mechanics”, drawing a distinction between how something works and why, or the difference between “mechanics and agency”.  He invokes an “agency” who tinkers with the physics to effect the universe. I have never been fond of metaphysical arguments of this nature for they make a number of unstated assumptions, which often sail by without question.  For example:

1. The metaphysical actually exists.
2. A metaphysical agent exists.
3. The metaphysical agent is not natural in the sense that it occurs within the universe. It is something separate.
4. The metaphysical agent can affect changes within the natural world, and
5. The metaphysical agent cannot be considered part of an all encompassing metaphysical universe, for this would render the agent itself a part of the overall machinery and undermine the conclusion of the syllogism.

Of course, Andrew is free to state such metaphysical agents exist and “cause” the mechanics of the physical universe to behave in certain undefined ways, but he bears the unenviable burden of proof for this extraordinary claim – a charge he conveniently avoids because:

“… limited to studying the physical universe, so of course, anything that is not a part of the physical universe (e.g. a universal causal agent, meaning, art, love, purpose, or any range of meta-physical things) is not going to fall within science’s scope.”

Having shed the the tools of science he is left simply asserting that the metaphysical actually exists and he knows this because “there are other ways of knowing”, but refuses to detail how these “other ways” work, or how we can test their accuracy.

The statement “god” is a “metaphysical” entity like love, art, and purposes raises some interesting problems for his argument: “God”, like meaning, art, love, purpose is a concept. I am sure Andrew is not arguing that “god” is merely just a concept, but that he actually exists in some real way.  Some metaphysical “real” way. None of the other “things” in the list exist in any real sense, they are descriptions of real objects, feelings, or behaviours. No one has ever been able to capture “love” in a jar, or examine “art” under the microscope, although we may examine our feelings, or paintings.

“Love” is an emotion; a powerful brain state. Everything we know about human physiology suggests our bodies, emotions, and our brain states are affected by chemistry, electrical impulses, magnetism, diet, thermal changes, and a host of other purely physical characteristics. Some drugs are known to induce feelings of euphoria where the afflicted expresses deep “love” for everything and everyone. Are we to believe a metaphysical substance called “love” associates itself with particular compounds waiting for the next hippie to blaze up? No, this is clearly absurd. The same basic arguments can be made against “art”, “purpose”, or any other imagined metaphysical property.

Of course, at first glance it appears I have fallen into the trap of using science in an attempt to discover and examine the metaphysical and therefore have stepped beyond of scope of the scientific endeavour, but not so. If you will pardon the pun, let me illustrate with colour.

There are many things in this world I call “yellow”. Flowers, bananas, The Simpsons, frogs, lemons, fish, sapphires, Spongebob Squarepants, rubber ducks, snakes, and those awful happy pants I purchased in the 80′s. We can agree all of these things are “yellow”, but what does that actually mean? Not many give the sensation of colour any serious thought, much less the specific colour “yellow”  We simply assume it exists and is real, for that is what our eyes tell us. Unfortunately, colour doesn’t actually exist in the real world – at least not in the sense we commonly think about it.

Light with a wavelength of between 570–590 nm equally stimulates long and medium cone cells of our retina, which is interpreted by our brains as the colour “yellow”. There is nothing inherently “yellow” about this wavelength of light anymore than the “non yellowness” of 565 nm or 600 nm. Light simply has a frequency at which is oscillates.  It does not gain “yellowness” and it passes through this frequency range.  It is our brains which interpret the impulses sent from our eyes to form the concept of yellow.  “Yellow”, if it can be said to exist at all, is a pattern of neural activity brought about by the application of 570–590 nm lightwaves to the retina of an individual. What’s important is that light does not gain a “yellow” metaphysical “substance” as it passes 570 nm, only to shed it again once the frequency rises above 590 nm.

We have evolved various (limited) methods to detect our environment which clearly aids in survival. As language evolved, the sensation of internally experiencing this wavelength of light has been given the label “yellow” (at least in the English language). “Yellow” is the label we give to a feature of the universe as detected by our senses. We take the linguistic shortcut to assist our communication – just imagine trying to honestly and fully explain the universe every time you desired a piece of fruit, or wanted to look like an idiot in happy pants again.

I believe the same can be said for everything we experience.  Our senses detect parts of the real world and we internally simulate the world attaching crude labels to our internal experiences.  This leaves my position as a physical reductionist bare – a position Andrew takes issue with:

“Take, for example, the words on your screen. One kind of explanation is to describe the electronics, the LCD and all the physics and so forth which allow you to see words appear on the screen. Another explanation is to say that I had some thoughts I wanted to communicate, and so I wrote a blog post. Both explanations are true, but they are different kinds of explanations – one is about mechanics and the other about agency, and neither explanation precludes the other. The extent to which an understanding of the mechanics can inform us about agency is rather variable, and requires a whole stack of other background knowledge. An explanation of the physics of seeing words on a screen can’t tell you, for example, that I’m writing in English – you need further background knowledge for that*.”

* John Lennox points out that semantic meaning, while emergent from letters, cannot be explained by a reductionist view of the physics and chemistry of ink on paper.”

While I have addressed this point in the past, I continue to think Andrew’s brain and thoughts (as well as yours and mine) are a product of its physical structure, chemical reactions, electrical activity, and a raft of other purely physical phenomenon. Everything medical science knows about the brain suggests it is intimately tied to personality, thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs – so much so that there does not appear to be any facet left untouched by the physical.  Accident victims struggle with physical brain injuries, taking drugs (including alcohol) affects your mood, and applying electrodes can ease the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. There is nothing which suggests “thoughts” are somehow separate from the brain;  not only do our thoughts occur within the brain, they are the brain. “Thoughts” are the label we give to the emergent phenomenon of a properly functioning human brain.

Let’s be clear: Andrew’s brain reacts concordantly with its initial physical state, and the laws of the physical universe.  This results in him writing a blog post, where this computer encodes the message electronically and stored the results onto magnetic patterns of a web servers hard drive for future visitors to discover. Their computers render the fonts using a Liquid Crystal Display (or something fancier depending on your budget), which throws light into our retinas, to be interpreted by our physical brains. Being raised in an English community I recognise the patterns and swirls on the screen as “English” and can parse the information presented. I may also recognise the patterns of other languages, but may not have the skills to interpret their meaning, which should be a point which utterly destroys Andrew’s position.

If, as John Lennox puts it, “semantic meaning” is emergent from the “physics and chemistry of ink on paper” then why does it break down if the symbols cannot be recognised or interpreted by the receiver? In other words, if “meaning” transfers independently from the ink we should still be able to discern “meaning” without knowing the language utilised.  Since this clearly is not the case it seems the notion of “semantic meaning” is bunk.

For the same reasons I also discard the idea of a “meta physical agency” for it fails in a similar manner and adds no explanatory power to our understanding of the universe.  Andrew would have you believe a supernatural metaphysical god agency intervenes in the natural world, or is ever present – in which case god spends an inordinate amount of time attending to orbits of electrons. Either way, I find the hypothesis to have no utility – they are, by definition, useless. The first because I cannot devise a way to differentiate the natural world acting in accordance with its own innate laws verse behaviours caused by an supernatural agency (something I have challenged Andrew on int he past). The second because an answer which answers everything, in fact answers nothing.

Lastly and for the sake of argument, if I were to assume a “meta physical agency” somehow exists beyond space and time, then I may equally ask the same questions; How do you account for the behaviours and actions of this “meta physical agency”? Just as things within the natural world could have external agents affecting them, surely the same could be said for an “meta physical agent”? I would also be interested to know how anyone can make any claims about the non-physical as it is surely beyond the scope of our natural senses to perceive. Personally, I find Occam’s razor makes swift work of these “explanations”.

Next time: “Why believe there is a God?“

The NSCSWP began life as the National School Chaplaincy Program which sough to place well meaning religious people into every public school across Australia. Since its inception it has been a misguided, divisive, discriminatory, and dangerous program.  Our children need professional counsellors, not people who profess the same religious belief as the majority within a school community.  While the recent changes to the have hypothetically allowed secular youth workers to be employed, in reality the vast majority of schools have opted to take the easy road and stick with their existing arrangements – many with overtly evangelical Christian groups, who seek to “convert souls to Jesus” and treat public schools as “mission fields”.

This is not some harmless program either.  According to a study conducted by the Rationalists Society of Australia, Chaplains admitted to dealing with the following issues in the two weeks prior to the survey being conducted:

• 95% of chaplains reported dealing with behaviour management issues, such as anger
• 92% with bullying and harassment
• 92% with peer relationships and loneliness
• 91% with student – family relationship issues
• 85% with sense of purpose and self-esteem
• 81% with grief and loss
• 77% with community involvement and social inclusion
• 76% with spirituality and ‘big picture’ issues of life
• 72% with mental health and depression
• 50% with alcohol and drug use, and
• 44% with self harm and suicide

Please, take a few minutes to call Wayne Swan’s office and let them know your disapproval of this program. The number is  (02) 6277 77340.  Alternatively, write him and email – Wayne.Swan.MP@aph.gov.au.  Here is a template email as a starter:

The Honourable Wayne Swan
Treasurer
House of Representatives
Canberra

Dear Mr Swan,

I write in regard to the federal budget which will be presented next month. I wish to draw your attention to an area where substantial savings can be made. I refer to the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program.

A review was held into this program but before the review was finalised, an increase in the order of $222 million was announced by the Minister, Peter Garrett.

There have been some minor changes to the program but the vast majority of the Chaplains have no, or minimal, qualifications and exemptions are easily obtained . Last year’s increase included some millions to pay for retraining for existing Chaplains to complete a certificate, which are most commonly delivered by a church-based provider.

The Chaplains' Code of Conduct states that they are not to counsel students, yet in their job, they 'deal with' issues around bullying, family breakdown, relationships and depression - problems that may have serious consequences that Chaplains are not qualified to handle, nor are allowed to handle.  In addition the rules of the NSCSWP prevent Chaplains from proselytising their religion, which leave many asking the difficult question “what do they actually do?"

At risk students dealing with depression, bullying, trauma, loss, relationship difficulties, low self esteem, bullying, drug abuse, and sexual identity issues deserve properly trained Counsellors, not well meaning religious people.

The lack of quality control, benchmarking, and oversight with the NSCSWP means the program is internally contradictory, divisive, discriminatory, potentially disastrous, and very poor value for money indeed.  This is a very costly program that is not returning commensurate benefits, and should come under the scrutiny of the treasurer to ensure the Australian tax payer funds are being allocated responsibly.

Yours Sincerely,

Also, please show your support by signing this petition, which was the inspiration behind this post.

Thank you to The Friendly Atheist for promoting this, and special thanks to Fibbs1701 for creating such a masterpiece.

Last weekend I attend the second Global Atheist Convention run by the Atheist Foundation of Australia in Melbourne. The convention attracted over 4,000 attendees to listen to extraordinary line up of world class speakers from a variety of disciplines on a wide range of topics.

The convention began with a comedy line up including the brilliantly hilarious and observant minds of author Ben Elton, Stella Young, Mikey Robins, and Jim Jefferies (whose jokes may have over stepped the mark in some places). All great comedy has an element of truth mixed with tremendous absurdities, which is why religious belief is such a fertile ground for comedians.

Leslie Cannold opened the even on Saturday by pointing out Australia does not have a separation of church and state due to the “reading down” of section 116 of the constitution during the DOGS case. Not withstanding, this does not diminish the importance of truly secular education which is not impeded by religious dogma. This topic close to my obviously heart as evidenced by my “Stop the National School Chaplaincy” page, and my efforts to bring attention to this issue.

Daniel Dennett gave an amusing speech on self unaware atheists. Much like “The Sixth Sense” we see atheists everywhere – and they don’t even know they’re atheists! Some, like the panel of “The Project” still consider “agnostic” as a midway point between atheism and theism, which is simply wrong.

The brilliant theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss explained the space between galaxies contains most of the mass of the universe, which is critically important when you’re trying to work out its mass, and therefore our ultimate fate.

Geoffrey Robertson Q.C. spoke about the evils of the Catholic Church and its convenient and changing self classification when deciding to be a country, a city, or a religion. He says the Vatican is no more a country than “Disney World”, which sparked laughter and applause among the audience.

The incredibly brave, mildly spoken, and gentle Ayaan Hirsi Ali pleaded with the Western world to help her Islamic sisters more, and hold the authorities to a higher standard when investigating cases of religiously inspired violence and oppression.

