|
|
|
Support Science Not Superstition
|
|
Ian Harris
Reader's Comments:
Add a Comment
Commenting on this article is via email, so there will be a delay between making a comment and seeing it appear. 'Unsigned' posts will be marked 'Anonymous'. Your email address will not be disclosed, nor will your surname if provided. If you wish your full name published, or a link to your website, simply request this in your email. Unlike many other internet forums, we do not require you to register or join our club before you are allowed to comment. We realise that this restriction simply insulates forums from negative views, since many refuse to bother joining a group they disagree with just to disagree with it. |
|
Comments:
Hi, just had a brief look at your Ian Harris 'scam' article on your website. I have a problem (possibly shared with millions of others) that I do believe (in a sense!) that Santa is 'real'. I agree with your claim that "a belief in Santa does or does not necessariliy makes Santa 'real'". This begs the question "What could make him real?" One does not require a belief for something to be 'real'. Santa just is! Interesting site and I will read it.
Hi Philip, Thanks for your comment. I was going to attempt to answer your question, "What could make [Santa] real?", unfortunately I'm a little confused as to what you mean by 'real', as you also say, "I do believe (in a sense!) that Santa is 'real'."
If you really do believe Santa is real, then I agree with you. You do have a problem. ;-) You desperately need to read some books on science, history, psychology, critical thinking etc.
If you don't actually believe Santa is real, then you need to learn how to express your viewpoint better. If effective communication is to happen, everyone must use the same definition for words. I can only assume that when you use words like - problem, millions, believe, Santa, real - that they mean what the dictionary says they mean. If you're going to say that you don't mean real when you say 'real', how do I know what you really mean when you say problem, millions or believe?
Should I treat your claim, "I do believe (in a sense!) that Santa is 'real' " differently than the claim 'I do believe (in a sense!) that George W Bush is 'real'." If both these statements don't imply the same meaning then you need to rephrase them so that I know exactly what you mean.
Before I could explain what would make Santa real to me, I would have to be convinced that we are both using accepted definitions of words and concepts. This is my main gripe with Ian Harris (and others), that he takes well understood words and concepts and gives them new meanings that only he knows. He claims that God does not exist and talks of God instead. As you can see, this only leads to utter confusion for everyone else.
I know I'm confused.
Thanks for your reply John. I will work on my response taking your comments into account.
I have read with interest the feature purporting to expose me as a dumb hypocrite perpetrating scam. Rather than respond here to the anonymous author, I'd like to invite him to contact me if ever he's in Wellington. I'd really appreciate the chance to put a name to the article, a face to the name, and have a chat.
Thanks Ian, but my work doesn't take me to Wellington these days.
Good to find a skeptic website like yours in NZ. Liked this piece on Ian Harris, and found his response this weekend a bit pathetic really.
Any chance of doing a cover on the 'exorcism' or makutu lifting? This is seriously in need of a scam-bust, with a co-leader of a political party endorsing it. Or would it be culturally appropriate to re-instate witch burning as this was probably common with my ancestors?
Hi Philip. Thanks for your comment. Good grief!! Witchcraft in this day and age!! We hadn't heard of makutu until we read that article. Mind you we hadn't heard of taniwhas until a while back either. It's unbelievable that people in New Zealand in the 21st century can still believe in such crap. Why are modern people reverting to stone-age beliefs? And to think that educated people like Pita Sharples endorse it rather than saying outright that it's crap. We could do a bit on it I guess, calling it superstitious nonsense, but then we'd be called racist. Wouldn't want that.
Who am I kidding? Crap is crap, regardless of the colour of your skin. We'll see if we can find enough info to write a short piece on them. Maybe something will be on the TV news tonight. Otherwise we'll have to go with your suggestion and get some good old witch burnings going.
Hello John, Greeting from Australia. I read your article titled "Ian Harris". I didn't know who Mr Harris was prior to reading the article but I was familiar with that kind of Liberal/Reformed theology that he is promoting. A noteworthy exponent is Shelby Spong.
I'm a lapsed Christian and because my investment in the church was minimal it was easy getting out. My investment consisted only of time and the a few thousand dollars in books, CDs, DVDs and videos. However, if all of my friends were part of the church, if my livelihood depended on it, if I had spent several years and tens of thousands of years on a B.Div or B.Th then getting out wouldn't have been straightforward. My point is that Mr Harris may have a prohibitively large
investment in the church such that he has too much to lose. To strain the analogy: If the horse was expensive and if I only know how to ride that horse I may very well continue to ride it even if it is dead. Are you familiar with "When prophecy fails" (Festinger, Rieken, & Schachter; 1956)? I think a parallel is to be found in the psychology of the apocalyptic cult studied by
Festinger et al. The remarkable discovery of Festinger et al is that doomsday cults usually survive failed end-of-world prophecies. One of the main reasons for this strange phenomenon is the cost of admitting error is too high. If you've quit your job, given all your money to the cult and broken off with friend and family that questioned your apocalyptic beliefs then what's left to return to?
This may be the barrier to people like Mr Harris abandoning Christianity completely.
Hi Peter or G'day mate, thanks very much for your comments. It's always fascinating to hear other insights.
I'm familiar with Shelby Spong (although I haven't read any of his books) but not "When prophecy fails". You make an interesting point, what is the threshold that makes it too difficult to change your position? I guess it varies from person to person. I've certainly heard of people in closed cults that had realised it was false, but the brainwashing was so intense that they were convinced that they couldn't survive in the outside world. And so they stayed even though they no longer believed.
I'd like to think that if I realised the beliefs and goals of a group or organisation I actively supported were false I would have the integrity to leave, even if it meant starting over, making new friends etc. Even if I couldn't face returning to my family, friends etc I'd still go elsewhere to start afresh. The hypocrisy of living a lie on a daily basis, especially if my work involved actively promoting that lie to others would be more than I could stand. Or so I'd like to believe.
