Was Paradise Lost?

The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is one of the most symbolically important in the Bible. Coming right at the beginning of the pentateuch, it acts as a necessary set-up to much of the rest of the Old and New Testaments and the religions they have inspired. The story holds within it one of the most fundamental tenets of Christianity - the inherent sinfulness of man - and therefore the entire justification for the sacrifice of Christ.

Being of such central importance, the Eden story is one of the best known of the Bible, taught early to young children. The story and its apparent message are ubiquitously known by anyone who has any knowledge of Christianity or Judaism:

God created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden of Eden to take care of everything inside it. God told them that they could eat from any tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - if they ate that, they would die. A talking serpent then approached Eve, tempting her to eat the forbidden fruit and to convince Adam to do the same. God found out and punished them (acting extremely surprised considering his omniscience), casting them out of Eden and never again allowing them the pure and idyllic life they had been blessed with before.

It has seemed to me for a long time that the general interpretation of this story, that the serpent leads the naive humans to sin and therefore turn away from God's grace, is extremely skewed and that an objective interpretation, unencumbered by our society's ubiquitous framing of the story, would lead to a different conclusion.

I believe a useful comparison to this story exists in sci-fi literature. This may seem like something of a digression, but bear with me a minute and consider almost any dystopian future story you can think of.

In Orwell's 1984, for example, the society is ideal. There is almost no crime or disorder. Citizens are patriotic and dedicated to their land and their leader. But the cost of this apparent societal harmony is the ability of its members to question, to enquire, to think freely. Thought Police exist to make sure that nobody starts to question their situation or to pull away from the herd. If anybody does, they are quickly disciplined and brought back into line, or quietly removed so that the greater peace can be comfortably maintained. In many ways 1984's society is without many of the problems that mar all modern civilisations, but the cost is true self-knowledge and the freedom to question.

Consider also the 2002 film, Equilibrium. Here the society has left behind crime, war and dissidence. People are comfortable, ordered and productive. But here the cost is emotion. Children are taught to suppress feelings and emotions and anything created to invoke these emotions, such as art, music and poetry, is destroyed. Mood suppressing drugs are routinely distributed to keep people in line and any dissent from the rules is dealt with quickly and efficiently by a military service comparable to the Thought Police. As in 1984, from which the film clearly take great influence, an apparently perfect society is created and maintained, but at the expense of its members' humanity.

The message in both of these examples is clear: that cost is too high. Order in society is not worth giving up the freedom to question and to express ourselves. While the ideals of crimelessness and concordance are worth striving for, the costs involved in these fictional worlds are too high.

It has long struck me that Eden is very much like one of these warning fictional futures. Adam and Eve live in happy and idyllic harmony, but the cost is self-awareness, inquiry, free thought, the knowledge of good and evil.

Think through the story again. Is the pre-fall garden really the blissful heaven Christians invoke, or the controlled and ignorant oppression of Orwell's vision? Is God really the benevolent and loving father disappointed by his children's harsh disobedience, or the watchful and unquestionable Big Brother, angry that his control has been questioned? Is the serpent really the evil tempter or the liberator? Are Adam and Eve fallen or enlightened?

The story is clear: God lied to Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate the fruit. The serpent told them truthfully that their eyes would be opened. If George Orwell's disturbing versions of the future taught us anything, which many claim they have, then is it really sensible to go on trusting this God?

"Atheism Causes Global Warming" -Pope

The Pope has weighed in on the issue of the environment and has come up with the expert conclusion that environmental damage is caused by disbelief in God.

"Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where is [sic] existence is denied? If the human creature's relationship with the Creator weakens, matter is reduced to egoistic possession, man becomes the "final authority," and the objective of existence is reduced to a feverish race to possess the most possible."

No, Pope, it's not true.

Isn't it a bit of a coincidence that the vast majority of the big car-driving, unfettered capitalism-supporting contingent in the US who see it as their right to pollute belong to the conservative and overwhelmingly Christian right? Or that the people who are driving the environmental movement, upon which the Vatican has finally seen fit to comment, are largely liberal and less religiously inclined?

The problem, as is often the case, is one of interpretation. In Genesis, God creates man to "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Now, the Pope may see this as defining a caretaker role where humans are intended to use, but also to conserve and protect. However, many others have used this quote to justify, equally validly, their continued and consequenceless ravaging of the planet's resources. Manna from heaven - limitless in its divine provision.

Of course, it's certainly not for me to say which interpretation is correct, even if such a decision were possible or meaningful. The point is that the Pope's assertion that atheism breeds an egotistical drive to use up limited resources, while belief cures this drive is clearly untrue. Christians are perfectly able to indulge in environmentally unfriendly practices - and they can point to their godly justifications too.

Christianity, when taken fairly literally, does not encourage long term planning. In one view, life on Earth can be seen as little more than an audition for eternity. Why make provisions for future generations when surely a just God with future-viewing omniscience and a grand plan will have it covered? Apparently 55% of Americans believe in the rapture and 36% believe that the book of Revelation is a true prophecy. And if Jesus' words that the second coming will occur within the lifetimes of some of his listeners deserve any creedence whatsoever, then we must already be on heavily borrowed time. Given this world view, why should you plan for generations beyond your own?

