Science in the Bible – Review, pt3

So far, in our examination of the 101 Scientific Facts that were already in the Bible before modern science got round to discovering them, we’ve covered the first 20. And we’re not doing that well at all. We’ve found instances of factually incorrect statements, either about what science actually says, or statements that contradict science outright. We’ve also lost 10 of these so-called “facts” as they do not claims made by science at all, and therefore cannot be said to prefigure anything science says. Further, we’ve also uncovered evidence of selectively using some of what science says, and rejecting other things – namely, evolution. It is not clear on what basis, as the idea is to take something that science says, and show that it was already written in the Bible.

Now, keeping in mind all of the above, we take numbers 21 to 30, in the hope of finding anything at all that resembles science.

21. Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

This passage has been translated different ways: the New International Readers version asks where lightning comes from, while the New International Version asks where is ‘lightning dispersed‘. The New American Standard Bible asks where light is ‘divided’, while the English Standard Version asks the way to where ‘light distributed‘, and so on. It’s not clear whether we’re talking about lightning or light, and no version, however, suggests that white light itself can be divided into other colours, which would be a necessary statement, as that is what Newton claim. He did not simply claim that it could be divided. The full scientific claim has not been made in the Bible, then.

22. Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.” In the 19th century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Nothing in the verse suggests oceanic currents as we understand them today: a “path” doesn’t imply a current any more than a “shipping lane” today implies a current. No scientific claim, then.

23. Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that “he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body,” and that those who commit homosexual sin would “receive in themselves” the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.

No scientist claims that sex outside “holy matrimony” is the thing that makes it unsafe, or that homosexuality is itself harmful. No current scientific claim is put forward here. Again.

24. Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.

A factual error – evolution does explain this. The point of the clitoris (not mentioned in the Bible) is a bit of mystery…. Maybe God is female…? Again, though, no scientific claim has been shown to exist in the Bible. Another “fact” off the list. 89 left.

25. Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars – that’s a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

26. The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along – “He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name” (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

These two can be treated together. It would be far more convincing if there had been a ball park figure in the Bible, such as the one cited (which is in fact the very rough estimation that astronomers do in fact claim – it didn’t come from the Bible, though). Otehrwise, we appear to be left with the claim in the Bible that there are lots of stars – a claim that could be made by any mere mortal 3,000 years ago, and which doesn’t actually tell us anything significant or even why a large, finite, number of stars is significant. Moreover, the claim that there are a lot of stars out there, but which theoretically can be counted, is not a claim unique to the Bible.

27. The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.

A mis-reading of their own “holy” scripture. A comparison is when object A is compared with object B. In the case of the verses cited, what’s being compared is not the number of stars with grains of sand, but the descendents of Abraham with both the number of stars and the grains of sand. (‘And so from this one man [Abraham], and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.’ Heb 11:12).

The juxtaposition of sand and stars is interesting, and maybe it is this that gave rise to the astronomical analogy in the first place. No Claim Here.

28. Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.

I’d put down to the growth of railways, not the theory of evolution*, but the scientific claim, based on observable evidence, and prefigured in a Biblical verse is… where, precisely? No scientific claim, then.

*The point (taking the fatuous claims made here at face value) is that two random events that coincide in time may not actually be connected.

29. The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was God’s judgment on man’s wickedness.

The rule – their rule – is simple: pick the scientific claim, find it in the Bible, and bingo! Your point is made. But, no, we’re still apparently in Not Science Land, and were down to a possible 85 – not 101 – “facts”.

30. Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.

Nothing in Genesis 7 suggests the existence of fossils – it just talks about a flood killing a lot of animals. Moreover, to date, there is no evidence for a global flood in the geological record. No scientific claim has been made here, either, and in fact a scientific error has been committed.

Again, no unequviocal scientific claim could be found amongst facts 21-30, and we’ve had more casualties: of the original 101 “facts”, we can cross off 17 as simply not advancing any claim at all, much less one mentioned in the Bible.

Science in the Bible – Review, pt2

Part two, then, of the review of the startling revelation that there are 101 scientific facts that were in the Bible long before modern science got round to rediscovering them. Startling, that is, if it were true. After the first ten, so far, we’re 0/9, with one claim discarded as not being a claim made by science at all.

11. Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest.

Oh, dear, that was a very bad start.

John 15:13 says ‘Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends‘, while Romans 5: 7-8 says: ‘Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.’

These might be examples of noble behaviour, but it doesn’t offer us a scientific explanation of anything, nor can it be described as a fact that has subsequently been “rediscovered” by science.

This is simply an opportunistic sleight at the theory of evolution. However, Darwin used the concept of natural selection (subsequently dubbed “the survival of the fittest”) to explain variety in life and the origins of variation and variety, hence, the origin of species. His theory of evolution has little or no interest in theories concerning alturism in human society per se.

Anyway, it’s not science, so we’re down to alleged 95 facts in total, and not 101.

12. Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.

No I’m getting confused. I thought we’re supposed to be finding the claims of science prefigured within the Bible? Evolution does offer a solution for this dilemma – and it isn’t to be found in the Bible.

But it’s another “fact” that science doesn’t make in a list that’s supposed to be of scientific facts and claims that we can find in the Bible. So we’re down 94 of the feted 101. Hence, an invalid claim not science.

13. Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.

This project is now simply being seriously derailed. There are no scientific claims for DNA and RNA being ‘created’ together, and in fact evolution suggests that it is not the ‘ONLY’ explanation at all. This cannot considered to be a claim that can be prefigured in the Bible. And we’re down to 93. Not science.

14. Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth.

We’ll take this statement at face value, and allow that there is agreement here between the Genesis and science. However, it is hardly a unique claim to Genesis: the story itself derives from older Middle Eastern stories, while the Ancient Greeks (with Promotheus on clay-moulding duty and Athena taking care of blowing life, as recorded by the 8th BCE poet Hesiod) and the Ancient Chinese (with Nu Gua Shi) had similar stories of man being made from dust/soil/mud and life being blown into them. So no unique scientific insight there, then.

15. The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.

Genesis 2:1-2 says: ‘1Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work’.

Now, I personally can’t get anything useful about matter or energy from that, but the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is concerned with the total amount of energy in the universe – not matter. But because of the famous E=MC-squared formula in Special Relativity, that would imply that matter is constant, as well as energy. It took Einstein to link matter and energy – not the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Nevertheless, if the suggestion is that simply because God created the world, therefore the 1st Law of Thermodynamics can be seen to be embodied, then I don’t see how that can possibly be unique to the Bible, not least because the Biblical Creation myths derive from older Babylonian myths. At best, no unique scientific insight.

16. The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.

This is to play fast an loose with what science says on the one hand, and what the Bible says on the other.

To begin with, physics tends to describe the Universe in terms of mathematics and universal laws, which describes the behaviour of things like energy, space, time and matter – and other important things, such as forces (the weak and strong forces, gravity, and electromagnetism). Moreover, the ‘observable evidence’ suggests that time and space are intimately linked, as are energy and matter – as per Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity. This is not what’s hinted at here, which rather is a rather more mundane sequence of events: first time was created, then space, then matter, then energy. Science actually says that time and space, along with matter and energy, were all present, simultaneously, from the first split-seconds of the birth of the Universe. Further, the description includes something called ‘God’ doing the creating, an entity that does not exist in any scientific veiw of the origins of the Universe. In fact, the verses simply do not reflect any scientific view about things such as space or time or energy or matter, but are merely descriptive of “what’s there” than how it works.

It’s impossible to see these anything in Genesis 1:1-3 as offering support of Einstein over Newton, and I’m not sure that biologists (for example) would agree that the four concepts of space, time, matter and energy really does represent ‘all aspects of the creation’.

We conclude that the cited verses simply DOES NOT reflect any scientific view, and that Genesis does not prefigure anything that science says in modern times.

We can further question whether the Biblical authors actually thinking of the modern scientific concepts of “space” when they wrote “heavens”, and “matter” when they wrote “earth”? “Energy” when they wrote “light”, And “time” when they wrote “in the beginning”? That sounds extremely unlikely. Moreover, Genesis 1:20-26 contains scientific contradictions: historically, livestock, for example, did not come before humanity; evolution tells us that there was a sequence of emerging species, and that fish, for example, did not appear at the same time as birds.