But then my mindset, my quest for the truth wherever it may lead would hopefully stop me from subverting my beliefs for the sake of some group I belonged to. Have you read any of the books by Dr Michael Shermer or Dan Barker, they were both fundamentalist Christians who realised their error and are now outspoken agnostics/atheists. At present I'm reading a very revealing book: 'Why I Am Not a Muslim' by Ibn Warraq (a pseudonym). He was a fundamentalist Muslim from Pakistan who eventually saw the flaws in their religion and is now an atheist. Renouncing your religion is a death sentence for Muslims. These people and many others were prepared to walk away from their religion even though they had invested much and often lost family and friends in the process. I'd like to think I would also have had that strength of character.
But perhaps you're right, 'the cost of admitting error is too high' for the likes of Ian Harris.
You make an interesting point, what is the threshold that makes it too difficult to change your position? I guess it varies from person to person. My guess would be that its is connected with risk tolerance and that does indeed vary from person to person. I would conjecture that as the current pain and distress associated with staying approaches the anticipated pain and distress of leaving the choice becomes easier.
I suppose what motivated me to respond to your essay on Ian Harris was a concern
to show that rational discourse — or even the direct contradiction of a failed prophecy in the case of the apocalyptic cultists — isn't necessarily sufficient to cause someone to renounce their silly beliefs.
Hi Peter, You're quite right, many religious people simply believe, and as you say, 'rational discourse' often won't shift their view one iota. It's not about reason, it's about faith. But all we can work with is reason, and while we won't convince the likes of Ian Harris to change their views, we hope that perhaps some people that are contemplating taking up this position, perhaps because they think it's an intellectually valid one, might be forced to reconsider.
John, you said,
I applaud all efforts aimed at attacking, exposing and undermining irrationality and superstition. That notwithstanding, I also believe that the sceptical/atheist "communities" are picking their targets poorly, allowing egregious cases of irrationality to pass without comment and are preaching to the choir in many cases. Furthermore, there is a general neglect to consider the psychology of the people that hold these preposterous beliefs.
Currently, I think the major social trends in irrationality and superstition are the Church of Scientology, Neo-Paganism and UFOs/aliens.
There is a good existing effort mounted against the CoS by people outside of the sceptical/atheist community but it would be beneficial if these people were aided by the sceptics amd atheists. The CoS should be a concern to secular humanists of all kinds because it is an exploitative cult that kills and it uses (misguided) cultural icons to attract members.
The other major threat — as I see it — is Neo-Paganism and the other "alternative spiritualities", i.e. that post-modern pseudo-revival of various folk religions and practices. This would include Neo-Druids, Wiccans ("Gardnerian" and "Eclectic"), shamanism, Crowlean Magick, Chaos Magick, etc. Consider the following:
Magic-Shapeshifting-Rosalyn-Greene
The reviews are enlightening and disturbing at the same time in there are fellow humans in the 21st century, from First World nations, that presumably have had the benefit of some education, sincerely believe that there are people that literally, i.e. physically, shapeshift into beasts of various sorts. Many also believe they can cast spells, yes cast spells like the wizards and mages in roleplaying games.
The other major trend in irrationality and superstition is aliens and UFOs and the inevitable overlap with conspiracy theory. Are you familiar with David Icke? David Icke is something of a Moses-figure for those that have an X-Files flavoured detachment from reality.
My point is that the sceptical/atheist/secular humanist communities would benefit from a "triage" approach to debunking. However, I am having doubts about the utility of our efforts in general.
There is an emerging opinion amongst evolutionary psychologists (Daniel Dennett develops this idea with respect to theism in his "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon") that our primitive neurology is to blame. Evolutionary psychology is taking us back to Freud's idea that people are essentially irrational and driven by unconscious drives and forces. What do you think?
Thanks for your interesting reply Peter. You said
I see three types of personality. The devout believer who will continue to believe no matter the evidence presented, the strict rational mind who won't be swayed by emotion or desire, and in between, the majority of people who entertain both irrational desires and rational beliefs. On a great many 'unimportant' topics that they have given little thought, they often go with the majority opinion. If challenged by a 'good argument' from either side, they can fall either way. We are wasting our time debating the 'devout believer', whether it be religion, aliens or astrology. They will never see reason. As you say, debating these people only leads to despair. But that enormous middle group, the undecided or superficial believer, can be swayed in their opinion. I personally have turned numerous people away from religion, convinced others that the moon landing wasn't a hoax, that the 9/11 attacks weren't a Bush conspiracy, that astrology is crap, that we're not being abducted by aliens etc. And even more rewarding, I've heard these people repeat my arguments to convince others. I agree that what sort of arguments we'll accept will be based on our brain. Some of us are more rational than others, but I think many of us can control our irrational side, like we can control our lust. We just have to work on those people that can utilise reason and ignore and sideline those with unshakeable flakey beliefs. There will always be witches and psychics and astrologers, just like there will always be rapists and murderers. We just need to educate those that we can and limit the actions of those that we can't. Although silly beliefs seem to abound, we are no doubt living in the most rational period of history ever. If we keep up the pressure it can only get better.
PS. I haven't read Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" yet although I have bought it. Hopefully I'll get to it shortly. And think of other books on the best seller list such as 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins and 'The End of Faith' by Sam Harris. It would have been difficult to get these published a few years ago, let alone expect them to rate highly. Another sign that many people are embracing reason over superstition.
Thanks for your encouraging response. You replied,
It would be good though to see the USA sceptics give more attention to the CoS.
I hasten to add that we needn't know Harris' or the UFOligists motivations and emotional needs with certainty. We need only offer a list of probable factors based on well-known social psychological phenomena.
So I am not altogether pleased with the "New Atheists". That notwithstanding, I take your point about the intellectual climate which makes book such as these best-sellers.