For atheists, however, there is no assurance of a godly nanny who will clear up the toys after we're gone and no belief that we hold any special position in the world with dominion granted to us. Only we are accountable for the future of our children and our species - and whether that future is worth living in is up to us.

God Hates Us All

One of the most contraversial and widely hated groups in America is the Westboro Baptist Church. Following wide-spread media attention, and features by journalists such as Louis Theroux, their methods of picketing the funerals of victims of anti-gay hate crime, as well as service men, with slogans such as “God hates fags” and “Thank God for 9/11″ have become well known and widely despised.

Their behaviour has earned them myriad lawsuits and numerous arrests. For example, in 1995, Benjamin Phelps, the grandson of the church’s founder, was convicted of assault for spitting in the face of a passer-by during one of their regular pickets. In 2007, the father of a marine whose funeral was picketed successfully sued them for damages amounting to $5m.

Most people’s reaction to hearing or reading about this group’s actions tends to be disbelief and disgust. How could anyone be this callous? How could anyone show so little respect for their fellow humans? The answer, of course, is that they believe they are doing God’s work.

Homosexuality, they assert, “pose[s] a clear and present danger to the survival of America, exposing our nation to the wrath of God as in 1898 B.C. at Sodom and Gomorrah”. They interpret the Bible in such a way that they believe it is the job of anyone who truly believes in God’s greatness to war against “workers of iniquity”, and this includes gay people, and those who accept them and enable them to lead their lives. They picket the funerals of soldiers and service men because “they voluntarily joined a fag-infested army to fight for a fag-run country now utterly and finally forsaken by God who Himself is fighting against that country.”

Quite rightly, the WBC has drawn criticism from Christian religious groups just as it has from non-religious and other-religious groups. Perhaps Christians find their rhetoric more offensive because they claim to be speaking for God and on behalf of those who truly follow him. Perhaps they are also worried that actions like this from one Christian group will bring disrepute upon the whole church and be a shot in the foot for the whole mission of the glorification of God. Perhaps they particularly dislike the way they twist the words of the Bible to justify their hateful position.

To despise this group on humanistic grounds, for their hideous disrespect of humanity is reasonable and, in my opinion, absolutely correct. However to criticise them on religious scriptural grounds is not. The reason is that the WBC does not twist the words of the Bible to justify their position - they don’t need to - those hateful words are there already.

The WBC point to Psalms 5:5, “The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity”; Proverbs 6:16-19, “These six things doth the Lord hate:… he that soweth discord among brethren”; Psalms 11:5, “The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth”; and Malachi 1:3, “And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.”

The argument that the they are misrepresenting the Bible’s meaning, because really God loves everyone starts to look a little thin when you start to read a bit more of the Bible and come across these examples of God being unashamedly hateful towards, not just people’s actions, but people themselves. Indeed, as Skeptics’ Annotated Bible points out, one can hardly fault the group’s logic: God hates “workers of iniquity” (Psalms 5:5); homosexuality is “abomination” (Leviticus 18:22); therefore God hates fags.

I will reiterate quickly that I do not think this group deserves anything but the deepest contempt and condemnation, but for the religious to dispute them on scriptural grounds is hypocritical. What are they doing but validly, albeit selectively, quoting parts of the Bible? And this is exactly what every moderate sermon does aswell. For every John 3:16 quoted, there is a Psalms 5:5 being ignored, because to give equal weight to both would lead to so much contradiction and cognitive dissonance that no believer would know what to do with themselves.

In order for Christianity to function as a religion, the Bible needs to be read selectively, or at least certain passages need to be interpreted liberally. So it should be no surprise that there is one group that pays attention to those bits that everyone else leaves out, and who saves their liberal interpretations for those sections that others might prefer to take literally. This is the problem with the claim that the Bible offers any sort of revealed moral teaching – without engaging the evolved humanist moral sense to overlook the contradictions and to only pay attention to the positive messages, the Bible can be used to justify violence and hate just as well as it can love and compassion.

The Westboro Baptist Church are a disgusting group, but theirs are the same tools that are used in every pulpit every Sunday. A long, ambiguous book of myths can be used to justify any moral position, for real goodness, we must look to the evolved sense to protect ourselves, our families and our species that we all have without having to take any book’s word for it.

Five Things Atheists Don't Want You to Know

I always enjoy reading descriptions of atheists written by the sort of deeply religious people who seem to have never met one. Generalisations and bizarre false beliefs tend to abound. It always brings to my mind the image of a stooping elderly grandmother cautioning a young child of beasts that lurk on the moors at night. "Beware the Godless, my child," they seem to caution, "they have not hearts like we have. And they feed on good children like you."

An excellent example has appeared in the letters to the editor of the Red Deer Express, a community newspaper in Alberta. I must admit, I found this through Pharyngula - I don't just routinely scan through all Canadian newspapers in the hope of gloriously eccentric characterisations of atheists.

Anyway, in response to an on-going discussion about atheism, this writer explains:

Being the hot topic of the day, any discussion of atheism, should include
these ‘difficult to admit’ points:

And then goes on to list five points that atheists would rather people not know about them.