Sam Harris, the Jedi knight of atheism, had us all spell bound with a presentation on death, purpose, and living for the moment. At one stage he effectively hypnotised 4,000 atheists and converted them into Buddhists. I am not kidding; it was sublime.

All of these presentations, and more, were thought provoking, intelligent, rational, reasonable, logical, and inspirational – which was a stark contrast to the religious protesters who gathered outside.

On Saturday we attracted Adelaide’s Rundall Street evangelicals who wore t-shirt stating:

“I fear god and give glory to him” Revelation 14:7

They also waved signs warning “church gossips, drunkards, abortionists, thieves, sex addicts, druggies, liars, atheists, and homosexuals” that “judgement was coming”. The odious woman on the microphone was not there to listen, but to spew her brand of hateful nonsense to the skeptical crowd, who mainly sat quietly and ate their lunch. This was a sign of thing to come, as we discovered later.

These are seasoned street preachers who will ignore any question posed to them by all but one person. Their tactic seem to be talking at someone for extended periods until they surrender in disgust. Seems their god enjoys tirades of venomous and irrational pronouncements.

Having failed to convince a single soul on Saturday night, the Christians gave up and let the Muslims have a turn. On Sunday the crowd (inspired by PZ Myers fiery lecture were greeted with obnoxious Muslims shouting pathetic threats. While I did not stay to listen to their rantings very long, I did manage to understand the basic message.

Apparently the lovely Ayaan Hirsi Ali is destined for an eternity of suffering – not because she wishes people to live free from the bonds of slavery, beatings, submission, and oppression, but because she changed her mind about Islam. Due to this unforgivable sin their all loving god will throw her into the pits of Hell to meet with Christopher Hitchens (whom they also condemned). Many of their number seem keen to assist their god in making this a reality. One must wonder why people always perform these “acts of god”.

The contrast between what happened within and without the convention could not have been more pronounced. While inside we were learning about the cosmos, mediating on the moment, contemplating our demise, laughing with each other, discussing the deep questions of life, and formulating a plan for a society of built on peace, tolerance, understanding, equality, and science our religious cousins were screaming for death, judgement, and torture. Which one seems more appealing?

It was this moment of reflection which occurred to me while departing Victoria early Monday morning, that it struck me; We have it all. We, the atheist, have all the laughter, logic, compassion, reason, reflection, humility, humanity, learning, and love, while the religious attribute these things to the ethereal spy camera. We can be good without god, in fact I would argue we are good without god, since we do not have our minds poisoned with toxic, illogical, and unverifiable deities.

We have not fallen. We are not evil. We do not need salvation. We do not need Gods. We have everything we need.

This week I meet with Aronra in Melbourne for the Global Atheist Convention, and thought it would be a good idea to chat up with Australia’s most popular secular humanist Catholic Father Bob for a chat.  Strap yourself in for this one.

Opinion of who ”won” the ”debate” on Monday night’s show seems divided along whatever preconceptions viewers brought with them. This is typical for debates in general, and for the format of the Q and A program. However, I wish to specifically address a number of points both Richard Dawkins and George Pell raised during the course of he program, as I feel both missed the mark on a number of occasions.

Pell’s opening sentence sets the mood for the entire evening when he respond to the question regarding the Easter traditions:

“First of all our tradition goes back about 4,000 years …”

4,000 years! What? Has the good Cardinal forgotten when Jesus was apparently crucified which, according to our Gregorian calendar, was approximately 2012 years ago. Yeah OK, deduct 32 or so years for the life if Jesus, but Pell’s error bars are still a whopping 100%. That’s significant.

Oh wait, George acknowledges the Christians stole the Pagan festivals, but that this was a good thing:

“… so whatever these values are that we’ve taken over, we’ve got to go back a little bit of a distance and it’s interesting to look at Pagan Rome before there was Christian influence. Forty per cent was slaves. Men and women fought one another to the death in, you know, the Circus Maximus or the Colosseum. Women had no rights whatsoever. Infanticide was practiced regularly. The noble families didn’t want baby girls. Christianity changed that.”

Christianity’s basic text relegates women to the status of property. They can be bought, forced into marriage, feared, remain silent in church, and be “modest” at all time – anyone wonder where the idea of the Burqa came from? The religion did nothing to set women on an equal footing the their male counterparts, and to this day women still are not treated as equals. Even potential American presidential candidates such as Michelle Bachman said in 2006:

“Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says, ‘Be submissive wives; you are to be submissive to your husbands.”

The emancipation of darker skinned brothers did not occur until nearly 2,000 years after Jesus walked the Earth, and one again the Bible explicitly supports slavery. It lays the foundations for when slaves can be taken, how much you should pay, how severely you can beat them, and when they can be traded or released. So Pell wishes us to believe the very same book was responsible for the end to slavery? I don’t think so.

Mr. Pell later goes on to misunderstand evolution and then conflates it with social darwinism and atheism:

“Because it is the struggle for survival, the strong take what they can and the weak give what they must and there is nothing to restrain them and we have seen that in the two great atheist movements of the last century.”

What a massive non-sequitur! This is such an awful (and often heard) argument that I have no idea where to really start. Firstly, atheism is merely the disbelief of theistic claims. I do not believe gods exists because I do not see sufficient evidence to support the proposition. That’s it.

Evolution is another matter, but your understanding seem to be limited to the often quoted and frequently misunderstood “survival of the fittest”. With such a flawed understanding of the basics it would be futile to attempt correcting this error, however for me readers it might be sufficient to point out that “fittest” simply meant those organisms which best fit their environment. It has nothing to do with muscularity or aggressiveness.

Lastly on this point, to equate some of last centuries most horrible genocidal maniacs with atheism specious at best. The entire point is an argument from consequences and does not address the truth of the matter at hand. Nevertheless, I am sure you are not motivated by your disbelief in unicorns, leprechauns, gremlins, goblins, and ghouls (Jesus excepted). A brief consideration of this point should reveal the massive flaw in your argument. Moreover, if genocide could be used as a measure of truth, then we must consider the genocidal actions performed by your deity in the Old Testament. Global floods, drowning opposing armies, levelling cities with fire and brimstone, flooding the entire Earth, killing the first born of an entire nation, etc. Do you think it’s fair to include these items on the balance sheet of truth?

Georg, you also made the extraordinary claim that atheists are able to enter Heaven after they die (and absurd claim at multiple levels). Jesus himself said:

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” – John 14:6

So those who disbelieve or commit the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the holy spirit actually are forgiven? We can disbelieve the very existence of god, and ignore the evil and immoral laws and instructions from this mythical being? How does that work? I am so confused.

Lastly, Pell admitted Adam and Eve did not exist saying:

“It’s certainly not a scientific truth and it’s a religious story told for religious purposes.”

Does Pell recognise the implications of what he is saying? No Adam and Eve would surely mean there was no Garden of Eden and no talking snake. This makes a mockery of the insidious concept of “original (hereditary) sin” thus making the “sacrifice” of Jesus pointless.

To escape this conundrum, George adopts the Francis Collins approach as asserts a “soul” was injected into the evolving human at the crucial moment, a point which Richard Dawkins cannot leave unchallenged:

“At what point did the soul get injected and what does the idea of original sin mean if Adam and Eve never existed?”

To which George responds:

“Yeah, well, I mean God wasn’t running around giving injections and if there is no first person we’re not humans.”

There is more that could be said about this exchange, but I am off to see some great speakers at the Global Atheist Convention. If you see me there, say hello.

‎”As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.”
Adolf Hitler, 12 April 1922

Leading up to the Global Atheist Convention Jim, Oliver, and Andrew catch up for a quick chat.

• The Imaginary Friends Show » IFS 90 – It’s a Good Friday… because Jesus died?
• Godless Business | Undeniable
• Godless Business | I get mail
• Godless Business | An open letter to Dodges Ferry
• BBC News – ‘Honour code’ supported by young Asians, poll says
• Man dies at Cape Town Christian rally | News24
• Evolution a ‘touchy’ subject for teachers Local Gold Coast News | goldcoast.com.au | Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia

Naturally, such a convention will elicit responses from the religion community. There seems to be one group currently acting as a focal point – Undeniable.  I honestly believe it is important to engage in dialogue so the faithful can understand our position and grievances, which lays the groundwork for building a society we all wish to live in.  To me this is truly secular society in which everyone have the right to believe as they wish, but all laws are based on verifiable empirical evidence rather than supernatural beliefs – even if held by the majority.

The “Undeniable” event is being promoted as:

“An event to glorify God, with the message that thousands of Christians know God is real because He has changed their lives.” http://undeniablemelbourne.com/

On the surface this is trivial to refute: People have good feelings, or some events transpire in their favour so they attribute these things to the deity promoted by the predominant religion of their culture – a rather arbitrary coincidence.  Deeply felt personal beliefs are the polar opposite to verifiable empirical evidence, thus have no place in public policy which affect the entirety of the population.

Still, members of the religious community seek to bolster their faith based beliefs with facts.  Unfortunately, the fact never seem to align with their views.  For example, on Undeniable’s Facebook page a user stated Josephus, Pily the younger, and Tacitus wrote about Jesus, thereby implying he rose from the dead to save humanity from our “sins”, then flew off into the clouds.  Here was my reply:

The facts are clearly not  “Undeniable” and all dissident views are to be censored because many have reported their comments have been removed, and they have been banned from the group.  This is hardly the behaviour you would expect to see if your views were truly undeniable.  Facts have a habit of being tenacious.

I can’t say I am completely surprised to discover my comments have been removed overnight since:

“… any disrespectful or opposing comments to this will be deleted, as the purpose of this website is to glorify God and promote the ‘Undeniable’ event. There are other forums for alternate opinions and stories to be expressed).” https://www.facebook.com/undeniable.canyouhandlethetruth

Never mind – I am able to attend their event in Federation Square and may engage in open discussions with those present.  Let’s see if their beliefs really are “undeniable”.

The natural world is wondrous, beautiful, indicate, and awe-inspiring.  It is also a violent, unpredictable, indifferent, and sometimes gruesome place.  Our ancestors struggled with mother nature on a continual basis; trying to discern how the world around them actually worked.  As Douglas Adams pointed out in his analogy of the sentient puddle, they marvelled at how snugly nature wrapped around us and made the false conclusion it must have been designed for us by some tremendous magical force.  However, this left a burning question in their collective minds – why are there droughts, plagues, earthquakes, lightning strikes, floods, volcanos, and tornados?  The gods must be unhappy with something we have done, or haven’t done.  We have “sinned”.

Various rituals developed in an attempt to appease the gods.  Some would slaughter the best of the herd in the Temples as offerings to temperamental deities.  Others would hold ceremonies in which it was said the “sins” of the congregation would be transferred into a hapless creature, which would them be sent out into the wilderness to starve to death.  The practice was called “scapegoating”, which also happens to be the most central and important tenet of Christianity.

Christianity is centred on the idea of vicarious redemption; that the perfect sacrifice to the gods results in the perfect offering.  Since no greater sacrifice can be made, such an act  must be the terminus to scapegoating.  Within the bounds of the superstition it must also absolve all humanity for all time of their “sins” and explains why so many belief the actions of Jesus to be the ultimate sacrifice.

The situation does not improve when Christians respond that a “blood sacrifice” was required to absolve us of our “sins”.  One has to ask “a sacrifice to whom?”  If the tenets of Christianity are to be believed it’s a sacrifice to the very person being sacrificed.  This makes very little sense.  In addition, what is so special about blood?  What magical properties does blood hold which makes it the perfect substance to offer to the gods?  Why do so many people wish to be “washed in the blood of Jesus” – a disgusting thought if you have ever stopped for a moment to think about it.

And this leads me to the gruesome image above.  These uneducated, ignorant, superstitious morons believe a local witch could transform herself into a cat and terrorise the neighbourhood.

“Thou shall not suffer a witch to live” Exodus 22:18

The villagers trapped the cat and tortured it in the most unimaginable way to rid themselves of evil.  Any animal lover recoils in horror when presented with resulting imagery, yet many of these same people consider the disgusting torture and death of Jesus to be the greatest thing to happen to humanity.  How anyone could live with such a high degree cognitive dissonance is beyond me.

The moral thing to do during the beatings and crucifixion of Jesus (indeed anyone that underwent this barbaric treatment) was to do everything in your power to prevent it from occurring.  The brutal treatment of a grown adult is just as awful as the treatment is precious feline experienced, and we should recoil from images of Jesus on the cross just as we do so here.