Thanks for your comments Peter. Some very good points, especially
I quite agree with your point that skeptics/scientists are good with argument (often complex argument) and often fail with persuasion. Scientists such as Sagan and Dawkins have correctly said that there is plenty of awe and mystery in the real universe without having to invent more, especially when the crap in our holy books and David Icke's imaginary world etc is greatly inferior to the real thing. To me, looking up at a star filled sky and having an appreciation of what I'm looking at is mind blowing. This is a failure with our schools, they teach the facts, the argument, but fail to get people enthused. They fail to persuade as you say. I love some science fiction, especially the likes of Star Trek, Stargate etc. I've read a few books such as The Physics of Star Trek, The Biology of Star Trek, The Computers of Star Trek, where scientists discuss the science in the show, explaining what is real, what is plausible and what is probably impossible. People I've spoken to that love science generally rubbish these books however, unable to see a valuable connection. But for me it brings what can often be very dry science alive when it discuses it in relation to characters and situations that I can relate to. There are other books such as The Science of the X-Files, The Science of Harry Potter, The Science of Jurassic Park and The Science of Superheroes, also rubbished by most people, but many people, especially teenagers, love these stories and the books could be a great way to get them hooked on real science, to push their buttons. But many scientists think it belittles them or their profession by associating themselves with fiction, in the same way that many astronomers refuse to discus alien abductions or the hoax moon landing. They are just maintaining the gulf between scientists and the layperson, whereas the purveyor of silly beliefs will happily visit you at home to discuss your concerns.
Scientists and skeptics etc have to learn how to talk with people rather than just talk at them. I agree that you have to push people's buttons to get them involved, simply quoting facts will turn many off. Schools shouldn't just teach us how to do something, they must engage us, convince us why we would want to do it. The local astronomy club had a 4 session introductory course a year ago and I went along. They were turning people away it was so popular, but by the second session over half never returned, even though they had paid for the full course, and the next two sessions saw further reductions. The public wanted to learn about space, but the club members couldn't engage them at their level, describing things that were unnecessary and confusing while omitting the basics. I saw a movie called 'A Flock of Dodos' which looked at the debate between evolution and Creationism, and it reached the same conclusion. It supported evolution but asked the simple question "Who would a member of the public prefer to have a beer with? The evolutionist or the creationist?" Most would pick the friendly and easy to understand creationist over the arrogant and confusing scientist. Most religious people that I know, while deluded in my view, are very nice people, while some scientists I know, while also very nice, can be very annoying. One, a microbiologist, believes scientists like Dawkins shouldn't be allowed to write books on popular science because he simplifies it. Well of course he does, or else plebs like me couldn't understand it. And scientists lament that the public is often ignorant of science! His scheme would make it far worse. Another friend, a marine biologist, criticises Dawkins' books on both evolution (The Selfish Gene) and religion (The God Delusion) although she has read neither. With attitudes like this it is no wonder that Joe Public is drawn to the charismatic evangelist or CoS member or New Age healer with their simple stories and willingness to relate at their level. It's a real shame that most scientists don't have the people skills that evangelists have, that they can't educate and entertain at the same time. That they can't push the right buttons as you say, the buttons for curiosity, amazement, awe and fulfilment, which the natural world has an abundance of.
You asked
With religion I've found that most people are generally ignorant of the difference between what their priest tells them and what religious scholars believe. They don't realise that the Bible doesn't mention Eve eating an 'apple', that Satan is always shown as a snake yet God didn't remove his legs as punishment until after he had tempted Eve, that there are two different versions of creation in Genesis, that Jesus wasn't born on Xmas Day or in 1 AD, that there was no mention of 'three wise men', that Mathew, Mark, Luke and John didn't write the gospels, that there are an enormous number of contradictions and errors in the Bible etc etc. Many are even unaware that Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian and that Jesus wasn't actually his name! When you can convince people of these things many will then think, "Well, I wonder what else I've been mistaken about?" They lose that initial confidence and real discussion can begin.
As you'll be aware, there are a million and one different things you can debate about religion, but I normally let the other person present their argument then attempt to show why it doesn't match what the Bible actually says or goes against logic, science, history, ethics etc. Religious people normally only discuss their religion with other believers and so the flaws in their thinking are never made obvious to them. I find they seldom have a sensible answer and they respond with, "Well OK, I didn't know about that, but what about this then… " I like to keep things simple. I never describe things as the 'teleological argument' or the 'ontological argument' because people switch off. I love simple analogies that people can relate to. I like to get people to work through things themselves rather than just telling them the answer. Like you can ask them which do they think is more complicated, a simple bacteria or God? They'll naturally say God. So you then ask, so by how much? Twice as complicated, a thousand times? They normally reply astronomically more complicated if not infinitely so. Then you can ask, so which is more likely to just pop into existence or to have existed forever, an extremely simple bacteria or an infinitely complex god? Because they've helped develop the argument themselves, the honest, rational person must now see that bacteria are far more likely than god. This is normally where they change to the next argument, but the seed of doubt has been sown. On things like morals people often go on about the usefulness of the Ten Commandments but when challenged can seldom quote more than 3 or 4. And it can be pointed out that they break many of those that they don't know, such as 'Respect the Sabbath'. Even if they say they never work on Sunday and always go to church, you simply point out that the Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. And the Bible actually has 613 commandments, not just 10. They just don't realise how ignorant they are about religion.
With conspiracies one of the best tactics is to make people realise how many people would have known about the conspiracy if it was real, often thousands, and how impossible it would be to keep them all quiet, or kill them all. Take President Clinton and Monica. Two people couldn't keep a simple blowjob secret and yet we are expected to believe that thousands of people can keep their mouths shut about the moon landing and 9/11? With the race to the moon we have to remember that it was prompted by the cold war between the USA and the USSR. Can we really believe that the USSR monitored NASA's flights and transmissions and yet failed to blow the whistle when they noticed they never really went? Another good one is to ask hoax supporters, "If the Apollo 11 moon landing was a hoax, why risk being caught out by 'pretending' to go back 6 more times, and why fake an accident in space - Apollo 13?" Most supporters of the moon landing hoax have no idea that we went to the moon 9 times and landed 6 times. They reply, 'But I didn't know that. The program I saw didn't mention that.' Exactly, these people only highlight things that support their conspiracy and suppress everything else. (FYI — Apollo 8 & 10 both went into lunar orbit but didn't land. Remember the argument is that man can't even get to the moon, let alone land. Apollo 11 to Apollo 17, except Apollo 13, all went to the moon and landed. Apollo 13 went all they way there but didn't land.)