Firstly, atheists claim that they themselves are god. They claim they have superior knowledge then the rest of us by trying to say that they have better knowledge because of their own thinking. They will not acknowledge anyone else to be above them.

"They claim they have superior knowledge then (sic) the rest of us by trying to say that they have better knowledge because of their own thinking." Uh... They claim to have "superior knowledge" because they have "better knowledge"? Buh?

I'm not sure what she means when she says "they will not acknowledge anyone else to be above them". Biologically, I don't acknowledge anyone above me. I see all organisms around today on an equal level, since by our survival each of us has proven our fitness to be here (perhaps excepting the panda, which seems to be doing it's best to become extinct, thwarted only by the tenacious efforts of a handful of Chinese zoologists). I also do not see myself, or humanity in general, above any other species. Each species that survives must be equally well evolved for their surroundings.

But on a human level, I happily accept the hierachical organisation of society that puts some (or most, in fact) people in positions of more power than me.

And I certainly do not think I am god. But, an important part of rationalism is always admitting that you might be wrong.

Secondly, atheists have been hurt somewhere in their lives, can’t understand suffering, and are mad at God — so it is easier to deny there is one.

Wow, that's quite a generalisation. Some atheists have been hurt in their lives, just as some Christians have, and so have some Buddhists and some Muslims. Everyone has been hurt to a greater or lesser extent in their lives, so this point is irrelevant. And I don't understand why atheists shouldn't be able to understand suffering.

It's also a contradiction in terms: we are mad at God so we deny there is one? We're not mad at god precisely because we deny there is one. How can being angry at something lead you to decide that it doesn't exist?

Thirdly, atheists are looking for God for the same reason a thief would be looking for a police officer. They don’t want to be accountable to a higher being because of the wrong things they do.

No, atheists are looking for God for the same reason a thief would be looking for the toothfairy. We're not. Because we don't believe it exists.

Fourthly, atheists forget that when a person goes to a museum and admires a painting, that there was a painter/designer of that art piece. The art piece is absolute evidence of a painter and not caused by random nothingness.

All of the world, stars, animals, plants, oceans, and mountains are absolute proof of a divine intelligent being (beyond our human ability and thinking) who made these things.

Can the atheist make a tree? It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do. It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do. What more proof does an atheist need than their own heart pumping in their chest without them commanding their heart to pump each beat in perfect timing each and every second necessary?

This is a common way of phrasing the argument from design. You can see a painting and you know it was made by a painter, therefore the Earth/a tree/humans/a sponge/HIV or whatever must have been made by some kind of designer too. The problem is, the logic doesn't follow. Just because one or two or any number of things have been created in one way, doesn't mean that everything else was made the same way. In fact, a wall may be green because a painter has worked on it, but a leaf is not green for the same reason.

She uses some interesting examples to make her point:

"Can the atheist make a tree?"

Well, no. But surely this is as much an argument against the tree being created as anything else.

"It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly"

This was believed for some time since a couple of French entomologists suggested that bees' flight defied aerodynamics in 1934. However, unfortunately for this writer, the flight of bees has been thoroughly explained since the '30s and is no longer a mystery. Plus, on a note of pedantry, saying something is scientifically impossible doesn't really make any sense. The best she could have said is that it was unexplained by science.

"It is impossible for our eyes to see"

This claim is a little more myserious. I'm not sure on what basis she has decided that vision should be impossible, but it clearly isn't, and in fact eyes are very well understood by biologists.

"Their own heart pumping in their chest without them commanding their heart to pump each beat"

It's fairly obvious after even the briefest moment of consideration that we don't need to consciously attend to everything our body does. I don't need to purposefully tell my lungs to take in air every few seconds. I don't even really need to think too hard about what I want my limbs to do. What is the writer suggesting? That God is constantly monitoring the heart and breathing rates of every human, and every other animal, all the time? If that's the alternative, the idea that our brain stem can automate our bodily functions sounds considerably more plausible. And if you factor in the biological and physiological evidence we have that this is, indeed, the case, the writer's argument starts to look rather misguided.

Fifthly, denial is a strong coping mechanism in crisis, but does not serve anyone in the long run. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, an atheist denies God not because God does not exist—but because the atheist doesn’t want God to exist and does not want to see the truth and evidence in front of their eyes.

I would rather believe in God and make sure my life is doing what is acceptable to this Superior Being than to not believe in God and find out I will be accountable to this God for everything I’ve done after I die. With 84% of the world’s population believing in the existence of God, I think the majority rules in this case.

I wonder what reason the writer would give if asked why she does not pray to Allah five times a day, or why she does not hold the cow as sacred, or why she does not sacrifice livestock to Neptune before embarking on travel. Is she denying these other faiths because she does not want them to be true? Isn't the evidence of these faiths just as close in front of her eyes as the evidence of hers is in front of ours? She cheerfully lives her life as an atheist to all other gods yet criticises those who do not believe in hers.

She would rather believe in God and make sure her life is doing what is acceptable to this Superior Being, but she is not taking into account the other superior beings whose existence is equally likely and equally self-evident. She is almost certainly not doing what is acceptable to them.