Sad to note that you can waste time causing disruptions for Dodges Ferry Primary School, do you spend any of your personal time helping the kids in this school.  Maybe you should spend some time with us at school helping out instead of spending your time sending letters and emails about your views on religion.  Katherin a perent at the school.

Hi Katherine,

Thanks for your feedback on this important issue.

I understand many government departments are under considerable stress at the moment, including the Education Department which is entrusted with the next generation of Australians.  This is partly why I am horrified at the $220 million dollars our Federal Government will be pouring into providing religious chaplains into public school over the next 3 years alone, most of whom are employed by agressively evangelical Christian groups whose publically stated mission is to “convert souls to Jesus“.  While I have no objection to student, parents, teachers, and administrators seeking salvation in their own personal time, I have an objection when it is performed with public money diguised as “spiritual support“.

Australia is a free, multi-cultural, and (most importantly) secular society.  Section 116 of our Constituion ensures that no religious practice shall be promoted above all others, that no religious practice shall be banned, and that no religious test shall be required to hold a public position.  It was in this spirit (albeit slightly tongue-in-cheek) that we should educate our children the facts about ALL the religions of the world in an impartial manner and let them decide the truth for themselves.

I am surprised at your vitrolic response accusing myself (and many others who share my views) of “being lazy“. While I would gladly help the administrators, teachers, parents, and children of Dodges Ferry Primary School, I am already occupied with another Primary school who are doing a wonderful job of educating my two children.

Enjoy your Easter break.

Andrew

Well actually Andrew, 
Its a shame Andrew that all you see is the bigger picture of money the government wastes, go into politics and you may make a difference.
I do get annoyed when you don't have your facts right on this occassion, our Chaplian was employed through Agreement of the School Association and parents agreeing to have him on board.  He does more than Christian Belief and hardly brings God into it, he actually does more as a social worker, teachers aid, counseller and more he takes on children that are slipping through the cracks that no one else has time or energy for; that do slip through the cracks of the department and also kids that just like to feel involved in other activites.
I would just like to say thankyou for making it difficult for our school and the amount of wasted time on your anti god activity that it created to our Principal and others at the school.
Yes I also work I also get my facts right before going off on anti themes just to get attention really (I am non religious) but you did make a difference quite a few parents and teachers not happy about the disruption and that is all you did was disrupt our classes and activities, yes I do hope you don't celebrate easter as really its not a holiday to you.  I presume you don't believe in Santa as well because there is not fact!
You can debate until the cows come home but just take some advice and maybe people and some schools just don't give a shit and are trying hard to get the kids to read and write, and every bit of money we get we utilise not matter where it comes from.
Happy Easter as well.
Just trying to get you of your bandwagon for a few minutes and think about whom you target as most parents at our school couldn't give a shit on what you did.
Katherin

Hi Katherine,

I find your response misses the mark on many points, is factually incorrect, misunderstands or misrepresents my position, addresses many points outside the scope of my original letter, and frankly is rather bewildering.

I will set aside the issue of government spending since I do not believe wrong doings elsewhere give us license to ignore others. I also do not wish to engage in a debate on political ideologies. My original letter was designed to address one single point, and your responses have not made me comfortable with the current situation. In fact, and I am sure to your disgust, it has had exactly the opposite reaction.

The National School Chaplaincy Program (recently renamed the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program) funds the Dodges Ferry Primary School to the tune of $60,000 over the next three years. A brief glance at the list of approved chaplaincy providers reveals the vast majority are overtly aggressive evangelical Christian groups, and many of these require their employees to sign “statements of belief” ensuring their missionary zeal in their professional capacities. How this squares with the Education Departments mandates for secularity is unclear.

The fact the majority of your School Association and parents agreed to have him onboard is irrelevant. Australia is a democratically elected republic, meaning the powers of government are restricted by the Constitution. As I mentioned previously, section 116 explicitly prohibits the promotion of any one religion over all others, the banning of any religion, and bans a religious test to hold an office of the Commonwealth.

And this leads to me address your statement “He does more than Christian Belief and hardly brings God into it …” Being employed by the Federal Government, your chaplain is not allowed to bring God into it at all. He must remain impartial to all views at all times – this is the very essence of a free secular society.

I understand the chaplain may also perform other duties, but he should also be properly qualified for those duties. The original National School Chaplaincy Program had no such requirements at all, and it was only through the hard work of many people (including myself) that we were able to raise the standards of the new National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program to include a modicum of professional qualifications. It is disappointing to see the NSCWP has easily gained exceptions for even these minimal qualifications.

I also note you claim your chaplain is “a social worker, teachers aid, counseller [sic]“, which is interesting since Dodges Ferry Primary School already employs Support Teachers Mil Kennedy / Michael Tame, Guidance Officer Megan Waugh, Social Worker Melina Stuart, and Teacher Assistants Gill Moore, Lynne Waller, Vaira Lockwood, Margaret Hawkes, Karen Boucher, Alison Parker, Tanya Britton, Tam Selby, Denise Taylor, Annemaree Bos.  Seems like they have those bases covered.

As for counsellor, I sincerely hope your chaplain is properly qualified to deal with some of the serious and difficult issues which can arise in young children. According to a study conducted by the Rationalists Society of Australia, Chaplains themselves admitted to dealing with the following issues in the two weeks prior to the survey:

• 95% of chaplains reported dealing with behaviour management issues, such as anger
• 92% with bullying and harassment
• 92% with peer relationships and loneliness
• 91% with student – family relationship issues
• 85% with sense of purpose and self-esteem
• 81% with grief and loss
• 77% with community involvement and social inclusion
• 76% with spirituality and ‘big picture’ issues of life
• 72% with mental health and depression
• 50% with alcohol and drug use, and
• 44% with self harm and suicide

No wonder Tim Mander (CEO, Scripture Union Queensland, a leading supplier of chaplains in Australia) stated:

“We believe there should be more psychologists in schools as well. Our catchphrase with chaplains is refer, refer, refer, and if in doubt, refer.”
Tim Mander, The Age Newspaper

So which would you rather prefer for your children? A well meaning religious person, or someone who has undergone the years of difficult study and professional development to tackle the difficult problems children can face? I know where I want my money to go.

Lastly, your assertion that my activities are “anti god” is simply ludicrous. As you can plainly see in my original letter I was promoting the children experience the wonders of the many gods on offer. How this could possibly be misconstrued as being “anti god” is beyond my reasoning faculties.

Lastly, you might like to research the origins of the Easter tradition – I think you may be pleasantly surprised. It seem Christians should not be celebrating Easter (or is that Ēostre, the Anglo-Saxon paganism deity?) either.  Perhaps the children should also learn why the dates for Easter are centred around the lunar cycle, and why there are all these references to fertility?

Enjoy your holiday, no matter what you beleive.

Andrew

“So, have them miserable little men rised against You, Lord?”

and

“Don’t the donkeys themselves teach them when they are asked, don’t the fowls of the air show it to them, doesn’t the earth answer them and don’t the fish of the sea speak to them?”

and

“Certainly, my God, they have become vain in their reasonings, but the judgement of the wicked will arrive and they will fear the avenger; and the light of every truth will ascend so that their foolishness is extinguished and they may see their deformity.”

Wow. Consider how that sets the mood for the reportedly logical argument which follow which demonstrates this god’s existence. Frankly, reading this opening drivel adjusted my expectations sharply downward. Reading the remainder did not improve matters.

So let’s have a look at the definitions supplied:

By cause I mean that from which something is, bringing it to existence; and that whose origin is brought by it I call it an effect.

When I was at University we were forced to read R. G. Collingwood’s thoughts on causation. At the time it was heavy going. I imagined a room filled with puffy leather chairs by an open fireplace, monocles, and half filled brandy balloons where the learned aristocracy pondered the meaning of existence. Once such piece focused on causation, and what it means for one thing to “cause” another; it’s a topic I mean to revisit in the near future. For now, it’s enough to think of “causation” as the glue which binds one moment in time to the next. We can discern causation through examination of the world around us to determine which actions give which results, and to what degree. For now I think we should probably leave out quantum mechanics which (according to my naive understanding) says events can happen spontaneously, without “cause”.

By being in itself (Ens a se) I understand that which has not and cannot have a beginning.

Interesting definition. Does the author have any examples of things which do not have a beginning? Or is this axiom been smuggled in to ease the final conclusion of the article? Normally in logical arguments it is not “good form” to assume the conclusion before the syllogism is constructed.

By an absolutely infinite being I mean that which cannot be increased in any sense.

Assuming a “being” which “cannot be increased in any sense” actually does exist does not mean it possesses “absolute infinity” on any vector. Even the words “absolute infinity” are redundant – an infinity is absolute by definition, but I digress. Surely it is possible that a “being” could reach whatever maximal limits might exist before an infinite? That is, what if the maximal values for a “being” are not infinite? The author should show why maximal values must be infinite. It’s also interesting that the word “being” is employed, rather than using the more agnostic “entity”. Again, I suspect this is to support the conclusion yet to come.

Thus, by a being which can be increased I understand that which goes from less to more and, after receiving an addition, is therefore changed.

Seems straight forward; anything which can be added to is changed.

Thus, by being changed I understand ceasing to be in one way and beginning to be another.

Isn’t that the definition of “change”?

By God I understand the being which is infinite in every sense.

OK, this is good; we are defining “god” as “a being which is infinite in every sense”. It should be noted that such a definition is a very long way from the judgemental, self fathering, blood thirsty god of the Bible.

So much for the definitions, let’s move to the axioms:

Some being exists.

This is very weird statement for an axiom. I could accept that “entities exist”, but “beings”? Why are we leaping directly yo “beings” which drags baggage of desires, wishes, emotions, thoughts, behaviours, and actions rather than simply stating “things exist”? This is a very poor axiom indeed.

That which lacks of any beginning cannot have any end.

Another interesting axiom. How many examples of “things without beginnings” has the author examined? How has he determined the properties of these things if he has none to examine? On the surface it seems things which did not have a beginning could come to an end – the two events are separate. To visualise this, imagine a line stretching off into eternity in front of you, but it stops at your feet. Such concepts are common in mathematics. Anyway, there seems to be a few missing syllogisms hiding behind this axiom, so I will go ahead and remove it from the equation until it is substantiated.

The author continues:

These two axioms are so certain and evident that no one, however obstinate, can doubt them.

Except I have shown a number of ways in which they can be doubted. Interesting.

As for the first one, who will deny that some being exists?

I would. This syllogism is meant to provide a logical argument for the existence of god, yet here it is effectively stating it as an axiom. Can anyone say “begging the question”?

But let it be that someone dared to doubt or deny it: by doubting or denying it he confesses his existence.

Naturally. I also do not believe in Atlantis, unicorns, gremlins, fairies, leprechauns, big foot, anal-probing aliens, and the Loch Ness monster. By this brilliant piece of reasoning, my doubt proves beyond doubt they absolutely do exist. I suspect the author of this close reasoning does not believe in these things either, but his doubt only adds to the growing body of doubtful evidence that these things really do exist. They do. Really.

Of course, if he didn’t exist, he wouldn’t be able to doubt or deny anything.

Wow, it’s like they are already giving up on purely logical arguments and resorting to the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG). Yeah, it’s not that the failure of the author to provide a coherent logical argument for their deity of choice, but the very fact we can have logical arguments that proves the existence of their “infinite in every sense god”.

As for the second true axiom, who ignores that it is a blatant contradiction that which lacks of any beginning can have any end?

Is this a logical argument, or a sermon? I cannot help but smirk at “true axiom”; an axiom is usually accepted as true for the sake of argument, unless (as in this case) there is something grievously wrong with them. Axioms are not necessarily true at all, but only accepted as true if they withstand scrutiny. A well constructed syllogism based on firm axioms will lead inescapably to the logical conclusion. That’s how it works, people.

That’s why it is a beginning, since it is the beginning of some end. Beginning and end presuppose necessarily a mutual intercourse and relationship.

O_o Are we now conflating beginnings and ends? And where does this language of “intercourse and relationship” come into the syllogism? Oh wait:

Thus, as the father and the son refer to each other in such a way, so that if there is a son, then there must be some father for that one to become his son; and if there is not a father, for this very reason there cannot be a son neither…

All this analogy with “fathers and sons” make me wonder if the author is poisoning the well with language friendly to his presupposition. However, what is more telling is the alternative he unwittingly places on the table:

…so, also, if there is an end, any beginning is necessary for this end to be, and if there is no beginning, there cannot be any end.