With astrology one of my favourite arguments is to explain how the star signs are all one month out (due to the precession of the equinoxes.) No matter what sign you think you are, you're wrong. If you think you're a Virgo, you're really Leo. Since this is an undisputed fact, even among astrologers, although obviously they seldom acknowledge it, there is no good argument against it. It's hard to claim that you're a typical Virgo if you grudgingly agree that technically you're a Leo. Another is why should the stars above on the second you were born affect you? Shouldn't the moment of conception be your star sign? And why don't fraternal twins have identical personalities and destinies? What about people born in places that can't see the zodiac? Do they have free rein or is there a secret horoscope for them, based on other star signs?
As for aliens, like most of these beliefs, the lack of evidence is the best argument. No conclusive photos, videos, artefacts or believable encounters. For the majority of people their exposure to science fiction aliens on TV and in movies has blurred with what science says about them. While aliens are not impossible, people just don't comprehend the vast distances involved, the vast time spans or the physical laws that would have to be broken to make frequent trips here or to create alien-human hybrids etc. As for people that actually believe they've seen alien craft or been abducted, this is all psychological. Throughout history people have been seeing and feeling weird things. The only difference is that today some people have replaced demons, witches and gods with aliens. Their brain created a mystery in search of an answer, and science fiction filled in the details. Science fiction is the source of aliens, not science fact.
In these debates I've found that all of these people usually exhibit one common attribute regarding their favourite belief — ignorance. When questioned about the origins of the Bible or astrology, about why there can be no astrological force or why we can't travel faster than light, or where all the passengers went to if the Twin Towers were hit by drones, their answers demonstrate ignorance. The 'fundamentalist' can't be swayed, but many others can because they have adopted their flawed belief simply because it was the only detailed argument they heard (eg the TV program on the moon landing hoax), or it is the best argument they've so far encountered. Rational people that hold false beliefs can be swayed with better arguments.
You mentioned that
A few years ago I read 'Atheism and Theism' by J.J C. Smart and J.J Haldane and while technically very competent, it's obvious why it has never appeared on the Best Sellers list, or even in your typical bookshop. Likewise most all the other books written about atheism over the years. They were mainly written for academics, and hence the general public is ignorant of their very existence. For some years now we've had two levels, books on 'Popular Science' for the layperson and university text books on science which are often incomprehensible to the layperson. I tend to see the books by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett etc as creating a new section of books called 'Popular Atheism', as opposed to the far more detailed and formal university text books on atheism. Most of the world's readers will get all their science knowledge from 'Popular Science' books and now people have a chance to examine religion in the same way, through books written for the layperson. The very success of these authors — on science, religion, philosophy etc — is I believe because they don't complicate their arguments by cluttering them with minor details. They might not be minor in the eyes of academics, especially in providing a formal proof, but if they are not necessary in sketching out a convincing argument, then leave them out. If Dawkins wrote with the same formal detail of university text books, the general public would never read his books.
If the layperson is to be armed with arguments against religious belief then it is only through books such as these that this will occur. And these books are excellent primers. They enable and may even encourage people to read more deeply on the subject. There are certainly omissions, places where they could be better argued and I don't agree with every statement, but they are definitely where I would advise people to begin.
Overall I enjoyed 'The God Delusion', 'God is Not Great' and most of 'The End of Faith'. It's just refreshing to read books written from an atheistic perspective. I know Christians say all science books are atheistic driven, but again this is just ignorance of atheism. Like you though, Harris and his take on mysticism didn't impress me, but I'm prepared to take his good arguments on board and ignore those I find lacking. Too many feel they need to embrace an author as well as his arguments, but it's about the argument not the author. In this sense I find many people who are anti-Dawkins accuse him of arrogance and consequently refuse to read his book. They are attacking their perception of the man rather than his argument. Yes he confidently states there is no god, but do people call the Pope or their local priest arrogant because they just as confidently claim there is a god? I suspect that many people that vehemently criticise Dawkins without reading his book do so because they, consciously or otherwise, fear his conclusion. That god is a delusion.
Hi John, I thought you might be interested in this, I'm currently engaged in a debate with Ian Harris regarding an article he wrote last month and published in the Dominion Post and ODT.
I had two letters to the editor published about this, unfortunately the first is not posted online so here it is:
"Ian Harris' attempt to unhitch religion from superstition (Features, Jan 3) is hilarious. Mr. Harris must realise that there is no more evidence for the existence of his god than there is for planetary positions influencing human lives."
Rev. Alan Goss decided to set me straight [with this letter]:
A reverend's view of God
To which I responded:
"Metaphorical theology aside, the Rev Alan Goss (Letters, Jan 12) has completely missed my point. Your columnist Ian Harris spent half his recent column attacking one belief system only to advocate faith in another. Monotheistic religions are no less fictional than astrology or polytheism and all have their roots firmly based in superstition."
Yesterday Harris spent his entire column defending his views and mocking my understanding of god as a concept. This is not online yet, I'll keep my eye out for it and let you know, if you are interested. I am formulating a response to this article now, and will let you know if it gets published.
I have found your dissection of Harris on sillybeliefs.com extremely useful and it gave me an understanding of Harris' belief system that I did not have before. Please, keep up the good work!
Thanks for supportive comments Matt. It's good to see that others are giving Harris a hard time, since he really does write a lot of rubbish. Your letters were spot on. I see people like Harris and Rev Goss as suffering from a major case of denial. They realise their religion is false but just can't let it go. I accept that it may be psychologically difficult for them to completely reject what were cherished beliefs, especially if they were heavily indoctrinated as children or what ever. However, they can't expect the rest of us — either believers or non-believers — to swallow their silly sleight of hand with definitions of god and religion as reasoned argument.
I especially had to giggle at this statement made by Harris: "Faith then gathers up the best factual knowledge about the world in a particular era, blends it imaginatively with the best current understanding of the word "God", and moulds both into the way people of faith interpret and live their lives."