She ends with the argument ad populum. Apart from the fact that the popularity of an idea has no baring on its veracity, she also ignores the fact that, even if 84% of people believe in God (the statistics I found indicate that 86% are religious although only 54% are monotheistic), they certainly don't all believe in the same god. Even those that do believe in the same god often disagree wildly in what sorts of behaviour will please him/her/it. Personally I do not agree that the majority rules in this, or any, case.

A Few Videos

Here are a few videos I've seen recently that I think are worth being passed on.

NASA's LRO launch


This is from a webcam aboard NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter which launch a couple of days ago. This really is an awe-inspiring video, and it's incredible to see just how far up it goes in the six minutes of the video.
Having been born on the 80s, by which time the 1969 moon landing was just another piece of history, I find it interesting to wonder just how incredible it must have seemed at the time to see mankind make it's first steps to another body in the solar system.
Even if a manned mission to Mars launched in our lifetimes, I doubt it will be as much of a landmark as the moon landing was at the time. So it's a shame that, like all history, time has devalued its importance in the collective minds of those born since the 70s.

Colliding Particles


Part 4 of the brilliant Colliding Particles series of videos about CERN's work at the LHC. These videos are both informative and artful. Even though my knowledge and understanding of particle physics and of CERN's work could be politely described as woefully lacking, these videos manage to remain constantly fascinating, perhaps due to the humour and humanity with which they approach the subjects.

What would Jesus not do?


NonStampCollector has made a ton of brilliant videos. He excels in finding areas of Christianity whose lack of logic makes them worthy of intense ridicule, and then goes about delivering that ridicule expertly.
I think that humour and satire are probably among the greatest weapons sceptics and atheists have in fighting silly beliefs. I like to think that every time Eddie Izzard, Ricky Gervais or Tim Minchin mercilessly mock a certain stupid inconsistency of Christianity, for example, a few comedy fans who had previously been on the fence might lose just a little bit more grip on their belief.

Instruction Manual for Life


This nice and oddly haunting conceit aptly demonstrates the divisive nature of organised religion.

Opeth - Coil (live)


And for something comepletely different, a beautiful song by Opeth. When the vocals come in on the second verse, it gives me shivers.
To get the full power of the song, though, you need to listen to it in the context of the album where it is followed by the bludgeoningly heavy opening of Heir Apparent.

Metal is our Religion is better than...

The following post was originally written as an anouncement to members of the Facebook cause, Metal is our Religion.

Everyone knows the staples of any good religion are self-congratulatory smugness, insidious sectarianism, a dogmatic reluctance to try to relate with others and the odd superficial nod towards good deeds. In the spirit of at least three of these, it’s worth having a look at some other belief systems that Metal is our Religion is better than.

Christianity

I admit Christianity certainly has some good points, most notably the fact that it worships a long-haired zombie king who plans to come back to Earth to stage an epic final battle against the devil. However, Metal can match any religion in terms of zombies – Phil Anselmo, Nikki Sixx, Slash and Dave Mustaine have all died and it didn’t take three days of hanging around for them to come back and start touring again. And as for long hair, I think it would be foolish for anyone to argue that Metal doesn’t win on that count.

Aside from its plus points, Christianity also has a few worrying factors that count against it, such as:
1. The size of its holy book
- I like to read, but an inch thick tome where each tracing paper page is filled with multiple columns of tiny text? I’ll wait for the film to come out, thanks. Then I’ll watch it when it comes on TV… unless there’s something better on.

2. Transubstantiation
- The zombie god thing was going pretty well until he turned into a wafer. Not even Mike Patton would do that.

3. The fact that some of its institutions seem to have an alarmingly relaxed view on child molestation.
- I can only think of one member of the Metal world who has done anything as disgusting as the deeds found to be endemic in Irish Catholic reform schools, and that was Dave Holland, the ex-Judas Priest drummer. Tony Iommi, who he was working with at the time, promptly replaced all his drum parts as soon as he found out, an action considerably more honourably than the Vatican’s attempted cover-ups.

4. Its many historical attempts to kill anyone who doesn’t agree with them on certain details of their belief in God.
- With the possible exception of certain Norwegian black metal bands, it’s pretty unusual for members of the Metal community to kill people they disagree with. They’re more likely to pour out their anger in music, such as Machine Head’s beautifully aggressive Aesthetics of Hate. We take the moral high ground and end up with some brilliant music. Win win.

5. It’s not true.
- A problem for any belief system.

6. Inconsistencies.
- Jesus had long hair. Samson’s long hair even gave him his strength. Nevertheless, 1 Corinthians 11:14 tells us “that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him”.

7. The music.
- Alright, they’ve got Bach and Handel on their side, but I’m afraid they don’t make up for the harm caused to the world by the composition of ‘Oh When the Saints’. And when you factor in the interminable monotony of plainsong, I know which religion wins the battle for my iPod.

In conclusion, I think it is clear that the sensible choice here is to get up off the cold pew, grab your leather jacket and join the worshippers of the Riff.

To Answer Your Questions - Part 3

Part 3 of my answers to christiananswers.net's 44 Questions for the Yet-to-be-a-Believer. Part 1 and part 2 can be found elsewhere on my blog.