In lieu of obvious support of any particular scientific claim, one has to say that there is no scientific claim being made, and we’ve

17. The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

There are many creation stories which do suggest that the Universe had a beginning. Whether the Universe had a beginning as we understand it is a complicated, debateable point within cosmology itself, becuase the actual moment of the Big Bang is yet to be fully understood (Stephen Hawking, for example, suggests not – and that it is not eternal, either).

The crucial point is that one does not gain any further elucidation from the two cited versus on the mechanism of how the Universe began – saying simply that it did begin is not really explaining anything in a scientific manner, much less citing the ‘observable evidence’ which ‘true science’ relies upon.

At best, because the universe having a beginning is reflected in may cultures, we can only at best conclude that the Bible has no unique scientific insight on this occasion.

18. The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.

A common myth. In fact, there is no evidence that anyone actually thought the earth to be flat in the last 2,500 years. Pythagoras put forward the idea in the 6th century BCE, for example, that the earth was spherical. It’s also not technically correct to say that the earth is spherical at all – the earth is in fact an oblate ellipsoid. The Biblical passage represents widespread understanding, and therefore offers no unique scientific insight.

19. Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.

A long since widely understood phenomena, and not a unique scientific insight.

20. Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow “in the cloud” as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets – which act as a prism – separating white light into its color spectrum.

Meterologists – as indeed any scientist – would believe that the physical laws regarding water has not changed here on earth, and that rainbows have existed on earth as long as the was sun, rain, and an earth, with or without humanity around, so the point about the environment being different seems odd in this context (Cf Genesis 2:5-6). No scientific view holds that rainbows are the result of a deity’s ‘covenant’ with humanity and promise not to flood the earth (Genesis 9:13-16). No statement about the prism of light appears in these verses; indeed, the sun is not even mentioned within that context. Consequently, the assertions in the cited verses either do not reflect scientific understanding, as per the stated aims of the list of facts, or are simply not science.

So after 20 “facts” of the original 101, we’ve lost another five as simply not being scientific facts in the Bible and subsequently rediscovered by modern science, meaning we’re down to 91.

A further five “facts” are seen not to be unique to the Bible.

We also seem to be witnessing a selection process that was not indicated at the beginning. In particular, there seems to be a sorting of “scientific facts” (however ineptly or crudely put) that agree with the Bible, for example over Space and Time, and a simple denial of other scientific facts, for example, anything that possibly relates to evolution. Indeed, Biblical intpretations that appear to contradict scientific knowledge is simply hailed as having the correct insight into how things really work.

Science in the Bible – Review, pt1

Eternal Productions is the latest organisation to bring a DMCA against the YouTube user, ExtantDodo. This is an occupational hazard for this user in particular, but also others on YouTube, who have suddenly found that Creationists do not appear to be that tolerant of criticism, and will misuse legal instruments – such as DMCAs – by (falsely) claiming copyright infringement. All it acheives is an account suspension until the wheels of bureacracy turn to put things right, because their case is groundless. So ExtantDodo will be back in business soon.

Anyhow, to take up a little of the slack that’s left given their otherwise superb demolition job on the dodgy science presented by such groups as Eternal Production, and after coming across the surprising revelation that there are 101 scientific discoveries that were foretold in the Bible, I thought this deserves further review and testing.

What we are looking for, then, must surely be clear, unique scientific insights found only in the Bible, before “rediscovery” by modern science. It would be nice to find something like “And God created the Universe, and found that it was good, and found that the total amount of energy contained within is always the same” (now known as the Law of Conservation of Energy). Let’s see how we do.

Numbers 1 through to 10.

1. The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing”.

The passage in Job doesn’t say anything about the earth being affected by gravity. It simply says that the earth floats in nothing. The Book of Job is thought to have been written around the 7th and 6th centuries BCE, after other cultures had (eg the Ancient Egyptians) had figured out that the earth was floating around in space. So the Bible is not unique in making this claim. Meanwhile, the next verse (26:8) goes onto say: ‘He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight‘, which is quite the reverse of what we know to happen: clouds do burst under the weight of water, due to the gravity not mentioned in Job 26:7. It’s how rain works. No unique scientific insight, plus at least one scientific mistake.

2. Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Hmm. There’s no mention of particles in (for example) the New International Version (‘what is seen was not made out of what was visible’) or the King James Version (‘things which are seen were not made of things which do appear’). Nevertheless, the idea of tiny, invisible “atoms” had been put forward by the Ancient Greeks, four hundred or so years before the letter to the Hebrews was first penned, most famously by Democritus, of course. And nowadays, we would very pointedly not talk of particles of the Standard Model as making up the Universe, (or “Creation”), but little tiny “strings” (for want of a better word), as per string theory. No unique scientific insight.

3. The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.

This is rubbish. Asides from the fact that this appears to be plucked out of thin air, God unfortunately didn’t make it clear that that there were ideal dimensions at all: he just told Noah the sizes and to get on with it. As it happens, lots of factors affect a boats stability, over and above dimension, for which there is no ideal, as this would depend on vessel type and planned usage. (Eg, see Understanding Boat Design (1993), Edward S. Brewer). But for comparison, neither the QEII, the USS Missouri, nor the Bismarck embodied this particular feature. This is not science and we have to cross this off our list of 101 “scientific facts”.

4. When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.

Leviticus Chapter 15 does emphasise washing. It is summarised in the last verse (verse 32), which states that: ‘These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen, 33 for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who lies with a woman who is ceremonially unclean.’ Verse 16 continues noticeably unscientifically thus: ‘ ” ‘When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 17 Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. 18 When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.’

To me, this demonstrates a lack of scientific understanding about semen, while the scientific basis for waiting until specifically the evening following washing before one can declare a state of cleaniness is not clear at all. It demonstrates ignorance rather than insight, coupled with a natural desire to clean when feeling unclean. Hardly unique to the Bible, and something practised frequently independently – if later – in the Roman world as well, for example. Half a point a there I think, but again no unique scientific insight, plus evidence of unscientific thinking.

5. Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.

The passage relates to a camp at a war, and of course, “isolating” human waste was practised long before WWI. It’s not clear whether this regulation came about because of scientific understanding of disease (based upon observation, for example) or fear of any kind of bodily discharge, but the result is undoubtedly makes scientific sense. Nevertheless, it’s not clear to me that this unique to ancient Hebrew culture – the Ancient Egyptians were equally fastidious about hygiene, for example. Unresolved.

6. Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the “springs of the sea.” Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

The New Living Translation (“Have you explored the springs from which the seas come?”) indicates that the seas derive from springs, not that they are within the ocean. Otherwise, the American Standard Version, the King James Version and the New International Version (for example) merely speaks of ’springs of the sea’, not the springs in the sea. This is not science, and again we have to cross it off our list, so we’re down to 99 “facts”.

7. There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

It’s possible to argue a slightly different reading, but even giving the benefit of the doubt, this is not science so much as deep sea exploration. After all, there is no explanation offered as to why there should be mountains beneath the sea, unlike today, where the discovery of such underwater mountains fits into geological theory. Not science, then – 98 “facts”.

8. Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creator’s presence – “in Your presence is fullness of joy” (Psalm 16:11).

Oh, dear. The theory of evolution is not principally a theory of human emotion, but a theory explaining naturally occuring variation within living organisms. Psychology and neurology might be better places to start. Moreover, saying that “God does it” is hardly a scientific insight, much less a theory. Not science. 97.

9. Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled” and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” long before science understood its function.

One of the principle ideas behind bloodletting was that it purified the blood, or removed excess blood; it is not prohibited in the passage cited, unlike the eating of blood, which is (Lev. 17:14). This is scientifically unsound, and people all over the world enjoy eating blood products, such as black pudding (UK) and blood rice cakes (China and Taiwan) and no doubt elsewhere. Moreover, other cultures (Ancient Greek, Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Chinese) recognised the importance of blood to life. No unique scientific insight, plus scientifcally unsound advice.