So, according to the author, there is a possibility that “things without beginnings do not have ends”. While I have not seen any evidence that this is actually the case, and am rather interested in how the author has concluded there was not a beginning, thus leading to fathers. Or sons. Or something.

Now we finally get into the meat of the syllogism.

PROP 1: There is no possible effect without a cause.

Empirical evidence certainly seems to suggest that this is the case. Everything which happens has preceding events which cause the effect. Through induction we could surmise (perhaps incorrectly) that all things which occur are caused. One could also assert that “god” is a “thing”, therefore subject to the proposition.

PROP 2: All that exists is either in itself or by another. It is impossible to think that something exists but by itself, by another one or by nothing, as it is evident.

The language here is weird, but I think this is simply a restatement of the law of identity (A is the same as A) and the law of non-contradiction (A is not B).

But nothing can exist from nothing, since there is no possible effect without a cause, by the previous proposition.

Did you catch that? It seems reasonable that “nothing can come from nothing”, but we do not know this to be a fact. In fact, we do not have any examples of “nothing” to examine and observe. While it is difficult for our mammalian brains to comprehend, it may be possible for something to spring from absolutely nothing. I freely admit I cannot fathom how this could happen, but the universe does not have to comply with my feeble interpretations of its intricate wonders. We know enough about the universe to know electrons are not actually little marbles whizzing around the nucleus of an atom like a mini solar system – yet the model aids our understanding. We are bamboozled by (the double slit experiment)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment], yet countless repetitions of the experiment yield the same bizarre results. The truth is reality is weirder than we suppose – probably weirder than we can suppose.

PROP. 3: There is no possible being existing by another unless there is a being existing by itself.

All together now kiddies: “Presupposition”. Why has the author discounted an infinite chain of causal events? I would suggest the conclusion in this scenario does not validate their previously held convictions. Sorry, logic does not care for your deeply felt beliefs, and nor do I.

Thus, it must have a being in itself as a cause, given that there are no more classes of entities but the ones in itself and the ones by another.

Oh I see, this “being” is an entirely different class of entity that we have never seen before. Everything we experience seems to be the result of another cause, but here you are proposing an entity (sorry, “being”) which does not require a cause. Well, if you allow one you can allow more. Exactly how many of these “beings without causes” exist, and how do you know this? Let’s take it to the other (and I admit, absurd) extreme: what if everything is simply a series of non-related events without causal relations? What if we simply experience a number of universes, each slightly different from the last but caused directly from nowhere without reason? Admittedly this seems unlikely given the uniformity we experience, but the essence of the point is unavoidable – if one entity can exist without cause, then so can an infinite chain of events occur without cause. Where does this leave the “father/son” business?

PROP. 4: There is some being in itself.

That’s a proposition? I do not think that word means what you think it means. Given the (actual) premises are false, this conclusion hold no weight.

PROP. 5: The being in itself is changeless.

Here we go; mixing in the “change is change” definition to support the presupposition.

All that is changed has a beginning and an end, by definition. However, the being in itself cannot have neither any beginning, by definition II, nor any end, by axiom II. Therefore, the being in itself cannot change, and thus it is changeless.

Except the “god” the author is arguing for DID change – it created things which require “causes”. It added the universe to itself, thus becoming more and violating the “absolutely infinite being” definition offered. Oops.

PROP. 6: The being in itself is absolutely infinite.

Except it added the universe to itself. Fail again.

PROP. 7: God exists.

That is not a proposition, but a conclusion. Nevertheless, calling an “absolutely infinite being” a “god” adds nothing to the definition. If you want to worship a “absolutely infinite being” I will not stop you, but I do have to wonder how you know it has desires, and what they may be. Did you miss a few steps, or is this an argument for deism?

COROLLARY I: God is one, since a a plurality of beings infinite in every sense is repugnant to our reason, whenever none of them would be infinite.

What’s better than one infinite being? And infinite number of infinite beings?

COROLLARY II: God is eternal, since if He is infinite in every sense, He is also infinite in His permanence, in which eternity consists.

Flawed, as an “infinite being in every sense” (He?) cannot, by definition, create anything more. Yet the author conveniently ignores this definition when it suits them. Bad logic.

COROLLARY III: God is immense, since if He is infinite in any sense, He is also infinite in His presence, in which immensity consists.

Also brobdingnagian, barn door, boundless, colossal, elephantine, endless, enormous, eternal, extensive, giant, gigantic, great, gross, huge, humongous, illimitable, immeasurable, infinite, interminable, jumbo, limitless, mammoth, massive, measureless, mighty, monstrous, monumental, prodigious, stupendous, super, titanic, tremendous, unbounded, and vast.

COROLLARY IV: God is intelligent. Otherwise, He wouldn’t be infinite in every sense, since He would lack intelligence.

Intelligence is an abstract trait not a physical property, but I guess that doesn’t matter. God is infinite in every sense, so we can also deduce He is infinitely merciless, smelly, violent, repugnant, jealous, and evil. Oh wait, I guess those attributes are left off the list for some reason. Must be that presupposition thing again.

COROLLARY V: God acts freely. Since, if He didn’t, he would lack the power of acting in the opposite way; and, thus, He wouldn’t be infinite in every sense.

Playing this game, are we? Well, “god” is also infinitely knowing, so be definition he would know what the decisions of all his choices will ever be. God is unable to deceive himself by choosing an action he did not previously know he was going to choose. In fact, if god exists and is infinitely knowing (omniscient) then he has absolutely NO free will whatsoever. Oh dear.

COROLLARY VI: God is omnipotent. Otherwise, He wouldn’t be infinite in power.

Except he cannot simply forgive people – we must accept Jesus as our Lord and saviour before being allowed into Heaven. Oh, sorry – this is not an argument for the Christian God is it? Gee, it sure seems that way with all the talk of “fathers and sons”. I guess the logical argument for a specific deity will follow soon.

COROLLARY VII: God is infinitely good. Otherwise, He wouldn’t be infinite in goodness.

And “He” is infinitely evil as well. We can play this game all day.

PROP. 7: Whatever that exists in God is God.

Law of identity. I can say unicorns are unicorns, but that doesn’t make them real. Disbelieving unicorns exist makes them real, remember?

PROP. 9: The universe is not God.

Pffft. Of course not. How could any infinite being actually include an existing item like the universe. Oh wait.

PROP. 10: This universe and everything in it is by God.

So there you have it. The universe is not included in the list of infinite things which make up “god”, it is separate to god but caused by “Him” (The Father) because all effects have a cause. Erm, except this “god” thing.

Regarding:

I see you have taken the suggestion of class room teachers Jane Spaulding and Cheryl Findlay to present an Easter message to the children on Wednesday the 4th April based on the video below.

I fully support your efforts to make the children of Dodges Ferry Primary school aware of the myriad of religious, spiritual, mystical, and superstitious beliefs people all over the world celebrate. To this end I humbly supply the following resources to aid in your education efforts:

The first is a video on the Mormon faith, which outlines their deeply held religious beliefs. I hope you find it as useful as I found your Easter message story.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses is another religion which has attracted many believers across the globe, so should also be given a fair hearing. I especially like the part where Jesus flies through space like superman – how cool is that?

The Eastern religions have long been a source of mysticism and serenity for our Asian neighbours. This video outlines Japanese Buddhism, which I am sure the children will find fascinating:

The Shinto faith dates back many centuries and has a deep, rich, diverse cultural roots. This video explains their creation mythology. Enjoy.

Scientology is a relatively new faith, but we should not discriminate against them for any reason. While I personally find this religion a little strange, its followers hold the tenets close to their heart and we should show them the same religious respect others demand.

The next one is quite odd, but who I am I to argue with the concept of a Jewish time traveller? The words of Tertullian’s De Carne Christi ring in my ears – “Credo quia absurdum” – or in English “I believe because it is absurd”. Of course he was talking about Christianity, but the notion seems to hold true for many religions.

I would be remiss is I did not include a representative from the ancient Norse gods, so here is a video about the mighty Thor which I am convinced the children will adore.

And lastly, no list of deities would be complete without a member of the Ancient Greek pantheon, the predominate religion of the civilisation which brought us democracy and the scientific method.  You can’t get a better pedigree than that!

Thank you for your unbiased, non-discriminatory, wonderful, and secular work with the next generation of young Australians. I look forward to your response and hope to see a schedule of these video presentations slotted into this year’s calendar in the near future.

Yours Sincerely,

Andrew Skegg

A reformatted copy of this post has been sent to dodges.ferry.primary@education.tas.gov.au

Abdu Murray began the debate by referring to the Declaration of Independence, which famously states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

He asserts these “inalienable rights” can only derive from a transcendent personal deity, thus the nation is inescapably “under God”, even if they are not aware of it. Abdu also asserts this deity is perfect, would possess the perfect characteristic of love, and expresses that love through the perfect act of self sacrifice. It is hardly surprising the predominately Christian audience reacted with rapturous applause and howls of “yeah!”

If rights are truly inalienable they are also innate; that is, they are not necessarily derivative. So where is the evidence for Abdu’s assertion that these inalienable rights come from a transcendent personal deity? Without such evidence all we have is Abdu’s personal convictions, and that is insufficient evidence for any reasonable person. Since Abdu rests his entire argument on this assertion, and “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, the point is devastating to his case.

In addition, and by definition, inalienable rights cannot be taken away; one might consider this includes by Gods. So in what manner does it make sense to attribute a God as being the source of these inalienable rights? Are we to believe Gods can grant rights, but cannot retract them? And where is the evidence for this claim? And if this is the case, then Abdu’s subsequent assertion that this being is omniscient is false, for there is something the God cannot do – take away your rights. If rights are truly inalienable then the existence of a god is irrelevant; even if a god was responsible for the initial injection rights we now possess them and can function without reference to the deity.

To make matters worse for Abdu, a straight reading of the Old Testament shows the Christian God continually tramples on the rights he’s instilled in us, making them worthless. Exactly how can a being grant a species “the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” whilst simultaneously killing those who displease him, restricting liberties in everything from food to choice of sexual partners, and denying happiness with extreme prejudice in the afterlife should his beloved creations choose poorly? Such a scenario makes god the largest hypocrite (and monster) imaginable.

For argument’s sake let’s say we grant Abdu’s his unfounded assertion. How do we discern which rights (if any) are granted by a deity? Mr. Dillhunty touched on this point when he raised the spectre of multiple religions, faith, sects, and denominations from which to choose. And it’s a valid point; without recourse to a particular deity how are we to resolve the issue? From the outset it seems clear that any “nation under god” must quickly determine which god they are under, thus which rights have been granted, to whom they have been granted (the God of the Old Testament clearly does not grant all of humanity “the right to life”), and are those rights to be interpreted? From the Christian view, God’s desires and wishes are paramount if everlasting “life, liberty, and happiness” are to be secured – and even then liberty is in question.

While many within a society may wish to attribute their rights to a god, they do not have the right to mandate everyone must adhere to their peculiar views. In a country “under god” what should be done with those who do not have a god at all? What do you do with polytheists and atheists? Eject them from the country, thus maintaining the “under god” banner? If history is an indicator, such views have dramatic and terrible consequences.

In the end, “we the people” innately possess inalienable rights, and being masters of those rights we grant permission to the Institution of Government to secure those rights on our behalf. In this model there is no room for a god, though people are still free to believe there’s a god if it makes them happy.

During the landmark case it became abundantly clear early drafts of the central text to be used for Intelligent Design drew heavily from the creationist book “Biology and Origins”. Throughout the “new” book “Of Pandas and People” simply replaced the word “creation” with “design”, or “creationist” with “intelligent design proponent”. In one case this rampant search and replace editing created the now famous “cdesign proponentsists“. It seems clear from even this information that intelligent design is creationism in a lab coat.

Nevertheless, a new wave of believers have attached themselves to the scientific sounding “theory of intelligent design” and speak of “design”, “purpose”, and “complexity” without a understanding even the basics of the scientific process.

The very centre of science isn’t the complexity of the Large Hadron Collider, examining bacteria with a microscope, or studying the cosmos through a telescope. Science observes the natural world and proposes models which explain its behaviour. Proposed models should possess two characteristics; they should make predictions about the natural world, and be falsifiable. The first characteristic allows the model to be tested against the natural world for verification and accuracy, while the second provides a method by which the model could be proven wrong; since a model which cannot be wrong either makes no testable predictions or is impervious to refinement or debate.

And so we come back to intelligent design. What predictions does it make? It seems to me that ID essentially says “things are complex therefore they were designed” or “things seem to have a purpose, therefore they do, and so they were designed for that purpose”.