10. From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense?

The idea that religion is a useful source of morals is a common one. It is one of the few things that even many otherwise godless people are able to say in favour of religion. That whatever its flaws, the Bible is a useful moral guidebook is one of the most pervasive myths about religion's place in society. But it is a myth. I argue that wherever our moral sense does come from, it is certainly not from Christianity, or any religion.

For all the good messages the Bible gives ("Thou shalt not kill" etc) there are a good number of rules that vary between the vaguely ridiculous and the downright stupid. 1 Corinthians 11:14 tells us men must not have long hair; 1 Samuel 15:2-3 tells us that it is OK to kill men, women and children in the capture of a town; 1 Kings 22:21-22 tells us it is fine to lie if God tells us to; Exodus 31:13-15 tells us in no uncertain terms that anyone who works on the sabbath should be put to death; and Genesis 20:12 talks without criticism about Abraham's marriage to his sister.

And God hardly sets a good example. Between indiscriminately killing 3000 of his people in the Egyptian dessert for worshipping false idols to handing over the reins of Job's life, and those of this family, to Satan just to prove a point, God is the very image of a petty, capricious tyrant.

In general, modern Christians do not stone to death those who work on the sabbath, or marry their siblings, or keep slaves (as is approved throughout the Bible). The very fact that Christians are able to see past the stupid, nonsensical rules that fill the Bible's pages, and take note only of the sensible ones, shows that there is a moral sense inherent in us, apart from our religious upbringing. If our moral sense truly came from religion, then why shouldn't we take Lot's example and give our virgin daughters over to a rabble of men to be raped (Genesis 19:8)? Or sleep with them ourselves (Genesis 31-36)? The answer is simple: our moral sense does not come from the Bible.

So where do our morals come from? Well, there is a lot of compelling evidence that our modern moralistic and societal natures are evolved in the same way our physical attributes are. Many "human" societal conventions such as co-operation and even altruism have been observed in other animals, including those not closely evolutionarily related to us, such as ants. This implies that such social constructs are commonly evolved by species for whom it is useful to live and work together.

While these other animals may not exhibit exactly what we might subjectively call morals, it is certainly plausible to suggest that these tendencies of other social animals to adapt their behaviour to better accommodate living in proximity with others could be seen as sort of proto-morals. In any case, evolution is certainly plausible enough to reject any religious basis for the existence of a moral sense.

11. If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?

First, I should point out that calling man "nothing but the random arrangement of molecules" is something of a simplification of the scientific position on life and looks suspiciously like a deliberate strawman to attempt to invalidate the argument.

However, the answer to this question is really the same as the last part of the answer to number 10. Humans have evolved an in-built need to care and live honourably among our fellow humans. It is in-built because it is by these methods that our evolutionary ancesters were able to enjoy favour in society, find friends, find mates and generally make life easier for themselves. An individual incapable of showing care for anyone else would be snubbed by their group and lose the benefits of being part of the crowd, such as group hunting and the availablity of potential mates.

The assumption in the question is that it is only through acknowledgement of God that there is a reason to live a caring life. However, let's look at the flipside of that assumption: that a Christian, to whom, hyperthetically, it were proven there were no God, would immediately stop caring for other humans. This is clearly not the case as people with no belief in any higher power are able to lead just as caring lives as religious people as indeed people with beliefs in different gods are able to be just as caring as Christians.

The worst thing about arguments like this is that they remove people's autonomy. By creating a belief that our most basic and noble human traits are inextricably linked to a belief in God, we can deny ourselves credit for the wonderful things we do, as individuals and as a race.

God's Love - The Vatican and Rape

The Vatican has officially defended a Brazilian Bishop who ex-communicated the doctors and mother of a 9 year old girl for allowing her an abortion after she conceived twins following alleged sexual abuse by her step-father.

Cardinal Re, of the Vatican, has said that, although it was a "sad case", the girl's would-be children "had the right to live" and that "the attack on the Brazilian Church is unjustified."

To me, the Catholic position on abortion in these cases seems nonsensical. Their argument seems to be that any conception is the perfect will of omnipotent God and that it is not our place, as imperfect humans, to divert its natural course by stopping the resulting birth from taking place.

Firstly, if we imperfect humans are able to override the will of God then he can't be very omnipotent. But more importantly, this logic implies that whatever act brought about the conception was also God's will.

Pre-marital sex is wrong, we're told, but if that sex leads to conception, it was God's will. Does this mean that in certain cases, pre-marital sex is actually right? Or can that only be determined retrospectively conception results. What if that pregnancy naturally self-terminates? Was it wrong again?

This leads to this present case. If any conception is sacred, does this mean that this poor 9-year-old's alleged rape was the will of God? Is the Catholic church actually confirming that God sanctions rape in some cases? Or worse, he orders it?

Of course this is a point where the theological trump card, "God works in mysterious ways" can be played. But if those mysterious ways involve the molestation of children, the supposed benefits of this belief system start to look rather thin on the ground.

Although, of course, that has nothing to do with the veracity of the existence of God. He could exist and be a vicious, baby-raping tyrant. In fact that would fit in rather nicely with his Old Testament persona. Not so well with the "God is love" mantra, though.