This is no more than a description of how Harry Potter's J. K. Rowling or the scriptwriters for SpongeBob SquarePants come up with their stories. Rowling gathers "factual knowledge about the world in a particular era, blends it imaginatively with the best current understanding of the word "magic", and moulds both into" a fictional story for children. The only difference between the entertaining Harry Potter and SpongeBob stories and the story that Ian Harris pushes in his fortnightly columns is that he's oblivious to the fact that his is fictional as well. And that few people enjoy his story. You'll never convince the likes of Harris or Goss that their view is bogus, but hopefully by publicly pointing out the flaws in their fairytale we might stop others from joining them.
'If God Did Not Exist It Would Have Been Necessary To Invent Him.' I first heard this statement when I was a teenager and it has stayed with me ever since. It came from a book of speeches made by Lord Cobham who was Governor General of N.Z. at the time. He was a wise and kindly man who was much loved by the people. Lord Cobham went on to say that we need God to give us a standard to aspire to and I think that sums it up fairly well.
Think about it. The greatest people who ever lived did one thing. They made the world a better place. Everybody can help to make the world a better place simply by making good decisions about how they live their life.
Today we live in a world of incredible knowledge and yet it is plagued by wars, poverty, crime, greed, family abuse and general unhappiness. The more society tries to distance it self from the Christian Faith on which it was founded the more trouble it is getting into. What is needed is Wisdom and wisdom can be found in the Bible. It gives us a very simple set of rules to guide how we should live and relate to one another and yet much of the world chooses to ignore them or manipulate them to their own purposes.
The Ten Commandments are a very simple set of guidelines on how we should live our lives. If they were upheld in society and taught to all children there would be very few problems in our world.
1 "You shall have no other God but me"
Of course although they are simple rules very few people can manage to live by them all the time but we can try. If we know the rules then we know when we have broken them. We know within us that we should do what is right but we are tempted to do what is wrong.
Ist commandment.
I believe that Jesus Christ came to earth to show us how we should live and if we try to model our lives on his we will never have cause for regret.
Our first and most important relationship after God is with our family. Families are built on love and the Bible gives us a very good definition of Love. "Love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes and always perseveres."
A pretty tall order but certainly something to aim for in our lives.
Second Commandment.
When we feed our children a diet of crime and violence via television and the news media it is only natural that some will see that as the way to live.
Third Commandment.
Fourth Commandment.
Fifth Commandment.
Sixth Commandment.
There are only two reasons why people will not commit a crime. The first is that their principles prevent them and the second is that they are frightened of being caught. Calling for harsher sentences depends on the second case but has not proved very successful. Instilling good Christian principles in our children not only gives them a guideline as to how they should live their lives but also takes away the desire to do what is wrong.
Seventh Commandment.
Eighth Commandment.
Ninth Commandment.
Tenth Commandment.
The world today revolves around money. Everybody wants it and nobody ever has enough and yet if we manage our money well we can live quite comfortably. Successive governments have encouraged gambling through raffles, lotto and casinos when they should have been encouraging people to save and invest their money wisely.
The Bible tells us to give one tenth of our money to God. I believe if we give to good charities we are giving to our neighbours which is in effect giving to God. New Zealanders have a reputation for being friendly, out going and willing to help those in need. We live in a beautiful country which has been built up by our ancestor's hard work and foresight. Many of them lived and worked by the principles that are shown above and I believe that New Zealand will only continue to prosper if we adhere to those principles.
Finally if you would like to see a good example of Christianity in action try watching "Hour of Power" on Sunday morning at 8am on Channel 3.
Firstly, I agree with what appears to be your basic point, that we need ethical standards for society to prosper, but I don't believe you have set forth a good case that your god has provided these standards.
You start with 'If God Did Not Exist It Would Have Been Necessary To Invent Him.' Sorry, but your Lord Cobham stole this quote from Voltaire, breaking the eight commandment. I always interpret that saying as follows. The intellectual elite realized society needed ethical standards, yet the ignorant peasants knew nothing of ethics and philosophy, so ethical guidelines must be hidden in a religion, the same way we hide medicines in sweets for children and pets.
You go on to say that 'Everybody can help to make the world a better place simply by making good decisions about how they live their life.' I agree, but these decisions are made with the help of philosophy, not religion. Making decisions implies you have choices, but your god removes choice. They're not called commandments for nothing. Following your god is submitting to his commands, obeying his wishes whether they are ethical or not. Witches were killed in the past and homosexuals in the present because good Christians were obeying their god. Blind obedience to an authority is not a basis for ethical behaviour. Look at Nazi Germany.
You claim that 'The more society tries to distance it self from the Christian Faith on which it was founded the more trouble it is getting into.' Sorry, but history doesn't support this view. For most of the last 2000 years Western civilisation believed strongly in the Ten Commandments, and yet not only were they 'plagued by wars, poverty, crime, greed, family abuse and general unhappiness', it was a time that no sane person would wish to return to. Slaves were bought and sold, witches were burned, women and children were treated as possessions, and Christians persecuted Christians. It was only after the Enlightenment when religious answers were rejected that society truly made great progress. We now live in a time never before seen in history where citizens in Western societies are safer, healthier and with more freedoms and equality than ever before. Only romantics believe that the past was a golden age.
You opt for teaching and enforcing the Ten Commandments, yet this would require removing what we now consider to be a basic human right. Our right to freedom of religious belief and freedom from religious belief. This right would need to be squashed, since you're now suggesting we must all develop a firm belief in the Judeo-Christian god. All non-Christians, be they Muslim, Hindu, deist, animist or atheist must switch to believing and worshipping in your God. How would you feel if Muslims insisted, for the good of society, that you throw out the Bible and follow their commandments, or that atheists insisted that you weren't allowed to believe in any god whatsoever?