The problem with asserting that complexity equates to design is that anything which exists (and therefore has attributes and properties) has some level of complexity. A thing which has no attribute or properties to be explained is not a thing at all – it is nothing. So there is simply no way to falsify intelligent design on tis front; no matter how simple something might be it can always be claimed to be the product of “design”.

But surely this is not what the faithful are honestly proposing? Perhaps I am being too harsh? There must be some level of complexity which requires a designer, and which below no designer is required? If this is the case, why can some things exist without a designer while other things cannot? Or put more pointedly, what *is* the level of complexity at which a designer is mandatory? 1 in 100? 1 in 1 million? Where is the line, and why is it there?

Moreover, how exactly do you measure “complexity”? What is the metric the pious are using to determine the probability of “design”? In their world *everything* is designed, so there is no point of contrast. There are no non-designed things to compare the designed things with; and when an hypothesis explains everything, it explains nothing. After all, it’s not much of a prediction to say everything *looks* designed without a method to determine if it’s actually the case.

Here’s a quick Christopher Hitchens desktop background I whipped up this afternoon.  Click on it for a larger version (1440 x 900).

On the 23rd February 2012 Professor Richard Dawkins and the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams debated at Oxford University on the topic “Human Beings & Ultimate Origin”. During this debate Professor Dawkins admitted (paraphrasing) “he was not 100% certain god does not exist” (at 1:11:40) and the reaction from the theistic community has been extraordinary. The exposé currently sprawling over the internet like a mould scores the title ”Richard Dawkins, Famous Atheist, Not Entirely Sure God Doesn’t Exist”, or “Richard Dawkins Reveals He Is Agnostic”

Of course this revelation is neither surprising nor newsworthy, but that does not prevent the desperate faithful from jamming their god into the 0.1 hole left open by Professor Dawkins.  “Ah ha!” they exclaim, “You don’t know something!  THAT’s where my god resides.”

In his book “The God Delusion” Professor Dawkins proposes a sliding scale of belief ranging from 1 to 7. Those at one end of the scale are absolutely certain a god exists – they know this to be a irrefutable fact, while those on the other end are equally convinced a god absolutely does not exist. Since the later requires proving a negative (demonstrating something certainly does not exist), Dawkins places himself at 6.9 on this scale. In order words, he is almost certain a god does not exist but there may be a small chance he is wrong. Admitting this is intellectually honest; perhaps this honesty is what is so shocking to believers who are unaccustomed to such things?

“What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn’t) but whether his existence is probable. That is another matter. Some undisprovable things are sensibly judged far less probable than other undisprovable things. There is no reason to regard God as immune from consideration along the spectrum of probabilities. And there is certainly no reason to suppose that, just because God can be neither proved nor disproved, his probability of existence is 50 per cent.”Richard Dawkins, page 54, The God Delusion.

Evidence for gods may be hidden in parts of the universe we have not yet visited, or crevasses of knowledge not yet explored by the individual. And this is the crucial point; things which are real can be demonstrated to be so. Once evidence in favour of germs, atoms, electricity, radioactive decay, or evolution has been revealed it is very difficult not to believe these things are real.

While science may not always have a full, complete, and perfect understanding of new phenomenon the first time around, we are free to revise, update our understanding of of the universe really is based on the evidence presented. The remainder of proposed notions remain possible but unsupported, but to pretend that these are on equal footing with demonstrably real phenomenon is the height of dishonesty.

The simple fact is there seems to be zero evidence a god exists, let alone the gods described in any of the holy books on offer. This shifts the probabilities far from the naive 50/50 many people attach to agnosticism, and place the existence gods on equal footing with dragons, unicorns, fairies, gremlins, ghouls, and ghosts. While I cannot say with absolute certainty that none of these things exist, I see no credible evidence suggesting they do; so why believe?

“That you cannot prove God’s non- existence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything. What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn’t) but whether his existence is probable. That is another matter. Some undisprovable things are sensibly judged far less probable than other undisprovable things. There is no reason to regard God as immune from consideration along the spectrum of probabilities. And there is certainly no reason to suppose that, just because God can be neither proved nor disproved, his probability of existence is 50 per cent.”Richard Dawkins, page 54, “The God Delusion”

You will find that the majority of atheist are actually agnostic as well. There is no conflict here as once deals with belief (atheist) and the other deals with knowledge (agnostic). I do not know if a god exists or not, but I do not believe one does.

Ollie and Andrew contend with abusive and threatening Christians, absolute morality, fine scotch, and a noisy pussy.  All in a day’s work.

Perhaps this is why so many have convinced themselves they will never die, that a benevolent loving father figure will cater to their every need now and for all time, and further that we are magically transported to a Heavenly realm after we die.

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” Mark Twain

So it is difficult for atheists to deal with death?

Kimberly Winston has written a piece on USA Today highlighting the “Grief Beyond Belief “ Facebook group, where skeptics, non-believers, and atheists can mourn the death of a loved one and share their grief with similarly minded people. I think it’s a great idea, but I would like to briefly examine the assumption that religious belief provides comfort at these times.

There is a sinister flip side to many religious doctrines – the eternal threat of every lasting torment in Hell. There is no guarantee a believer will be granted access to Heaven in the afterlife. Although many assume they are among the privileged few who have discovered the true meanings of the holy texts, there is no way to determine the true situation. As so often is the case, faith itself seems to be the deciding factor and each individual believer seems to choose what they will have faith in. A good predictor of what this choice will be is the environment in which these individuals find themselves.  Isn’t that revealing enough?

So how does a believer deal with possibility they have chosen the wrong god, or the wrong method to appease this judgemental and capricious deity?

The answer seems to be they often ignore it, dismiss it, reassert their faith based convictions, or agonise about it. Some have reported deep emotional distress over unbaptised babies suffering in Hell, or more generously, languishing in purgatory until the end times. Similar tortures occur when loved ones die while believing in the wrong god, following the wrong denomination, or not believing any of the nonsense in the first place.

These thoughts often have one of two outcomes: they drive the individual to wonder about the nature of a god who would inflict such unjust punishments, or these desperately seek to avoid these tortures through reaffirmation of their faith – often in more radical and fundamental ways.  Fear is a powerful motivator and the religious faiths which evolved to include this hideous mutation have been very successful memes.

So does religion provide comfort when a loved one dies? Yes, I think it can, but it can also be a source of emotional turmoil.

Unfortunately, many in the religious community see this as a golden opportunity to capture new converts – and they are often driven by the central doctrines of their faith.

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”Jesus, Matthew 28:19-20

A major provider of Special Religious Education (SRI) in Victoria is ACCESS Ministries, whose published mission statement once read:

“ACCESS ministries leads the Church in its mission to reach students and school communities in Victoria and beyond with the transforming love of God and His Son Jesus Christ.”ACCESS Ministries

And videos on their Youtube channel stated:

“Our goal is to reach children and young people with the transforming love of God and his son, Jesus.”ACCESS Ministries

Interestingly, ACCESS Ministries have since disabled embedding of this video on other web pages, so you will have to visit their channel to see the footage.

However, after a backlash from the community who were outraged that overtly evangelical Christians were teaching their kids that Jesus was the only way to attain paradise in the afterlife ACCESS altered their published mission statement.  Now their mission statement simply reads:

“Transforming the lives of young people and their communities” - ACCESS Ministries

Although, not surprisingly, their statement of belief is still dripping with religion:

“ACCESS ministries is an ecumenical body committed to the basic doctrines of the Christian faith drawn from the Old and New Testament Scriptures. It is committed to the three ecumenical creeds (Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed) and takes into account the faith statements and traditions of its nominating churches.”ACCESS Ministries

The guys over at Fairness in Religions in School have been busy surveying Victorian schools to determine which faiths in our multicultural society are represented in our public schools.  The results can be seen on Google Maps and highlights some of the issues inherent in the SRI program. It is immediately obvious that Christian faiths have the lion’s share to the East of Melbourne, while a smaller pocket to the West have not implemented an SRI program at all.

I will not delve into the demographics or socio-economic implications this map may imply – it is sufficient to point out that the enormously wide range of available religions do not seem to be fairly represented.  In a free secular society students and families should peruse their own religious faith without government institutions pushing one class of religious faith over another.

If we are to allow Special Religious Education within the walls of the public school system, then stricter controls must be placed on its delivery and the range of faiths must be significantly increased.  Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Scientologists, Hindus. Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Lutherans, Quakers, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and secular humanists (who could be argued to have a view on religious matters) should all get a turn at the blackboard.  At this is merely a small sample of the buffet of religious belief.

Kids are smart.  They will find the truth.

In response to my comment:

“Actions have consequences, and we can make judgement calls on those consequences.” – askegg

To which he replies:

“Is-ought problem, anyone? You have to sneak a whole stack of presuppositions in for this to work. why is it is morally wrong to cause pain, for example? Why is it ok to kill someone just because they can’t ‘feel’ it?” – findo

For those who may not be familiar, the “is/ought problem” was proposed by Scottish philosopher David Hume. Essentially Hume argued that making statement about the way things are does not inform us how things ought to be. This is a serious philosophical issue which has the potential to neuter all motivation and covert us to nihilism. However, I do not wish to directly address the is/ought problem in this post, but if you are interested in a reasonable argument against the proposition I recommend you read Sam Harris’s “The Moral Landscape”.

Instead, I think it is sufficient to point out the mutually assured destruction when deploying the is/ought argument in conversation – if valid, it can be applied in all circumstances.

Why is it better to want happiness for all conscious creatures, rather than absolute misery? Why is it wrong to cause pain rather than seek pleasure? Why should we consider the results of our actions on others, rather than not? Is every action ultimately equally valid in the grand scheme of thing? Is the a universe in which there is suffering and pain really worse than one in which there is pleasure and ecstasy?

Surely Andrew is not arguing this point, but then what does he mean by “why is it is morally wrong to cause pain, for example?” Is he seriously proposing it is morally acceptable to inflict pain? To make such an argument mocks the very meaning of words like good, wrong, evil, moral, and immoral. Surely even he accepts pleasure is “better” than pain, which makes the entire question a distraction to the central topic. Perhaps this post will spur a discussion centred on the is/ought problem in isolation?

We all seem to recognise that a universe in which all conscious beings experience maximal pleasure is “better” that one in which they suffer. However, the deeply rooted underlying question of why we think it’s “better” remains; and it not easily answered.

“Once again we have hit philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question.” – Sam Harris

Perhaps a divine authority is require to grant us an escape hatch from this issue; things look bleak for the skeptic at this stage. But let’s consider this hypothesis for just a moment.

Let’s assume an intelligent creative force did cause the universe. Let’s also assume this force is conscious and cares about its creations. Let’s further assume this force has the power to intervene in the workings of its creation to inflict pleasure or pain.

You will notice that these are all “is” statements – they describe reality as it would be if these things were true, not how things should be. So why should this force create the universe rather than not? Why should this creative force care rather than not? Why should it intervene rather than not? Aren’t these also is/ought problems as well?

Believers will probably be screaming at the screen at this point:

“Of course god cares and intervenes to cause pleasure within the universe – that’s the very nature of god!”

Alright, let’s also assume that it the case. Why should we follow these instructions rather than not? What makes what “god” “better” rather than not? Why should we follow god’s instructions rather than not? Why is Heaven “better” than Hell?

Believers, please post a response that does not resort to special pleading – it’s better because god said so.

PS. Further reading.

Shelley Segal’s album is available from iTunes for around $11

“A”: Without
“Theism”: Belief in god(s)
“Atheism”: Without a belief in god(s)

For example, this entry on the weirdly named “Is God a Squirrel? [1] blog boldly asserts:

“Atheism is a response to religion. It is a disbelief in god(s). It is not something one is born with.”

Here is where the author runs into problems. Atheism is not a response to a religion, nor a disbelief in religion or gods, nor a religion in itself. Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. The author flies perilously close to this idea throughout the article:

“Lets say I believe in flying farnoggles. Now, of course you have never heard of a flying farnoggle in your life. You have no concept of what one is. You can not believe, or disbelieve them because you have no knowledge of them. So to say that you were born with a disbelief in flying farnoggles would be ridiculous.”

Without knowledge of farnoggles or gods no one can be considered to actively hold the belief they exist. They lack the belief, and can therefore be considered “afarnoggles” and atheists.