Happy Birthday Darwin

So today, we wish Charles Darwin a happy birthday and remember what he did for the furtherment of our understanding of biology. He was born on this day 200 years ago, and published his most important work, Origin of Species, 150 years ago - not on this day though, he was probably too busy opening presents and playing on the bouncy castle.

Contrary to the beliefs of many a creationist (at least I'd like to think it's only creationists and not also some of the more 'moderate' christians), Darwin Day is not an atheist Christmas. Darwin has not been deified and is not seen as any sort of god of some paradoxical atheist religion. The frequency with which it is possible to see claims to the contrary on the internet is a tribute to the popularity of this strawman delusion among the rationally challenged. Perhaps I am mistaken, however on the right hand side of this page is a list of blogs I read regularly, most of which are among the most godless, scientific and sceptical on the internet, and I have never read a word on any of them that I consider evidence that anybody - scientists or atheists - hold Darwin as anything more than an admirable scientist who made a great discovery.

However, one of the many strategies of the creationist movement is to rebrand concepts to twist their meanings to their own ends. 'Creationism' becomes 'creation science', 'creation science' becomes 'intelligent design', the lowering of scholarly standards to allow intelligent design into science classes becomes 'academic freedom'. These terms they have coined are intentionally misleading and untruthful - creation science has nothing to do with science and academic freedom is merely a nice sounding name for a trojan horse attack on the standards of curriculum teaching. However, these changes of tack allow the opportunity for subtle new attacks on rationality in society.

Similarly they routinely dub evolutionists 'darwinists' (the term 'evolutionist' alone is bad enough since proponents of modern ideas of disease aren't termed 'germ theory-ists'). This label is misleading. It allows the continuation of the strawman misunderstanding that those who believe in evolution are members of a kind of sect based upon Darwin. It also gives the impression that evolutionary theory has not moved on since Darwin's Origin, thus making oft-debunked arguments based on Darwin's mistakes or, even more pathetic, his supposed death-bed conversion, all the more pursuasive to those without a decent understanding of the evidence.

Modern evolutionists (we apparently still need this label, since it is still not the default position it should be) respect Darwin as physicists respect Newton. He was a great mind who authored a significant breakthrough in biology. He is, rightly, celebrated as such.

So raise a glass and put on a party hat (or not) and enjoy Darwin Day.

Vatican says evolution does happen. But of course, God did it.

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, a representative of the Vatican, has admitted that the church has been hostile to Darwin in the past, considering the theory of evolution to run against Christian teaching. However, the church now accepts that the “time has come for a rigorous and objective valuation” of Darwin and they have concluded that maybe he wasn't so bad after all. They have now decreed that evolution is not incompatible with the Christian faith.

However, they have been slightly reticent in giving Darwin credit for his discoveries, quickly stating that evolution could be traced back to St Augustus and St Thomas Acquinas and that “in fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God”. Still it's a step in the right direction.

Ravasi's statement was also very clear in illustrating the papal position as being against Creationism and Intelligent Design. However, given that, as I understand it, most Creationists are from protestant denominations and seem generally to herald the Pope as some kind of devil anyway, I don't think that will change too many people's minds.

To Answer Your Questions - Part 2

Part 2 of my answers to christiananswers.net's 44 Questions for the Yet-to-be-a-Believer. Part 1 is here.

4. How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?

There are two ways this question could be answered. One would be to demonstrate that, similarities aside, the differences between many of the known versions of the manuscripts should be worrying enough as to render laughable the concept of Biblical inerrancy. The other way would be to point out that the premise of the question is based on the non-sequitur that a greater number of corresponding texts somehow implies reliability. If that were the case, the Christian New Testament could be seen as less valid than the pre-Christian Old Testament, implying that Judaism is more correct than Christianity.

I also wonder what is meant by "originals" in the question?

5. Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?

I'm not sure whether this question is intended to ask whether I can live in a consistent manner baring in mind the worldview I have, or whether I can live in a way consistent with my worldview.

Either way, the answer is yes, thanks.

6. Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?

Would it make better sense to live in the pretense that a tyrannical, judgemental being in the sky watches my every move finding reasons to condemn me to an eternity of pain unless I dedicate a certain amount of my time and effort to unreservedly thanking him and glorifying his name, rather than to live trying honestly to better understand the world through rationality and evidence, free from the disingenuous and useless dogma and misplaced certainty of an ancient 'revealed' text?

No, it would not.

7. In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to be God?

It seems odd that the Christian website is asking the atheist in what sense Jesus was a good man, since it is their premise that he was good, not mine. If Jesus was lying about being the son of God (the alternative being that such quotes were attributed to him by his chroniclers) it certainly raises the question of whether he was a conman or whether his claims of divinity were a product of delusion. Nevertheless, if the Biblical accounts of his life (beyond the claims of divinity, of course) are correct, and he did heal the sick, help the poor, preach compassion and love and defy some of the sillier Jewish rules, then it does sound like he was a good man. Although of course it is not my place to judge another man's worth - Judge not, that ye be not judged.

8. Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of Scripture?