Can't you see that teaching the Ten Commandments to all children would be forcing a belief system onto everyone? Certainly you can highlight the positive nature of some commandments, like don't kill and don't steal. But you're not advocating just following these ones, you want the entire ten, nearly half of which revolve around worshipping a god and have nothing whatsoever to do with moral behaviour towards our fellow man. Children should instead be taught ethics, where the different ways of treating your fellow man can be discussed and debated, including those put forward by various religions. Most children will naturally adopt those standards of behaviour that are shown to be beneficial to both them and society. No force of compliance will be involved, no threat of punishment issued. Unfortunately most religions fear philosophical debates, just as they fear the teaching of any religion other than their own, such as comparative religion classes. They don't want children to discover that the ethics considered worthy in Christianity were known and accepted long before the Bible was written. They don't want children to discover that the many silly and ridiculous claims, not to mention barbaric events, that their parents have told them make up the other false religions, are also present in their religion.
I find it worrying that many Christians believe that the only way people can display a loving and caring attitude towards others is to have them forcibly adhere to their primitive commandments. That they believe that without blind obedience to these laws they will be unable to act ethically with others, and that this fear of punishment from a vengeful god is the only thing that is keeping them in line. That if they were suddenly to lose this fear or belief they would immediately become lying, stealing, adulterous killers who don't respect their parents and always work on Saturdays designing and selling false idols. I try and act in an ethical manner towards others because I believe it is the right thing to do, because I want to and because it makes me feel good. Are you seriously only being good to others because God tells you to? If I could convince you tomorrow that god didn't exist, would you stop being good to others? It appears that Christians aren't good because they think they should be, they're good because god threatens them. They're saying that they didn't know how to behave until they were exposed to the Ten Commandments. The thing I'm proud of is that I feel that I'm good to others simply because I believe that is the right way to behave. I don't need the threats.
I'm always a little offended when by implication Christians insist that I am immoral, that I don't love and care for others, that I lie, steal, cheat and might even kill if I thought I'd get away with it. They do this by insisting that only Christians following God's commandments can be moral and good, since God is the source of morality, and anyone that rejects God must be rejecting morality. Since I don't even believe in their god, and I certainly don't follow their primitive commandments even though I'm aware of them, I must therefore be without morals. To believe otherwise, to concede that I might somehow be moral, would be to accept that morality can come from sources other than their god.
OK, let's look at the actual Ten Commandments. You state that 'much of the world chooses to ignore them or manipulate them to their own purposes.' Yet you have also redefined and distorted the Ten Commandments to make them appear to gel with 21st century humanistic ethics. You also say that 'We know within us that we should do what is right but we are tempted to do what is wrong.' Speak for yourself. I am not tempted to murder, steal, lie or commit adultery etc. Again, I am concerned that these states of turmoil are continually playing out in Christian minds.
'You shall have no other God but me'. I'm sorry, but I don't see what your comments on love have to do with the first commandment. It also has nothing to do with defining God. Nothing about love is mentioned, only jealousy and insecurity. This is an order, a threat from a vengeful god. It's a demand that you submit to his control or else. If you even think of worshipping a god other than him, then look out. Worshippers are given no choice to consider the merits of other gods, and there must be other gods or else this commandant, the first and seemingly most important, would be meaningless. Potential worshippers would rightly say, 'What do you mean "other" gods? Do mean there are gods other than you, and we have a choice?' This commandment is nothing but a blatant threat from a vicious but insecure tyrant.
Worshipping false idols. Again, I see nothing in this commandment about worshipping material possessions. That would be commandment 10. This is an order that merely serves to reinforce the threat in the first commandment, that you are not to believe in the other gods. You are not to waste time and resources or perform rituals that might suggest you are praying to other gods.
No blasphemy. You can't be disrespectful to something that you don't believe exists. Muslims believe it is disrespectful to show any representation of god, yet that doesn't stop Christians from hanging bloodied and bleeding statues of Jesus all over the place. Which reflects back on commandment 2. Why isn't the worship of Jesus at the expense of God seen as worshipping a false idol? If Jesus is the son of god, then you're worshipping someone other then god. If Jesus was just god in disguise, why can't people see this and go back to worshipping god?
Keep the Sabbath holy. But the Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. How many Christians refuse to work on Saturday and keep it holy? This was introduced because Genesis claims that after creating the universe and life in six days, god rested on the seventh. But why would an all-powerful god need to rest? A perfect being could not get tired and need to rest like mere humans do. As you said starting this piece, it appears man has invented god, naively giving him human attributes rather than godly ones.
Respect your parents. Sorry, but respect must be earned, it can not be commanded except from a dictator. Should a child who is being abused by his parents respect them? This commandment is demanding servitude, not respect.
'Thou shalt not kill'. I agree, morals and fear are generally the reasons people refrain from crime. I also agree that instilling ethical principles into children would reduce crime. However I disagree that Christians have a monopoly on how to behave ethically. History has innumerable examples of devout 'moral' Christians behaving in disgusting, inhumane ways to others, and more often than not, their victims were fellow Christians, not non-believers. What this commandment actually meant when it was written was that Jews should not kill other Jews. It did not forbid them from killing outsiders, especially if they questioned their religion. Nor did it forbid them from killing their own when they felt they had committed an offence. God and the Bible insist that we should kill the likes of homosexuals, witches and disobedient children. Nor does it seemingly prevent Jew or Christian from waging wars or supporting the death penalty. The great majority of those fighting and killed in the last two world wars were Christians and Jews. Where was the sixth commandment then?
Furthermore, insisting that only 'good Christian principles' will lead to good behaviour is to imply that the majority of the world's population is immoral. It means that all Muslims, Hindus and the thousands of other religions that exist now and throughout history were incapable of being moral. If however you accept that followers of other religions and non-believers can be good people, and lead moral lives without knowledge of the Christian god and his Ten Commandments, then you are acknowledging that morals are independent of your god.
No sex outside marriage. The Bible has many examples of husbands having sex with women who weren't their wives, often at God's insistence. One reason for this is that adultery applied more to the women than the men, since wives were the property of men. Adultery was seen as someone misusing another man's property, that is, having sex with another man's wife. The husband could have sex with any woman he wished as long as she wasn't married. This wasn't adultery. The wife, being the man's possession, did not have the same freedom. If modern Christians were to follow this commandment as it was written by God, then husbands could still sleep around, and their wives would have no say in the matter. Also when God wrote this commandment, God allowed men to have several wives. Now Christians insist that God only allows one wife, that she is not a possession and that the husband is committing adultery if he even thinks about another woman. They have reinterpreted the commandment to suit their changing morals.