If seems a little strange, that’s because it is. Atheism is not a term which should exist, nor would it but for the prevalence of theistic beliefs. Yes, atheism can be considered a response to theistic beliefs, but it is strictly the lack of a belief. As Sam Harris says, we do not have a word for people who do not play the piano – and nor should we.

“In fact, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non-astrologer” or a “non-alchemist.” We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.” – Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

So next time you hear someone contest “atheism is the default position” they are probably labouring under incorrect definitions.

Footnotes

[1] I would answer “no”, as squirrel’s actually exist.

Mike Lee, the Religious Antagonist, poses some rather curly questions to a group of anti-choice protestors.  Just check out their reaction when he starts quoting the bible, although I think he missed an obvious passage:

Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell; And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water: And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter. Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar: And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water. And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

Numbers 5:21-27

I doubt these protestors have the attention span for such a long passage nor could grasp its meaning.

I want a god who doesn’t violate causation by causing things to begin to exist from nothing in the absence of time.

I want a god who does not give us “free will” then punishes us for using it.

I want a god who does not punish us for eating from the tree of knowledge, then demands blood as payment for this hereditary “sin”.

I want a god who does not fly into genocidal murderous rages when things aren’t turning out the way he wants.

I want a god who does not inflict pain, suffering, and hard labour on the descendants of “criminals”.

I want a god who aspires for us to be like him, not “confuse our languages” for trying to build a tower to reach him.

I want a god who is gender neutral and not continually referred to as “he” or “the father”.

I want a god who does not crave blood sacrifice and enjoys the smell of burning flesh.

I want a god who does not use his omnipotence to kill his creations with fire, floods, plagues, infestations, and disease.

I want a god who does not impregnant a women without her explicit permission.

Actually, I want a god who does not require to be “born into humanity” at all.

I want a god who does not waste decades toiling as a carpenter before revealing himself.

I want a god who heals blindness, disease, and hunger – not just a few instances.

I want a god whose “sacrifice” actually means liberation.

I want a god who does not afflict his creation with curses, then take credit for saving us from them.

I don’t want a god who craves worship and obedience. I want a god who values freedom, curiosity, thought, reason, and logic.

I don’t want a god who says it’s wrong to kill, then breaks his own rules multiple times.

I want a god who would protect you from harm – even if that meant impeding on your “free will”.

I want a god who does not encourage division by commanding false idols should be destroyed and those who worship them killed.

I want a god who values equality, understanding, empathy, and compassion regardless of your race, sex, sexuality, or nationality.

I want a god who truly wishes his creations to exceed himself, like any good father.

What I want is not a god at all.

• BBC News – Row over Indonesia atheist Facebook post
• Priority is to protect marriage | Herald Sun
• No Fetus Can Feed Us | Unreasonable Faith
• Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0 | Video on TED.com

“Atheism 2.0” is a 20 minute TED presentation by Alain de Botton in which he proposes a new approach to evangelising atheism. Alain suggests (apparently without evidence) that we have “secularised badly” and we should sift through the rituals, traditions, and behaviours of religion to identify and adopt their efficient mechanisms.

“I have come here because I am in search of morality, guidance, and consolation.”

He says universities (and by extension, science) is not concerned with the search for “morality, guidance, and consolation”. Alain seems to be suggesting science has lost its humanity and become the heartless search of the machine inside the ghost. Religions on the other hand treat us like children in urgent need of assistance. We are broken, miserable sheep who yearn for the return of their shepherd who will tell us where to go, what to do, and how to think.

“A sermon wants to change your life and a lecture wants to give you some information”

Alain tells us religious sermons “advise people how hey could live” (which presumedly result in “morality, guidance, and consolation”), but secularism merely lecturers heartless facts. Religions use repetition and emotions to convince believers the sermons are somehow deep insights revealing the true fabric of reality.

At the heart of Alain’s statements seems to be an assumption; Science has all the answers and we will never need to change our minds again. University lecturers never update or revise the facts they preach, never listen to the counter arguments, never conduct further research. Students are there to learn the holy truths as revealed by Great Science. We can finally cease being skeptical, questioning, and inquiring, and finally resort to pure emotional evangelism and repetitive brainwashing to convince the populous of the Truth(™).

Of course, this throws the baby out with the bath water.

Science is fundamentally different to religion preciously because it does not claim to have the truth. All things in science are provisionally true; they are considered true until evidence it’s wrong comes along. Sometimes this results in almost imperceptible changes in the views of science, and others it causes massive tectonic shifts in our thinking. Science eagerly hunts out where it may be wrong and ruthlessly interrogates itself. It perversely seeks the curious mind to torture its doubts until they are satiated.

Scientific discoveries are not things we can enforce through emotional appeals and repetition. Science is a process; a mind set; a philosophical approach. Without the ability to question, doubt, and argue science fails.

I think this is why Alain’s argument also fails.

This does not sound like a great night out to me.

“But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?”2 Kings 18:27

She did what with the gold and silver jewellery I gave her?

“You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them.”Ezekiel 16:17

The church welcomes everyone, expect those genital freaks.

“No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.”Deuteronomy 23:1

Oh you want meat, do you?  The LORD shall provide … till you puke.

“And tell the people to purify themselves, for tomorrow they will have meat to eat. Tell them, ‘The LORD has heard your whining and complaints: ‘If only we had meat to eat! Surely we were better off in Egypt!’ Now the LORD will give you meat, and you will have to eat it. And it won’t be for just a day or two, or for five or ten or even twenty. You will eat it for a whole month until you gag and are sick of it. For you have rejected the LORD, who is here among you, and you have complained to him, ‘Why did we ever leave Egypt?’“Numbers 11:18

At first God thought Adam might go for beastiality , but no.

“The man gave names to all the cattle, to the birds of the air and to every wild animal, but for the man himself, no suitable partner was found.”Genesis 2:20

The LORD wanted to kill Moses because his son wasn’t circumcised.  Luckily Zippy was on the ball.

“On the journey, while they were encamped for the night, the Lord met Moses and would have killed him. But Zipporah picked up a sharp flint, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ privates with it, saying, “You are my bridegroom.” So the Lord let Moses alone.”Exodus 4: 24-26

Moses and Aaron have a magic face off with the Pharaoh’s sorcerers.

“When Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh, they did as the Lord told them. Aaron threw down his staff in front of Pharaoh and his courtiers and it turned into a serpent. At this Pharaoh summoned the wise men and the sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians did the same thing by their spells.”Exodus 7:10-11

God makes reasonable demands.

“You must not hold back the first of your harvest, whether grain or wine. You must give me your first-born sons.”Exodus 22:29

The LORD extends his infinite hand of compassion.

“He said to them, “The Lord God of Israel has said: Arm yourselves each of you with his sword. Go through the camp from gate to gate and back again. Each of you kill brother, friend, neighbour.”Exodus 32:27

Moses pioneers modern medical science with a magical statue to fix snake bites.

“So Moses made a bronze serpent and erected it as a standard in order that anyone bitten by a snake could look at the bronze serpent and recover.”Numbers 21:9

Handy advice when you’re living in the desert.

“As part of your equipment, you are to have a trowel, and when you squat outside, you are to scrape a hole with it and then turn and cover your excrement.”Deut. 23:13

The LORD giveth, and the LORD makes you eat them.

“Then because of the dire straights to which you will be reduced when your enemy besieges you, you will eat your own children, the flesh of your sons and daughters whom the Lord has given you.”Deut. 28:53

Don’t spunk on the ground, or god will mess you up.

“Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.”Genesis 38:8-10

Shrek is based on a real Biblical event.

“When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat her with his staff. Then the LORD opened the donkey’s mouth, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?” Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”Numbers 22:27-29

Jesus negotiates with some demons, and lovingly drives them into the local livestock.

“Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. The demons begged Jesus, “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.” He said to them, “Go!” So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. “Matthew 8:30-34

The LORD doesn’t like those who drink like dogs.

“So Gideon took the men down to the water. There the LORD told him, “Separate those who lap the water with their tongues like a dog from those who kneel down to drink.” Three hundred men lapped with their hands to their mouths. All the rest got down on their knees to drink.”Judges 7:5-6

What are your favourite bizarre Biblical quotes?

Just after Christmas and New Year the crew sit down for a very informal chat.  Excuse the audio quality as we only had one microphone in the middle of the room.  Still, it turned out rather well.

The closing song is obviously Tim Minchin’s “White Wine in the Sun”.  Go buy a copy – all proceeds are donated to charity.

Thanks to advances in medical science many people will never contract measles or experience these horrible symptoms. However, what many people do not realise is this modern measles free age is that these diseases also have a darker side. They kill people. According to the World Health Organisation 164,000 people died from measles in 2004.  Just think about that for a moment.  450 people every day.  20 people an hour.  1 person every 3 minutes –  for an entire year.  Dead.  More than 95% of them in third world countries who do not have well run, effective, vaccination programs.  The statistics are clear – vaccinations save lives!

However, this is set to change if the ironicly named “Australian Vaccination Network” (AVN), headed by chief misinformation lunatic Meryl Dorey, has it’s way. Meryl is one of the many people who has been trapped by the lies manufactured by Andrew Wakefield, whose shonky research initially linked the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine with autism.  Despite an overly small sample size, bad controls, and tenuous correlation, and no discernible causal chain, Mr. Wakefield’s research was also found to be tainted by conflicts of interest, manipulating source data, and other serious ethical transgressions.  In short, Mr. Wakefield was struck off the Medical Register in May 2010 making him unable to practice as a doctor, and the British Medical Journal declared the research fraudulent in 2011. The current scientific research indicates there is no link between vaccinations and autism, and the benefits derived from vaccinations far outweigh any risks.

None of this stops Meryl Dorey from spreading her emotive propaganda, however it does force her delusion to evolve into new age conspiracy theories, “one world governments”, the Illuminati, New World Orders, chemtrails, and AIDS denialism.  This is the kind of ideology which informs Ms Dorey’s creative reinterpretation of the scientific data.

“While we are already seen as rabid, idiotic fringe-dwellers by so many in the mainstream, it does our argument no good at all to bring in conspiracy theories which, though we may subscribe to them, are unprovable.” – Meryl Dorey, 29 July 2009.

A 12 month investigation into the AVN by the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) found the Australian Vaccination Network disseminated incorrect, misleading and biased information from its website, that this information was wholly anti-vaccination and poses a potential threat to public health. In addition the AVN’s fundraising authority was revoked by the NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing for 23 breaches of the Act it administers.

Anyone familiar with the anti-evolution nonsense of creationists will be familiar with the AVN’s strategy of cloaking itself as “presenting both sides of the argument”, “providing an alternative view”, or “free speech”.  This last point I find hilarious, since I was banned from the AVN Facebook page sometime ago for politely pointing out some of the information above and asking for a reasonable explanation.

Indeed, “free speech” has been the tactic these vermin have used to gain access to Australia’s largest music event, the iconic Woodford Folk Festival held in Queensland.  Each year, between Christmas and New Year, the Festival attracts around 130,000 people to the small town in south-east Queensland. This year, Meryl Dorey of the inappropriately named Australian Vaccination Network was booked for two appearances, but due to public concern about giving the AVN air, the organisers rearranged the schedule to pit Meryl’s titanic intellect against Professor Andreas Suhrbier (Head of the immunovirology laboratory at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research) in a panel discussion moderated by Dr John Parker, a veteran of Doctors without Borders.  An epic battle, to be sure.

This is why I am thrilled to report the Stop the AVN group has issued the following media statement:

While unhappy that Ms Dorey will still be speaking at Woodford, the Stop the AVN Facebook group, a loose-knit consortium of concerned citizens, scientists, doctors and nurses, decided to use a little humour in order to have ‘the last word’.

The group has hired an aircraft to fly over the Woodford Folk Festival site during the two hours surrounding Ms Dorey’s appearance.

Between 1.45 and 3.45pm on Thursday, 29 December, the plane will tow a banner with the message: VACCINATION SAVES LIVES.

Go to the Stop the AVN page for more information.

Viva la free speech!

Yes, it’s Christmas.

During this time many will be saying “good will to all men”, and it seems many Christians aree asking “do atheists celebrate Christmas?” One wonders why they are not asking the same question of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Scientologists. The simple answer to the inane question is, of course, “yes”.

While I may not believe in a magical man who keeps a diary of everyone who is naughty and nice, and who will perform extraordinary feats to simultaneously reward and punish everyone on the planet, I nevertheless welcome paid time off in the middle of summer to enjoy a break with family and friends.