Given that I have already rejected the idea that the scriptures are truthful, and the idea that Jesus was the son of God, the answer to this is evidently 'yes'.

9. If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the 'Good Book'?

This argument is based on the argumentum ad populum (or as I call it, the Elvis Fallacy after the claim of his 1959 album that 50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong). The truth is that any number of people can be wrong. Before it was demonstrated to be otherwise, the whole population of the world thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, but of course this did not make it so. The number of people holding an opinion has no baring on its veracity.

Question 9 is followed by a couple of follow on questions, so I'll answer those too.

-Are you aware that the Old Testament alone claims to be God's inspired word at least 2600 times?

This question appeals to the same circular reasoning of question 3 which I answered in part 1. The implication is that the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true. I could open up a new Word document now and copy and paste the words "This is the inspired word of God" 2600 times, print it out, get it bound, and then, by this logic, my magnum opus would have just as much claim to the divine well of truth as the Bible. Obviously, a book claiming something is not proof of that same book's claims.

Of course, this does not answer the question of whether I was aware of the number of times the Old Testament made claims of divine inspiration. I wasn't, but now I am. Thanks.

-Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best-seller every year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?

This is really a re-assertion of the same fallacy as question 9. Once again, the number of people to buy a particular book does not make any difference to the truth of that book's contents.

However once again, I have not answered the question. Yes, I did know that.

Part 3 will follow soon...

Terrorist ideologies suppressing free speech? Yes please

I work at a popular commercial TV company in the UK and as such, I see the company's duty logs. These are the records of all the communications received from the public: comments, complaints, questions... ok, it's mostly complaints. We get all sorts of bizarre complaints about even the most inconsequential detail, inoffensive remark or minor continuity error. However we also receive many communications from people genuinely offended by something aired.

There are certain archetypes that seem to run through these. For example, I've quickly learned that any message beginning "I read today in the Daily Mail that..." can safely be ignored. One such archetype is that of the Indignant Christian. If somebody on one of our shows takes the Lord's name in vain, portrays Jesus in any sort of comic light or, heaven forbid, seriously criticises the Christian faith, we are instantly flooded with the written equivalent of loud tuts and wagged fingers. We are briskly reminded that the church is a large part of Britain's history, that the Queen is the Defender of the Faith, that the viewer has the right not to have their beliefs belittled or their sensibilities offended.

While I personally believe that the ideal of free speech doesn't at all guarantee you the right not to be offended or have your beliefs belittled, and that one should only hold an opinion or belief if one is prepared to either defend it or live with its criticism, I can still understand why we receive these messages. However, there is a specific argument that is sometimes used in these complaints that I find deeply insidious. This argument generally goes something like the following: You shouldn't insult our lord Jesus because it offends us Christians. You wouldn't say that about Muhammad would you?

Now, let's look at the implications of that argument. The suggestion is that we wouldn't criticise Muhammad because the consequences could be too serious: hate campaigns, bombings and fatwas have resulted from such criticism. The modern reluctance to question Islam comes as a result of these terrorist activities which have been carried out by factions of fundamentalists whose aim is exactly that: to silence dissent and enquiry by making the consequences of criticism too great. This ideology of terrorism goes directly against the ideals of free speech that are central to the way of life which we in democratic countries fight to protect.

When someone asserts that we shouldn't criticise Christianity because we wouldn't do the same to Islam, they are implicitly giving their support to that terrorist ideal and forgetting that Islam's present imperviousness to evaluation has been bought with the blood of many innocent victims.

When people decry our society's permissive attitude to making fun of Christianity as against its reluctance to do the same of Islam, they have it the wrong way round. It is good that we are able to say what we like about Christianity because it is on that basis that free speech exists. As soon as a religion succeeds in marking itself out of bounds from jokes, satire or criticism, that religion may win a superficial battle, but it is our very ideal of freedom which bears the consequences of that meretricious victory.

Sir David Attenborough

As if Sir David Attenborough wasn't already enough of a legend, in an interview in the most recent edition of the Radio Times, he has spoken about his lack of belief in God ("It never really occurred to me to believe in God"), evolution ("Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, every bit as much as the historical fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066"), and death threats from Christians - ("They tell me to burn in hell and good riddance").

He also recounts a great response to the argument from design. When people ask him why he doesn't credit God in his nature programmes:

"They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds.
I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in East Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball.

The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs.

I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

As Russell Brand said of the Christian right after joking about chastity at the 2008 VMAs, "for a people that believe in forgiveness, they ain't half willing to pop a cap in your arse."

To Answer Your Questions - Part 1

ChristianAnswers.net, home of unwitting comedian Ray Comfort, has a patronisingly titled list of 44 questions for the "not-yet-a-believer". It claims that "in fact, considering the evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle of those who believe than to join it". Therefore, the sceptic is challenged to answer a long list of questions designed to challenge their misplaced faith in rationality and free though.

I love doing a good test. I was probably the only person at school who looked forward to spelling tests. I even love filling in those questionnaires about the service at hotels. So a test aiming to make not-yet-believers question why they're not Christians sounds like great fun.