Respect other peoples' possessions. And yet the Bible is fill of examples where God and the Hebrews were forever raiding the cities and lands of others and, after slaughtering the men (breaking the sixth commandment), stole what ever they could lay their hands on. And not just material possessions (breaking the second commandment according to you, and the tenth commandment), they also stole the women and children, so that they could rape the virgin women, and keep the children as slaves. Again, this commandment simply meant that you shouldn't steal from your fellow Jew, it wasn't meant to apply to everyone. Even Jesus had his minions steal a colt for him to ride into Jerusalem on. He could turn water into wine and part the Red Sea, but he couldn't conjure up a ride to impress the locals without resorting to theft.
Do not lie. This commandment does not say you shall not lie. It merely says you shouldn't give false information about your neighbour to others. You can lie to him and to others as much as you wish, as long as you're not lying about him. And if someone isn't your neighbour, or even part of your tribe, you can say whatever you wish, true or false.
And even if this commandment was about not lying, the Bible has God supporting lying on several occasions. For example, in 1 Kings 22:21-23, God encourages one of his minions to lie so that God's plan might be fulfilled. Even Jesus lied, for example when he told his followers he would return before all of them had died. Also, the fact of the matter is that everyone lies, society and relationships would collapse if everyone were brutally honest all the time. In one study psychologist Richard Wiseman found that 'most people tell about two important lies very day and that a third of conversations involve some form of deception.'
Do not envy your neighbours possessions. And yet as I've already said, the Hebrews not only envied their neighbours possessions, such as their land, cities and virgins, they went in and stole them, often with God's assistance.
You say that 'the Bible tells us to give one tenth of our money to God', and that 'giving to good charities… is in effect giving to God.' But your money never gets to god. It's similar to the recent complaints that the majority of the money that people donate to charities never reach their intended target, instead being filtered off by organisers and administrators. And it's far worse with religious donations. I guarantee that not once has god turned up to collect the donations intended for him, or even sent a memo explaining how he wants the funds used. I contend that 100% of donations stay with the church organisers and administrators, and only a fraction of this reaches the needy. Think of the wealth of Bishop Brian Tamaki and the expensive Mediterranean cruise his church sent him and his wife on. The churches that are demanding 10% of their followers' income are usually taking money from the people in society that can least afford it. Jesus would be ashamed of whom they are targeting and what they are doing with their wealth. Again, think of the obscene wealth of the Catholic Church. A tour through the Vatican is a tour of moral decadence. You're not giving to god, you're funding the lifestyle of your local pastor, minister or priest, and after they've taken their cut, you're funding maintenance and rates on their buildings. Then lastly, some of the needy people that gave in the first place might get a pittance back.
You claim that many of our ancestors 'lived and worked by the principles' of the Ten Commandments and that NZ 'will only continue to prosper if we adhere to those principles.' You also state that society was founded on the Christian Faith, and that 'What is needed is Wisdom and wisdom can be found in the Bible'. I believe this is misrepresenting history. Certainly Christianity has been a major part of western society for 2000 years, but the ideas that have led to modern civilisation were developed long before Christianity. Agriculture, science, medicine, philosophy, justice and democracy were not first set forth in the Bible. If anything, the rise of Christianity greatly hindered progress, and not until the recent Enlightenment did the likes of science once again triumph over religion. The wisdom claimed to be found in the Bible was found to be either wrong, or if true, was knowledge gleaned from more ancient civilisations. Let's remember that the laws of our present legal system derive largely from ancient Roman and Germanic law, which in turn came from the Greek concept of nomocracy, the belief that laws come from man, not gods.
One argument that tries to distance itself from the embarrassing horrors of the Old Testament is that Christians don't follow it anymore, they only follow the New Testament, the bit that has Jesus in it. Yet let's remember that the Ten Commandments are part of the Old Testament. If the morals of the Old Testament are suspect or should even be ignored, then so can the Ten Commandments. If the Ten Commandments are still valid, still law, then so is the entire the Old Testament. You can't just cherry pick the passages that suit your modern purpose and blindly ignore the rest, like the ones that say we should kill homosexuals and that we can own slaves. The argument that certain commandments or "Law" from the Old Testament have been rescinded no doubt convinces other Christians but just raises more questions for us non-believers. Does not Jesus himself clearly say:
Yes, there are some good morals expressed in the Bible, but there are also many more immoral ones. Why is there no commandment against having sex with children? Or slavery? I suspect you and I would both agree on how we should behave in society and treat our fellow man. Our ethics are no doubt very similar. We only disagree on where we each believe we got this ethical code from, and on how we should transmit it to others, especially children.
Your stance seems to be, and let's be frank here, to forcibly turn everyone into god-fearing Christians. To teach all children, be they Christian, Muslim or atheist, that following the Ten Commandments is the only way to lead a good life. The majority of the world's population is non-Christian, and to believe that we would all ditch our ethical beliefs and adopt the ways of Christianity are a little naïve. Especially since Christians can offer no proof that their beliefs are the correct ones.
I repeat that I agree with you that we need ethical standards for society to prosper. However I believe this is best achieved by teaching ethics, not forcing a particular religion on children. Note that this argument works as well against Christians as it does for Muslims.
Hi team, you did a great job of taking the words right of my mouth with your response. Using the bible as your guide to morals is a dangerous and convenient thing for most people — they can pick & choose the bits they like and interpret the 10 commandments to mean whatever they would like them to mean. Morality is an incredibly complex business and to say that you can live by a set of 1 or 2 sentence rules without further expansion on them is really kindergarten stuff. Honour your parents — what if your father is Hitler? You shall not murder — what about man slaughter? Don't work on the sabbath — but I'm a fireman and there is a fire? The list of exceptions and 'sub rules' could go on for pages.