Awkwardly, the founders of the winter traditions that seem to surround Christmas seemed totally unaware that the Earth is spheroidal in shape, so of us in the Southern hemisphere scorch in the summer sun as we decorate our houses with icicles, evergreen trees, spray the windows with fake snow out of a can, and stuff ourselves hot roast meals while songs about a “white Christmas” gently waft across the room. It’s all rather silly.

Of course Christians will complain that the true meaning of Christmas has been lost – after all the day is named after their saviour – CHRISTmas. While this may be somewhat true, it is a well known fact among the educated that early Christians hijacked pagan traditions to make their faith more palatable to the foreigners.

In the modern world we don’t celebrate the Christ in Christmas anymore than the gods which reside in our calendar. Monday was reserved for the moon, Tuesday is Tiu’s day (the English/Germanic god of war and the sky), Wednesday is Woden’s day, Thursday is Thor’s day (the Norse god of thunder), Friday -is Freya’s day (the Teutonic goddess of love, beauty, and prolific procreation), Saturday is Saturn’s day (the Roman and Italic god of agriculture and the consort of Ops), and finally Sunday is the Sun’s day.  Of course, nobody worships these god’s anymore, but the name remains.

But surely Christians can find solace in the names given to the months?  Perhaps some of these are named after the Jesus myth, or don’t give the ancient Greek or Roman gods a nod?

Nope, I am afraid not.

January is Janus’s month (the Roman god of gates and doorways), February is month of Februa (the Roman festival of purification), March is named after the Roman god of war “Mars”, April is Aphrodite’s month (the Greek goddess of love and beauty), May is Maia’s month (the Italic goddess of spring, the daughter of Faunus, and wife of Vulcan), June is Juno’s month (the principle goddess of the Roman Pantheon), July is Julius Caesar’s month (who named it after himself), August is Augustus Caesar’s month, and the remainder are simply named after their original position on the calendar culminating in the tenth month of December.  I doubt many people celebrate any of these gods either, so the Christian argument is not looking very good.

So yeah, I celebrate Christmas, but not the Christ in Christmas. I enjoy spending paid time off to be with friends and family. We eat too much, drink too much, and laugh too much. We share the summer sun drinking white wine in the sun.

So Merry Christmas to you all, or Happy Hanukkah, or Happy Holidays. Whatever floats your boat. I your next complete orbit around the massive fusion reactor at the centre of our solar system is even better than the last.  I am off to the beach, where I intend to spend a wonderful summer with my wife and lovely daughters.  I think a few white wines might be in order.

13 April 1949 – 15 December 2011

Conor bleats about how mean the “militant atheists of our generation are” because they “are forever badgering people of faith”, pointing out that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens seem to have done more to disturb the peace than those of faith have ever done and pleads for rationalists to “just leave the rest of us alone”.  Conor is so busy being offended by people asking simple questions about the existence and nature of god that he misses the obvious flaw in his rebuttal.

People of faith have a long history of being able to essentially believe whatever they like without question.  The undeserved respect for religious ideas seems to be coming to an end, and the faithful don’t like it.  No longer can they simply declare their insane ideas to be divinely inspired and therefore out of the reach of sceptical inquiry, they are now finding themselves having to justify them in the unforgiving teeth of evidence and reason.  Unsurprisingly they are embarrassed to find there are few reasons to take any religious idea seriously, but rather than admit it’s “just a matter of faith” they go on the attack.

Pious clergy have excused the rape and molestation of thousands of pre-pubescent children by appealing to humanities innate wickedness, but rather than compensating the victims they retreat to their seemingly non-existent god to ask for forgiveness.  Those born with sexual desires for the same sex are routinely vilified, discriminated, beaten, and murdered because some holy book says they are “an abomination unto the Lord”. Lifesaving medical research has stalled because a clump of cells contains an “immoral soul” which is precious to the Lord, who also seems decidedly disinterested in the suffering of full grown adults. Teaching student the spine tingling facts of evolution is hampered because it’s nobler to believe a deity made us from mud and spare ribs. Earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanos are not the result of tectonic movements, but punishment by a vengeful and indiscriminate god for our “sins”.  Yet, somehow it’s the atheists who are causing a stir.

Conor also misrepresents Dr. William Lane Craig justification of genocide, saying he merely “read from the Old Testament”.  Good old Bill Craig did more than that unfortunately, he argues the people most affected by the massacre of the Canaanites when he says:

“Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children?  The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.”

Richard Dawkins is justified in refusing to share a stage with someone whose mind is so poisoned by religion that he thinks murderers of women and children have it tough.  Based solely on this piece we can ignore everything William has to say on the topic of morality.

Conor goes on to claim “conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine has nothing to do with religion; it’s about the illegal occupation of someone else’s land”.  Perhaps he didn’t pay attention in Sunday school and missed the part where Israel was promised to Abraham and all his descendants because he was willing to slice open son’s throat and burn him upon the mountain top.  Ah, those wonderful Biblical values.

I am sorry, but pointing out these passages a horrific is simply factual and tearing apart the arguments that a god exists is merely the application of logic.  You are free to have your own illogical and irrational views of how the universe actually works, but please keep them to yourself.  Not all of us wish to live by your deeply held beliefs, personal delusions, and superstitions.

On the 17th April 2011 I posted a video featuring Jack Schaap – a preacher for the First Baptist Church of Hammond Indiana which is of the fundamentalist baptist persuasion, and promotes misogynistic and sexist beliefs, which was the focus of Jack’s summon that fateful day.

As I mentioned at the time, I was rather surprised when a DCMA claim was filed against the publication of Jack’s Biblical message, since during the video he states:

“You know what they’re going to say about you? Pfft – who cares?”

And …

“If they’re quoting me while I’m quoting the Bible, then Hallelujah God’s word is getting out!”

As a result of the DCMA claim I started researching who I was dealing with in order to inform any subsequent decisions. I would probably not have bothered if the First Baptist Church of Hammond Indiana hadn’t prevented me from spreading God’s word as I was encouraged to do. As a result of this process I discovered a few things:

1. Mr. Jack Schaap is married. Here is Jack’s wife Cindy asking if it’s alright for Pastors wife’s to have close friends. Why in the Hell would it NOT be OK? Where are people getting the idea that a pastor’s wife cannot have close friends?
2. Jack Schaap has his very own web site. While the site seem to have been abandoned since June 2010, it does provide helpful links to Jack answering questions about his faith and the central text on which it rests. On June 7th 2010 Jack was asked by Ralph:

“Is it Biblical for ladies to say amen at church services?”

He answers:

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.” – 1 Corinthians 14:35

Yes Jack, the Bible is clear on the woman’s role within the church – they are not allowed to speak, nor are they allowed to ask questions. This must wait until they get home and their husbands can teach them. It says so in the very next sentence:

“And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” – 1 Corinthians 14:34

However, even Jack shies away from a straight reading of scripture perhaps honest Biblical values are too strong, even for Jack?

More interestingly, on the 21st May 2010 Kevin:

“What do you think God’s reasoning was for requiring a lady to marry the man who forced her into fornication in Deuteronomy 22:28-30?”

Before we get to Jack’s answer, let’s familiarise ourselves with the passage again:

“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-30

A simplified summary of this passage would be “if a man rapes a women, he must pay the father some cash and marry his victim.” Charming. Jack also plays down the rape by continually stating they were “immoral together”? This is not a passage about consensual sex, it pertains to rape – hence the phrase “lay hold on her”.

I think we should pause here for a second to consider what it means to be “immoral”.

To my mind morality pertains to the beneficial or detrimental effects on others by your actions. Actions which are beneficial are considered “moral” while actions which are detrimental are considered “immoral”. However, this condensed summary of morality does not address consensual behaviour between adults. In most cases such things have no implications beyond the scope of their relationship, thus have no moral dimension. None. Zero.

What Jack is talking about is “sin”, which can be defined as behaviour which a God disapproves of. Note this is distinct from any considerations regarding the effects of actions upon others, this is why many things are considered “sins” which have no harmful effects on individuals or the even the society at large. However I acknowledge there may be many overlaps between “sin” and “immorality”.

Deuteronomy 22 also says women cannot wear men’s clothes, bans ploughing with an ox and ass together, wearing mixed fabrics, promotes the public display of the “tokens of a daughter’s virginity” on her wedding night (and stoning her to death if she wasn’t a virgin), and stoning rape victims to death if they do not cry loudly enough. Are we to uphold these Biblical values as well?

What is truly horrifying is that Jack seems to have read these passages, but rather than view them as the rudimentary and raw beginnings of a fair and just system he maintains they are the perfect law of God. Jack wishes to throw away 2,000 years of argument, reason, evidence, and legal progress because some men living in the desert of another country partook of “the burning bush” one too many times.

Having reverting to pre-medieval times, Jack continues by slurring the name of the rape victim, accusing her of being seductive and unworthy of the title “lady”. Even IF the woman were seductive, this is no excuse for a man to force himself on her and commit rape. What defines “seductive” in any case? Making sexual advances? No, since this would indicate consent and not count as “laying hold on her”, IMHO.

Would wearing skimpy outfits be described as “seductive”? Possibly, but this still does not imply sexual consent – although in Jack’s world it may do. It seems Jack’s line of thinking leads directly to Burka’s and oppression of women.

No where in this short passage does it mention the sexual act was consensual. No where are the wishes of the woman considered or even factored into the decision.

No, what we have here is an unambiguous and hard ruling on what must be done in *every* similar situation. The rape victim MUST marry their rapist despite their personal wishes, circumstances, or howls of protest.

This is an abominable and unjust law reminiscent of an ancient past where women were property which men wished to conquer, subdue, and own. It runs against our modern hard fought sense of fairness, equality, justice, compassion, and empathy. Let’s leave “god’s law” in the past where it belongs.

• Someone asked why…
• Godless Business – Fishing for god
• Godless Business – Small Fish
• Yoga is the work of the devil, says Vatican’s chief exorcist

Andrew seems to identify a contradiction in my view by contrasting this statement:

Philosophical naturalism asserts that all that exists can be detected via empirical means, and it is a view I reject for a number of reasons.

With this one made a few paragraphs later:

While existing scientific technology may not be sensitive enough to detect a particular force, it nevertheless exists awaiting some future scientific advancement to discover.

As predicted, I have been accused of “scientism” and “that anything that actually exists will be detectable by some scientific inquiry”. He seems to have missed the paragraph where I explain that forces beyond our detection may actually exists, however if we cannot detect them then how can we determine whether they truly exist or not? How do you differentiate between fanciful ideas and actual reality Moreover, what methods shall we employ to determine how these forces might interact with our universe, or within themselves? This seems an intractable problem to which I have yet to see a coherent response.

I will concede that all great ideas in science have started out as mere germs of ideas within a single person’s mind. Through careful observation, trial and error, experimentation, argument, and many false starts we have clawed our way out of the darkness of ignorance towards the spotlight of knowledge. I do not contend that we are anywhere near knowing everything there is to know, however the scientific method has proven to be a formidable weapon against self deception, bias, and superstition.

Science is a broad field which encompasses everything from pure mathematics, physics, and chemistry to more so called “soft sciences” of art, literature, and history. Each discipline uses a slightly different bag of tools and methods to achieve the same goal – to determine the truth. Admittedly, the “truth” of art or literature can be difficult to define since the subjects are inherently subjective. What I take away from world class poetry or paintings may be very different to someone else’s, but neither experience can be said to truly represent “the truth” of the work. We all personalise these works, which is part of their power and majesty.

History is not the same. Historians are attempting to piece together the factual events of the past. Their task is not an easy one as many of the puzzle pieces are missing, and those that remain may have degraded, or contradict each other. The historian must also be mindful of the potential ambitions of those who recorded the information. Were they inventing a story to please those in power or solidify existing arrangements? Were they casting their enemies in a deliberately bad light to enrage their readers and ignite a war? Or were they honestly attempting to record the facts of their time without injecting personal bias?

Hard science has none of these problems (they have their own), but that does not make the historian’s task worthless. While the pictures historians produce may be fuzzy in places or completely blank in others, the shapes and colours of past events can be seen and conclusions made. However our protagonist dives deeper, presenting this gem:

“The rational intelligibility of the universe is, as some have called it, an article of faith …”

I am not sure I would classify the intelligibility of the universe of “article of faith”. I think it’s more a required axiom to function in this universe. Simply imagining what it might be like to live in a universe in which what happened yesterday is not necessarily what will happen today. If the causal links between events were shuffled each night, with random links being completely deleted, how would any of us know how to achieve anything that day? Without rational intelligibility I see little option but complete chaos, which cannot be the bed rock of any philosophical understandings. Uniformity is an axiom of understanding not an article of faith, but perhaps I am playing schematics?