As there are 44 questions, I will post up my answers a few at a time because to answer them all in one go would probably stall the internet. Here are the first few:

1. How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe?

There are so many answers that could be given to this, and they have all been given before: here and here, for example, so I will be relatively brief.

The appearance of design and order is an illusion, perfectly well accounted for by scientific models and theories of the origins, and progressions, of life and the universe. Modern organisms are products of evolution - the mechanism whereby only the genes of those animals fit enough to mate are passed on and therefore attributes that aid survival in an environment generally carry on in a population while attributes that hinder survival do not. This theory well explains the many beautiful and complex attributes we can observe in ourselves and every other living organism.

Our perception of our environment as designed is a flipside to this same process. Over millions of years we have evolved to best fit the environment in which we live. Where things in nature seem to have been designed for us, the truth is almost exactly the opposite: we have, by the blind forces of an unknowable and uncaring biological and physical process, been shaped over millions of years to fit that nature.

It is also worth quickly looking at the premise of the question and wondering whether the universe even has a "high degree of design and order". While there are plenty of lovely things in the world - Ray Comfort's banana of course being one of them (although not exactly as God designed), there are also plenty of terrible, uncaring things that make life difficult for us, like cancers and viruses. And for all the wonderful apparent order of something like the eye, there is the uselessness of vestigiality.

2. How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?

I was unaware that there was "vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories", being of the understanding that there were many parts of the Bible that lacked any outside substantiation. So with interest I followed a link that accompanied the question, concisely entitled In what ways have archaeological discoveries verified it?

The link contains a list of five examples of people or events in the Bible that have been accounted for by evidence outside the Bible. In each case, the example is of a relatively inconsequential detail, such as whether Solomon really was as wealthy as we're told. There is no mention of any of the slightly more damning archaeological cases against the Bible, such as the lack of evidence for a world-wide flood, the lack of evidence of an Arc, the lack of evidence that kangaroos and koalas managed to get from the middle east to Australia after the flood or the pretty scant evidence that the exodus even took place - especially since somewhere near mount Sinai should be the corpses of 3000 idol-worshipping Israelites.

Given that they haven't accounted for any of these major inconsistencies, I refute the question's premise that there is "vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories".

3. Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible is of Divine origin?

Again, the link that accompanies this question gives aloof descriptions of these fulfilled prophecies, similar to the archaeological evidences of the last question. The main point they make is that, in the Old Testament, many prophecies were made that were fulfilled in the New Testament, many of them by Jesus. Let us remember however that prophecies of saviours, second comings and redemption are common to many mythologies and that a burgeoning religious group would do well to capitalise on such prophecies to give themselves extra weight. An author writing about the life of a man they believe to be the Messiah would not necessarily be exempt from the temptations of augmenting facts with details that would tie into the ancient and revered prophecies of the Hebrew scriptures, in order to convince fellows Jews of Jesus' divinity. Most of the prophecies of the Old Testament, like those of Nostradamus and of many modern psychics, are characteristically woolly and unspecific and therefore easy to mold to any agenda if desired.

Question 3 is followed by a few specific examples, so I will address these.

- Explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion (Psalm 22) 1000 years previous to crucifixion being established as a form of capital punishment?

Psalm 22 only has a few lines which could refer to the actual circumstances of the death of Christ and although the piercing of hands and feet is described, there is no mention of being affixed to anything, let alone a cross. Therefore I think it is fair to question whether this is a description of crucifixion since any mention of the most distinguishing element of this mode of punishment is omitted. While crucifixion may not have been established at the time of writing of the psalms, other punishments involving nails, hands and feet may have been.

- How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?

There is substantial evidence to say that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem at all. Robin Lane Fox's Truth and Fiction in the Bible contains a very clear break down of all the evidence that contradicts the Biblical and traditional accounts of Jesus' birth. To mercilessly paraphrase his far more thorough explanation: Joseph would not have been required to travel to the town of his birth had their been a census, any census would only be interested in where people live now. If there had been a census ordered by Quirinius, it would not have applied to Joseph anyway as Nazareth was still self-governing. Although a census, ordered by Quirinius, is recorded by Josephus, it was 10 years after the death of King Herod who died in 4BC.

The story placing Jesus' birth in Bethlehem at the time of both Herod and Quirinius was therefore most likely a specific attempt by the authors of Matthew and Luke (or some earlier oral tradition) to fulfil Micah's prophecy to lend weight to the idea that Jesus was the saviour.

- Account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48 (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in one person, i.e Jesus.

This seems like an extremely odd way to ask this question. Why 48 of 300? Why the use of numerical odds altogether? I can only assume this is a cunning ploy to attempt to fool otherwise scientifically minded people that they know what they're talking about.

However, as I have already discussed, prophecies fulfilled within the Bible - especially in events recounted by people who have a personal or political interest in conveying and spreading their message - cannot be taken credulously as evidence of anything.

- How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it occurred?

This might as well be the same question as the last two. I do not accept the premise that there was a virgin birth and therefore I do not accept the supposed fulfilment of this prophecy as evidence of anything.

These last three examples have all used a type of circular reasoning characteristic of defenders of Biblical inerrancy. The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true.

Part 2 will follow soon...