10. The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe – namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.

Nice try, but I thought this list was supposed to show a list of facts that appeared in the Bible and subsequently verified by science? Creation is not a claim that science makes, so we’ll cross this one off, so now we’re down to 96 “facts”.

Anyhow, on the one hand, evolution does not state that one species will turn into another – a cat will not turn into a dog. On the other hand, there is an exceptionally large amount of evidence that supports the idea that species have evolved from ancestor species, eg whales from formerly land-based mammals, land-based mammals from sea-based animals, etc., and evolution has in fact been witnessed. That’s what science actually claims, and it’s a claim accepted by a large number of Christians and theologians, as it happens. Not science.

So, of the first ten “facts”, five are invalid as scientific insights into the way the world works, as suggested by science; one is (at best) unresolved; and four “insights” are found not to be unique to the Bible. There were two or three scientific inaccuracies or misunderstandings alongside passages cited, so overall, we’re running at a deficit if anything…

Another ten to follow soon.

Of sterile debates

This is an editted version in the light of comments received – 16 Sep 2008

There has been an apparent upsurge in anti-atheist websites which try to argue against atheism in ways which are, frankly, baffling. Atheism-Analyzed is one such website: it’s fault lies in the mistaken assumption that “atheism” is a philosohpy or world-view, like a religious world-view. It’s possible to knock down the key arguments individually, but it is largely a thankless task – and an unnecessary one.

It has the hallmarks of the so-called Hitchens v. McGrath debate – a recent pro-Christian critique of which was cheered on from the sidelines over at the intriguingly entitled blog, Atheism is Dead: another blog that claims to use logic and reason in the (very much mistaken) that these are used to prop up a belief system. Mistaken because atheism does not purport do be anything of the sort.

It represents an attempt by religious apologists to move use the methods – namely that of logic and reason – of people they perceive to be as their opponents and attempt to win the argument; a “rationalist turn”, so to speak. It may well be that McGrath got the better of Hitchens; this is to be seen as some sort of victory.

Yet the debate is utterly superfluous, because whether or not religion is a “poison” or not, it has no bearing on any kind of claim religion has to truth: the debate is a red herring.

This is because – contrary to the claims (pdf) of Glenn Peoples – the truth does matter. Peoples states that: “For Hitchens, it should really make no long term difference whether our beliefs about religion are true or not. If we die happy (even if deluded), we have done as best we can.” (point 4) And that “If atheism is true, what exactly is wrong with harmless but false wishful thinking?” (point 18).

Personally, I believe Dawkins to be right to point out in the God Delusion that it insults us – indeed, degrades us – as human beings to believe in things merely for the purposes of comfort. It’s not so much that people believe in things without reason, however, that is central problem (and in which case, may be Peoples may have a point). It is not so much what an individual believes. It’s when they make demands on others who don’t share their beliefs that is the problem; when those people do at least one of two things – either persuade others, or indoctrinate their children, to do or believe those things; or when they try to persuade politicians to do something or not do something because it offends these beliefs – profound beliefs that may be sincerely held, but which disregard rationality and demand that those who don’t share their beliefs should respect and abide by them. And religious people, with their unprovable and untestable claims about holy texts and gods, are in the habit of doing that now.

For that reason alone, the truth of what people believe should matter to both the non-religious and non-believers.

That aside, the heart of the matter of these kinds of “debates”, such as the Hitchen-McGrath debate, is surely this: whatever people have done or not done in the name of religion, it does not amount to evidence of the existence of any particular god or goddess, as required in a rational argument that utilises logic, evidence and reason. And if that’s the case, then there can be no reason to worship or believe in any particular god or goddess; and no reason for the frankly banal debates such as the Hitchens-McGrath debate.

God and Primo Levi in Auschwitz

The work of Primo Levi is as important as it is moving and brilliantly written on the subjects of Auschwitz, the Holocaust and Nazism, particularly If This Is A Man and The Truce. There is nothing in human history that compares with the industrial genocide conducted with the ruthless efficiency and cruelty by the Nazis between 1943 and 1945, and so remains the keenest test of belief in God.