Our protagonist continues by explaining that if he catches an apple he may be intervening, but this does not nullify the laws of gravity, and that somehow this demonstrates I blindly adhere to philosophical naturalism. However there is such an obvious retort to Andrew’s analogy I am surprised he did not address it in his comment. Reaching out to catch an apple is an inherently empirical event.

In each and every analogy presented thus far has followed the same lines. We knew fish smaller that 3 inches exist because we have other means apart from 3 inch nets with which to capture and observe them. We can also witness people catching apples. Both are empirical verification which fall completely within the realms of scientific inquiry. So what’s left? Realities which exist and do have an effect?

“Ah, but what about other realities that might exist which do have effect on our universe?”

Once again, how can another reality have an effect on this universe which is not (at least theoretically) measurable? Remember, the non-existent and the invisible look very much alike, and we are back to square one.

Rather than asserting that all things “must be physical” I am proposing that all things which matter must have an effect of the universe. And here is where I think we have reached the key point of difference, which I must be careful to try and communicate effectively: all realities discovered by science have been pulled under the umbrella of “the physical”. Rather than treating forces (spiritual or not) as something “non-physical”, science reclassifies those things shown to be real. So in a sense, nothing supernatural can exist using the scientific method.

Perhaps this was Andrew’s point all along?

“Quite often, evangelical atheists will defend their philosophical naturalism by pointing to science.”

Science relies on empirical evidence and employs methodologies to remove bias and subjectivity wherever possible. It detects and correct errors and does not concern itself with the deeply held personal beliefs its practitioners. Science ruthlessly peruses knowledge of the universe. However, science does have one limitation – it rests on methodological naturalism – that reality can be empirically measured.

In the physical world each force and form of matter will have a corresponding and theoretically measurable effect. Any force which exists but has no discernible effect on the reality is irrelevant by definition, and the slippery slope of philosophical naturalism appears.

Philosophical naturalism asserts that all that exists can be detected via empirical means, and it is a view I reject for a number of reasons. For example, other realities may indeed exist but have no effect on our universe – some versions of the multiverse hypothesis propose exactly this scenario. While such parallel universe could be said to exist they are irrelevant to our existence. However, this is not the kind of reality our religious friends are promoting, apparently we require different tools to discern “evidence of the spirit”:

“Science is not the only way of knowing… Scientists who deny this would be well advised to consider limits of their own tools… (Eddington) described a man who set about to study deep-sea life using a net that had a mesh size of three inches. After catching many wild and wonderful creatures from the depths, then concluded that there are no deep-sea fish that are smaller than three inches in length! If we are using the scientific net to catch our particular version of truth, we should not be surprised that it does not catch the evidence of the spirit.”

While existing scientific technology may not be sensitive enough to detect a particular force, it nevertheless exists awaiting some future scientific advancement to discover. All we require is a suitably designed “fishing net” to detect and measure “spiritual forces” at which point we might be able to hypothesis models to explain and predict this elusive force.

However, religionists assert we already have the necessary tools to detect the supernatural. It’s just that none of these methods are scientific in nature, so any attempt to overlay the scientific method is meet with shrieks of “scientism” and “circular reasoning”. Some even resort to erroneous claims that their “wife loves me, not because of any kind of empirical scientific experiment“.

While emotions such as love are currently difficult to empirically verify within the brain of their owners, there seems to be no reason to expect their origins to be supernatural. We know emotional states, personality, and motor function are affected by chemistry, physical trauma, and other measurable forces. The reasonable inference is that all emotions are the result of an enormously complex interaction between brain structure, biology, chemistry, and electrical impulses. Moreover, the behavioural interactions between two individuals certainly fall into the domain of science, for they can all be directly observed, classified, catalogued, mapped, and predicted.

It should also be noted that any “fish” less than three inches in length have been shown to exist using empirical methods. Given our religious friends have not supplied any scientific method which demonstrates the existence of “the spirit” how can we conclusive say if it exists at all, let alone determine anything about its nature?

Concerned citizens were gleefully informed that non-religious people were able to obtain chaplaincy positions (as long as no religious person can be found to perform the task), the government were not hiring chaplains (merely funding organisations who do), and the commonwealth has entered a commercial arrangement with a cattle producer so the constitution is irrelevant (I kid you not).  In deciphering the guidelines of the NSCP its purpose became clear – to place Christian evangelists in front of every school child in the country.  Even the instigator of the program, then Prime Minister John Howard, admitted using the term “chaplain” to “conjure up a specific connotation”.

So it was with great interested we noticed the Department’s rebrand and relaunch the NSCP as the cumbersomely worded National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program (NSCSWP).  This “new” program was announced shortly after Ron Williams High Court challenge was heard but before the decision has been handed down, or after the Department’s review of the program, depending on your point of view. So what does the new NSCSWP (urgh) state in relation to secular workers? Let’s have a look at the newly published guidelines (I strongly recommend my readers download their own copy and read through the document).

Section 1.5 of the NSCSWP guidelines states:

“Services and actions could include: Supporting students to explore their spirituality and providing guidance about spirituality, values and ethical matters or referring students to, or sourcing appropriate services, to meet these needs; and facilitating access to support agencies in the community, where applicable.”

That seems fair and reasonable, but one wonders what defines “spirituality”. Without a clear definition it is not clear if the Department is referring to emotional, philosophical, or existential matters; or something else entirely.  Once again the vagaries of spiritual beliefs seem to deny rational inquiry.

Section 3.1.2 outlines a number of services which cannot be provided “during program funded hours”.  Reading between the lines it is clear that the subsequent list of prohibitions (which includes religious education, converting students, proselytising and evangelising, and initiating faith discussions, undermining students’ religious or other beliefs, and using social media among other things) may not apply when the chaplain is “off the clock” or funded via other means – say a local church.  This potentially blurs the line between official departmentally approved services and anything else the school chaplains/student welfare worker may provide.  How is a primary school student supposed to discern the difference?

Section 5.1 informs us the services provided school chaplains/student welfare workers are not compulsory.  Parents are able to opt their children out (not into) the services provided – that is unless you have enrolled your child in a faith based school, and therefore implicitly granting your consent.  The guidelines helpfully point out that opt-in consent is not required because the school community “determine the role and the choice of school chaplain/student welfare worker” – again the majority bludgeon any minority views.

The opt-out consent form (found in appendix H) gives the following advice to schools:

“Integrating consent arrangements for chaplaincy/student welfare services into the school’s current welfare services governance system.”

It would be easy to envisage all welfare of the services the school provides being inexorably integrated with the NSCSWP funded chaplain/student welfare worker, or the consent form tying these services together.  In such situations a parent must decide if they wish their child to receive any welfare services, or potentially expose their child to a chaplain.  At least parents can rest easy if their school has chosen a secular student welfare worker – right?

Wrong.

The department allows “secular” student workers to be supplied by the following organisations (and I’ll limit this this to Queensland only, however a cursory glance suggests each state encounters the same issue):

• ACCESS Ministries – “…affirms its faith in God, as One-in-Three-Persons, whose redemptive purpose for the world is revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ.”
• Chaplaincy Australia – “committed to communicating the Christian faith in a hands-on, compassionate and meaningful way” and “using the Chaplaincy Ministry as a tool to minister to local communities”
• Children of the Dreaming – Centre for Self Healing – an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander providing “a range of programs/activities to children and young people” through “EMPOWERMENT” and “SELF HEALING”.
• Cornerstone Community – “…exists to expand and enrich the Kingdom of God”
• Eagle Edge Solutions Inc – “Empower young people for LIFE.” (Looks like a proper secular option, but only provides services in Cunnamulla, Roma, Charleville & surrounding area)
• esenef Spiritual Management – Who are these people?
• Fusion Australia – “…gives each of its people a chance to fulfil their God-given potential.”
• Hymba Yumba Community Hub – “…proud Indigenous identities in a caring, nurturing school environment.”
• Ormeau Community Church Ltd – “…a group of Christians who believe and teach that Jesus is the only way to God (John 14:6).”
• Scripture Union Queensland – “…an interdenominational Christian organisation”
• Townsville Catholic Education Office – ‘nuff said.
• Young Life Australia Inc – “.. a non-aligned Christian charity”

So unless you happen to be near Cunnamulla your chances of obtaining a truly secular student worker are essentially nil.  While the name of the NSCP may have changed, and we have taken some steps towards an inclusive, non-discriminatory, secular system we still have an awfully long way to go.

While I’ve never singled out the Christian religion for special treatment, I do focus much of my criticism toward it.  This is not driven by some deep inner hatred of the Christian religion – rather it is what I am familiar with.  Christianity is what I grew up with, immersed in, and indoctrinated into. In our society Christianity is the predominate religion and relentlessly encroaches into the inclusive, non-discriminatory, free, and secular principles this country was founded upon.

I do not spend time worrying about the lunatic ravings of Scientology, annoying Poseidon, or being reincarnated as a worm since the religions promoting these insane views do not have power in this country.  According to most Australians these religions are considered unhinged, deranged, and disconnected from reality; so it would be a waste of effort debunking their nonsense.  No, we need to focus our efforts where it has maximal effect.

However, the Christian community include individuals and organisations who view homosexuality as a heinous sin (a view my good friend finds personally repugnant), who wish to remove women’s reproductive rights because “souls enter the zygote at the moment of conception”, who seek to prevent loving couples from enjoying the same marital rights they do, who teach children the hideous notion that anything less than total obedience to the church will land them an eternity of suffering and pain, or that the glorious destruction of the universe is imminent so we shouldn’t bother making any plans for the future, including environmental concerns.  It is these balmy ideas I find offensive, and since I do not subscribe to their religion I see no reason I should live in a land ruled by such primitive superstitious thinking.

Christians, and members of other cults, are perfectly free to worship their god(s) in whatever way they think necessary, but don’t expect me to go along with their twisted, illogical, and unfounded beliefs. If they don’t like homosexuals, don’t be one.  If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one.  If you don’t like marrying someone of the same sex, don’t.  If you think the universe will end tomorrow at the hands of you loving saviour and his army of angels, then . . . I dunno – buy a hat, or something. The religious should oxford everyone the same rights. Leave everyone else alone.  Everyone has the right to live their lives as they see fit – with the obvious proviso that they are not harming anyone else in the process.

While I am on the subject I should point out what real persecution looks like – and we need to look no further than Christians themselves.  When the Catholic Church (yes, they are Christian) had real power they ritually, continuously, relentlessly, and as a matter of policy murdered members of other faiths, imprisoned tortured and killed heretics, persecuted those who threatened their temporal power, cooked women suspected of witchcraft, and locked generations Jews in ghettos for their part in killing the Christ. Even today Christians invade countries killing men, women, and children as they hand out Bibles, bomb and shoot abortion doctors, slit children’s throats to avoid “the trails of tribulation”, and beat homosexuals to death. This is what real persecution is, not the namby pamby writings I make in some secluded corner of the internet where only a vanishing small percentage of the internet enabled global community will ever venture.  Atheist versions of the inquisitions often involve beer and heated debate; hardly life threatening.

Anyway, since when did it become “persecution” to point out someone’s argument has zero basis in reality?  Would the same argument hold if I were pointing out the non-existence of dragons to the royal society of dragon slayers?  Such arguments are would be preposterous.  There is no evidence whatsoever that fire-breathing, giant, winged reptiles ever existed – how can it be “persecution” to point out this rather inconvenient fact?  Dragon slayers may take offence at realities intrusion into their cherished beliefs, and it may require a drastic rethinking on their part, but persecution?  Really?

Apologists throughout time have been wholly and entirely unsuccessful in presenting any verifiable evidence for the existence of a deity, let alone any coherent argument that one may exist. So why should I grant these superstitions any respect?  Why should I sit down and keep my mouth shut simply because the losing team is offended by reality?

No, I am not persecuting anyone.  I am asking those of faith to substantiate their claims, and I am ready and willing to accept any evidence or arguments which demonstrate I am wrong.  Apparently that makes me closed minded bigot who hates Christians.  Well, so be it.

• Ear candling – Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia
• Turns out we DID come from monkeys! – YouTube
• Speedy neutrino mystery likely solved, relativity safe after all | DVICE
• Jesus Ween Christian Festival
• The world will end October 21, says Harold Camping … but no billboards this time – Beliefnet News
• Gays must curb vile vitriol | Herald Sun