The 10 commandments were written at a time by a man for quite a useful purpose — to keep a crowd of unhappy people under control for a wee bit longer. If god wrote them then we must assume he is an idiot or was in quite a bit of a hurry (or has a wicked sense of humour). I prefer the 10 commandments in the book 'God Delusion'.
As I side note I've always enjoyed asking christians what they think god did on that 7th day when he rested. Some of the answers are hilarious. Personally I think he played chess with Santa Claus and the Connect Four with the Easter Bunny :-)
Hello John, thank you very much for going to so much trouble to explain your position with regard to God. You went to much more trouble than I ever expected. I actually ended up on your website because I was looking for information about Ian Harris and wondering if he would be interested in my article. I think perhaps not. I wrote the article about 8 years ago in an effort to explain why I am the person I am. I just fired it off to you and perhaps it wasn't altogether appropriate as you write in a very different style. I think perhaps you analyse and I generalise.
Hi Jack. Thanks for your reply. I would make a couple of comments. You stated that 'a lot of good things have been done by Christian people over time', but I could easily argue that these good things don't make up for the terrible things Christians have done. Also, equally good things have been done by Muslims, Hindus and atheists. Good actions don't require Christianity or even a god. You mentioned the likes of World Vision and the Christian Blind Mission. I look at what motivates people to do good things. When asked why they are working for Christian organisations overseas or donating funds, Christians often reply along the lines of, 'God wants me to help the poor and disadvantaged', or, 'God says we should give 10% of our income to the church and to helping others'. It's never, 'I want to help the poor' or 'I want to donate money', it's always 'God TOLD me to…' It's like the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials. They all claimed that they didn't want to kill the Jews, but Hitler told them to. You can't judge them for their actions since they were merely following orders. Bullshit! They knew what was right and what was wrong. In a similar sense Christians are claiming that they're just following orders, meaning that they don't know what is right and what is wrong. They're not helping people because they think it's necessarily the right thing to do, they're doing it because God tells them to. And if they do things that later turn out to be wrong, like burning witches, then take your complaint to God, not them. They were just following orders.
Christians often refuse to even acknowledge that are good or bad. When Christians behave nobly or they rescue a child from an inferno, they often refuse to take the credit, saying that God is merely working through them. That's like saying, 'Look, personally there is no way I would have risked my life to save that snotty kid, but bloody God took control of my body and ran into the fire. Geez… I could have been killed'. Conversely, when they behave atrociously, they say that they're being controlled by the Devil. Are Christians just mindless puppets that have no notion of good or bad? It's high time they accept responsibility for their own actions. Stop giving the credit or blame to invisible sky fairies. Likewise when you said to your atheist friend, "I see God as the spirit of goodness and decency that is in you", I know you don't mean to be, but I would be offended by that. To me this says, 'I think you're a worthless, immoral husk of a human being, but even though you deny his existence, for some reason God is working through you to make you appear to be good and decent.' You refuse to believe that your friend could be a naturally decent person and believe that god must be manipulating him, seemingly for your benefit. This Christian notion that people can't recognise good and bad behaviour and act accordingly worries me. It says that Christians are personally at a loss to determine what is right and wrong and rely either on precise commandments from the Bible or by having God forcibly kept them on track like a robot. You often hear Christians complain that if there was no God to keep people on course, then any action would be possible, meaning theft, rape, murder and sex with small animals would be common place. It worries me that many Christians honestly believe that if there were no God watching them, then they would be doing these things in an instant. Are Christians the most immoral group of people on the planet, merely held back by their fear of an imaginary god?
You said that 'With regard to child abuse… I don't believe they are true Christians.' I disagree. This is like saying parents that abuse their children or doctors that abuse their patients aren't real parents or real doctors. Their abuse does not mean they aren't parents, merely that they are bad parents. They remain parents no matter how badly they behave. Likewise Christians that abuse children are still Christians, bad Christians. Are we to say the great many Christians who burnt witches or killed others in the inquisitions and crusades weren't really Christians? If anything, they would deny that you were a true Christian since you've watered down God's power and authority to such an extent that now God is merely 'the innocent eyes of a baby, the power of a thunderstorm and a friend to talk to'.
You're right that crime is a problem and some people are willing to kill. However the sad fact is that our prisons are full of Christians, not atheists. And yes, some people have changed their ways after 'finding' God, but this is probably because they want to change their behaviour and improve their life and the only people that knock on their doors wanting to discuss a new way of life are Christians. When was the last time an atheist couple knocked on your door wanting to discuss ethical behaviour without the need of a god? Likewise, look at he large number of NZ prison inmates now converting to Islam, solely because they are the ones pushing their beliefs in prisons, not atheists.
You mentioned your reservations about Muslims. I know Muslims who are good, caring, decent people, and like most Christians, I believe most Muslims are. The problem arises when the person, be they Muslim or Christian, looks to their holy book for guidance on how they should treat their neighbour rather than simply doing what they know as a human being is the right action.
People need to ask themselves, are they good to their family, friends and neighbours simply because they fear some powerful authority, be that God or the police, or are they good because they genuinely want to be?
Hi Guys,
I have just met your website sillybeliefs.com, and have read your stuff about Ian Harris.
His final "Honest to God" column appeared in the Dominion Post (Wellington, NZ) on Saturday November 14, 2009. I attach a scan if you missed it.
Please keep up the good work — perhaps that ought to be capped up.
Hi Angus, thanks for the update. I note that the article said, 'In response to a reader focus group evaluation for The Dominion Post, the decision has been taken to end the column'. What does that mean exactly? It's about as vague and non-committal as his take on religion.
His fortnightly 'Honest to God' column also ran in the Otago Daily Times until early 2009, when it started running fortnightly under the weekly "Faith and reason" banner. So while The Dominion Post readers may have tired of his nonsense, Otago readers unfortunately are still subjected to his silly view of Christianity.
Return to Article
|
|
|
|
Support Science Not Superstition
|
|
www.sillybeliefs.com
Last Updated May 2010 |