Levi as a “non-believer” and “secular” Jew does not deal with the question of belief in God. However, in The Drowned And The Saved, there is a remarkable passage with respect to his disbelief, and one that deserves to be quoted verbatim on this blog. For me, it is an astonishing testimony of what a coherent and intellectually honest disbelief in supernatural deities can mean, and also provides a rejoinder – if one were needed – to the claims often made by theists that, when faced with death, people will turn to a god, either in the proverbial saying that there are “no atheists in foxholes”, or perhaps when faced with a terminal illness.

Levi in The Drowned And The Saved writes of the only occasion when he was tempted to pray:

This happened in October of 1944, in the one moment in which I lucidly perceived the imminence of death. Naked and compressed among my naked companions with my personal index card in hand, I was waiting to file past the ‘commission’ that with one glance would decide whether I should immediately go into the gas chamber or was instead strong enough to go on working. For one instant I felt the need to ask for help and asylum; then despite my anguish, equanimity prevailed: you do not change the rules of the game at the end of the match, nor when you are losing. A prayer under these conditions would have been not only absurd (what rights could I claim? and from whom?) but blasphemous, obscene, laden with the greatest impiety of which a non-believer is capable. I rejected the temptation: I knew that otherwise, were I to survive, I would have to be ashamed of it (The Drowned and the Saved, 1989 Abacus edition: p118).

The 11th Februrary was the anniversary of Levi’s incarceration at Auschwitz.

Sharia law in the UK?

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has quite rightly been criticised for his comments regarding the inevitably of Sharia law in the UK yesterday.

Such a comment was always going to be a red rag to a bull for the more xenophobic inclined to shout things along the lines of, if you don’t like it here, then leave, as the BBC’s Have Your Say page illustrates. Or, indeed, to prompt populist rhetoric from politicians about British laws and British values, from the Prime Minister downwards.

Perhaps the point has been missed, though. Most people only react to the headline, but not the substance of what the Archbishop was trying to say. Sharia 0- as the Archbishop recognises – invokes the ideas of Saudi justice (for example), with its beheadings, stonings, and limited legal protection for women, to say the least. However, the crux of what he was getting at is this (and it’s worth quoting at length). For as he says:

[...] my aim is only, as I have said, to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state, with a few thoughts about what might be entailed in crafting a just and constructive relationship between Islamic law and the statutory law of the United Kingdom.

His point is that:

[...] there is some community of understanding between Islamic social thinking and the categories we might turn to in the non-Muslim world for the understanding of law in the most general context. There is a recognition that our social identities are not constituted by one exclusive set of relations or mode of belonging – even if one of those sets is regarded as relating to the most fundamental and non-negotiable level of reality, as established by a ‘covenant’ between the divine and the human (as in Jewish and Christian thinking; once again, we are not talking about an exclusively Muslim problem). The danger arises not only when there is an assumption on the religious side that membership of the community (belonging to the umma or the Church or whatever) is the only significant category, so that participation in other kinds of socio-political arrangement is a kind of betrayal. It also occurs when secular government assumes a monopoly in terms of defining public and political identity. There is a position – not at all unfamiliar in contemporary discussion – which says that to be a citizen is essentially and simply to be under the rule of the uniform law of a sovereign state, in such a way that any other relations, commitments or protocols of behaviour belong exclusively to the realm of the private and of individual choice. [emphasis added]

That last point is the key to what Williams was trying to say; here he has in mind the the row over not allowing Catholic adoption agencies to discriminate against homosexuals under the Sexual Orientation Regulations last year (an example he cites elsewhere).

The real point that he’s making, the one lost under all the furore over Sharia law, is not one about immigration or Muslims in particular. Rather, he seeks religious-based privileges to opt out of the secular laws in a secular country. To do so, he is trying to argue that there is more than one legal community to which one can belong, one that reflects your culture as well as the state in which you happen to reside. He claims that there needn’t be a conflict between them.

On this, he misses the point of a secular society. A secular society would not privilege any interest group – religious or otherwise – with their own legal systems and exemptions from the law. In that respect, religious groups have no more right to be taken notice of than any other pressure group, such as Greenpeace or CND. Which is why there should be no bishops in the House of Lords, nor should the Head of State should be the head of an organised religion.

At least, however, he has recognised the secular reality and has not called for a return to Christian Britain, as others have done recently (see previous posts). Unfortunately, the Archbishop has misjudged the mood of country, which is extremely reactionary on matters regarding Islam and immigration (which are more or less considered (wrongly) to be synonymous). It demonstrates the way in which the UK is unable to have an intelligent public debate with subtle nuances of argument and detail. He should have known better.

Free to blaspheme… soon. Maybe.

The word is that New Labour may be about to abolish the centuries old blasphemy laws. This is probably the only true victimless “crime” on the statute book, as things stand. More importantly, it is a potentially serious threat to the freedom of speech, which is simply not acceptable in today’s Britain. This comes a month after the High Court ruling against a Christian fundamentalist group that tried to use the law to prosecute the BBC for showing Jerry Springer – The Opera.

Asides from the obvious free speech argument, this episode also highlighted the discrepancies in the law as it stands – that it doesn’t cover theatres or tv and radio broadcasts, and only applies to the Christian god.

The last time the blasphemy law was used successfully was in a 1977 private prosecution by the anti-free speech campaigner, Mary Whitehouse – and arguably it was an anomaly then. No doubt, though, we’ll get another piece by some Bishop before long complaining that the repealing of this law undermines British morality in some way, and conveniently forgetting that this law is an example of what happens when a society is run for the good of one particular religion in the first place: it willingly criminalises those who offer different opinions to their accepted orthodoxy.

Bishop attacks multiculturalism

The recent piece in the Sunday Telegraph by the Bishop of Rochester is yet another misguided intervention by a senior member of clergy. It follows what by now should be a familier path – one from the Right, attacking multiculturalism and misunderstanding the nature of our secular society.

To begin with, it’s simply false to claim that there are “no-go” areas in the UK today – I notice that the Bishop fails to cite which areas he has in mind.

The point the Bishop is trying to argue (one familiar by now) is that Britain should go back to being a Christian country, the implication being that that is its true identity. The claim is that it is the is a ‘Christian character of the nation’s laws, values, customs and culture’ and a ‘Christian vision which underlay most of the achievements and values of the culture’. Big claims, indeed.

However, without even getting involved in a debate as to what is actually meant by these things, and which laws, customs (fox hunting?), culture (football?), “values” and “acheivements” are being referred to, it is enough to ask if it is not possible for a post-Christian society, such as the one we know live in, to also have both “values” and “acheivements”, customs and culture. We can, for example, strive to live up to the values expressed in the European Convention on Human Rights, or in the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights (something which the UK government still refuses to sign up to). Our customs and culture are now those of a post-Christian society.

The Bishop claims that Britain has lost its

vision of its destiny which made it great. That has to do with the Bible’s teaching that we have equal dignity and freedom because we are all made in God’s image.

Of course, there is this myth that Britain was “great” and it isn’t any more. I’m not sure when the Bishop thinks that Britain was “great” – 1975? 1875? However, even within living memory, Britain has had an Empire – and whatever happened in those countries, and how and why, and the extent to which it was detrimental or beneficial, none of those things, and none of the motives behind Empire, had anything whatsoever to do with a vision of ‘equal dignity and freedom’, but more to do with a feeling of superiority.

I’m not sure that at any time but in the last fifty or sixty years could anyone claim that “equal dignity and freedom” have ever been Christian values – if they have, they have also been ones that have apparently been forgotten for most of the history of Christianity, and, anyway, are hardly unique to Christianity. The same may be said of the other “values” he claims for Christianity – compassion, justice, humility, sacrifice and service

The real point that the Bishop wishes to make, in fact, is an anti-Islamic one. He wants to portray Christianity – and by default Britain, because in his view the two go hand in hand – as somehow under threat from Islamism (hence ‘It is now less possible for Christianity to be the public faith in Britain’), but which could in fact be hardly be further from the truth.

The fact is that this country is overwhelmingly secular, and it therefore makes no sense to have a ‘public faith’. Its institutions are not somehow intrinsic to a British identity. If Christianity in this country wants to survive, it should do it without State privilege.

atheistic fundamentalism?

In the so-called season of goodwill, the Archbishop of Wales has made an attack on what he sees as ‘atheistic fundamentalism’, whatever that is. It is difficult to see how one can be a fundamentalist atheist. An atheist can’t disbelieve in a deity to a greater or lesser degree: it’s a simply either/or option where one either believes there is a god or that there isn’t. Likewise, religious fundamentalists do not believe in a god to a “greater degree” that their fellow non-fundamentalist religious worshippers. The difference between them, religious fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists, is one of ideology and intepretation of holy text, neither of which atheism has.

Either way, this “fundamentalist atheism”, in the view of the Archbishop, is apparently responsible for two events in particular: the Winterval festival in Birmingham, in 1997 and 1998, and the recent dispute involving a BA employee’s run in with BA’s dress code.

We have be careful of the “political correctness gone mad” elephant trap. It’s clear that Christmas was never “banned”, and neither was its name changed, in Birmingham: the term ‘Winterval’ was a blanket term to cover a variety of celebrations that occurred during late November and December, of which Christmas was the central event.

Likewise, the facts of the BA case are equally mundane. The Christian Cross was never banned, but the wearing of necklaces outside of clothing was. The emphasis is important – it’s not an anti-religious or anti-Christian edict, but a dresscode with the (no doubt unintended consequence) that would include any necklace with a religious symbol. The reason that came about was simply because no one has ever claimed that the Christian cross on a necklace was part of the Christian faith, one as recognisable as the Sikh Turban, for example. It has echoes of the Great Silver Ring Thing Scandal about the same time – there was no ban against Christian symbols as such, but a ban on jewellry. The essential point in both is the same: neither rings nor crucifixes are central, ideological, manifestations of the Christian faith, and so these dress codes did not seek to include any exception for allegedly “Christian” jewellry.

That these events are cynically distorted by such a senior figure as the Archbishop of Wales is disgraceful, not least because it gives propagates the myth that these event represent rather than the more mundane truth.

Nevertheless, that he saw fit to say such a thing is probably part of the same phenomena, noted before, where the Right in particular is using Christianity to re-label Britain culturally, and to make it easier to divide people into “them” and “us”. In this particular case, the issue is more subtle.

As was said before, we are a largely secular country, hence the news (for example) that more people shopped online than went to an Anglican service. In itself, it is not a surprising story – it only points to the growing use of the internet to shop online, which has been a trend noted before, anyway. As every Sunday testifies, the overwhelming majority of the population are out and about in the High Street, shopping in person, rather than in any Church, Anglican or otherwise.

The point here is that it is not “fundamentalist atheism” (whatever that is) that is responsible for this trend, but the growth of the of the consumer society in the last sixty years or more, and the parallel decline of Christian worship. Hence, the blaming of nefarious atheists for the woes of Christianity, to the point of distorting fact to promulgate myth, must be to try and create, firstly, a sense of identity, and, secondly, a sense that this identity is threatened in some way.

But if not by athiests, who? Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society was quoted in the 2000 Guardian article linked to above as suggesting Islam. Multiculturalism – something that is now openly attacked by the Right – might be more accurate in the dying embers of 2007. It seems to fit into a coalition of interests emerging that is attempting to redefine Englishness and Britishness along exclusive, “them and us”, lines.

Whatever the real reason, it demonstrates the sectarian nature of religion generally, especially when it’s used for political ends. To then claim, as the Archbishop does, that “God is not exclusive, he is on the side of the whole of humanity with all its variety” is laughable, not least because God by any Christian view necessarily excludes those who do not accept Jesus as their Saviour.

Even more on Christmas…

Very interesting to see that Polly Toynbee in today’s Guardian has written an article that makes the some of the points I made ten days ago – right down to citing Dawkins’ “coming out” as a Christmas carol lover…

On her postage stamp point – the ONLY stamps available at my local shop were the Christmas stamps, and a book of twelve at that, too. It means I’ll be sending Christmas stamps in March, given the rate at which I use them…