Deon Barnard

As a comic book fan I was thoroughly impressed and entertained by Thor. That is not to say that I feel the same about all comic book films at all. I gnashed my teeth and pulled my hair out during the early Batman films, and let’s not even talk about the disasters that were Daredevil and Elektra! I’d also like to see an adult version of Spiderman some time… but back to Thor.

Director Kenneth Branagh really went the extra mile to keep the characters, atmosphere and locations true to the Thor we all (or at least some of us) know and love from the comics. Thor’s outfit was from the ‘Ultimate Thor/Avengers’ arc which was slightly disappointing only because I went to some trouble to create myself a Thor helmet which I proudly wore around the mall for the movie trip, only to discover that Thor wore no helmet at all throughout the film and a whole pile of youngsters probably thought I was in the wrong cinema or something.

In general films portray a slightly, if not tremendously watered down version of a comic book mythology, which is not surprising when you’re trying to squeeze 30 or 40 years of intricate story telling into just under two hours. Thor I felt was different. The movie incorporated an enormous amount of the original fluff from the comics and even added certain elements that improved the buy-in-ability of the whole fiction. In the movie they downplay the ‘God’ nature of Thor by using, among other things, one of my favourite sceptical quotes by Arthur C Clarke – “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Effectively Thor and his race are really advanced aliens that were worshipped as Gods by less sophisticated societies in the past (Vikings). The whole thing was far more ‘sciencey’ than ‘magicky’ – which I appreciated. Even his body armour was a type of nano-morphing-metalic-skin of some sort.

This movie had it all. For the guys – cool gadgets, one liners, mass destruction, flying tough guys, beer drinking and awesome mixed fighting styles, not to mention the lead actress Natalie Portman… droooooool!!! For the ladies – well, a topless Chris Hemsworth, a smiling Chris Hemsworth, Chris Hemsworth in a cool Thor outfit, etc..

The comedy timing was great! I laughed out loud regularly to the annoyance of a few folk sitting around me. There’s a particularly cool moment where the human Chris Hemsworth becomes Thor and Natalie Portman’s character is, shall we say, impressed. I won’t give it away.

As has been the build-up in the Hulk and Iron Man movies, there were the usual references in Thor to the existence of… well, Hulk and Iron Man! And with Captain America coming up it is clear that there are plans afoot to assemble the Avengers soon, and I absolutely can’t wait!!! Under any other circumstances I’d be telling the world how DC is way cooler than Marvel, but for today, congratulations Marvel – job well done!

This movie is a must see for absolutely everyone.

Last year I offended someone with a humorous Atheist cartoon on my Facebook wall… well, I offended a few people, but I’m used to that. This particular situation was interesting however for the following reason. The person I refer to let me know he was offended and that I was losing friends by posting such things. Losing friends? I asked him what friends I was losing and he said possibly himself. There were many other statements made in the line of, “friends respect their friend’s beliefs…” etc. I found it fascinating that someone who I had seen once in five years, and had nothing in common with, felt so free to use the ‘friend’ card to get me to shut up and behave, as though the thought of losing his ‘friendship’ would strike the fear of God into me.

What it did do was make me think, “I must write a piece on friendship some day!” This is that piece.

I didn’t shut up. I didn’t behave. The reality is that this human wasn’t a friend’s backside and had no rights to insist anything from me as a friend. Friendship isn’t a weapon to be wielded when it suits. Friendship is a commitment, a journey, a sacrifice. Needless to say, this human quickly unfriended me on Facebook and vanished into the sunset from whence he came… not unlike so many others who vanished the moment I stopped believing in a God.

I have often pondered over the idea of friendship. How does it work? Who are your friends? What rights and responsibilities does friendship bestow? What is friendship not? Having discussed this issue at some of our Rumbles, and amongst friends (true friends), I have some suggestions about what a friend IS and ISN’T.

A friend is…

1. Someone who has the wellbeing of their friends in mind.
2. Someone who takes the time and effort to get in touch i.e. initiates contact.
3. Someone who speaks well of his/her friends behind their backs.
4. Someone who won’t let their friends destroy themselves.
5. Someone you look forward to spending time with.
6. Someone who honours their commitments to their friends.
7. Someone who will help you move house.
8. Someone who will bring you a meal in time of need.
9. Someone who will come to your aid in a dangerous situation.

A friend is NOT…

1. Someone who only thinks of you when you call.
2. Someone who can’t remember a thing you said because they were too busy hogging the conversation.
3. Someone who says, “I’ll be there”, and doesn’t arrive – without warning or apology.
4. Someone who says, “I’ll be there at 8″, and arrives at 9 – without warning or apology.
5. Someone who suddenly doesn’t know you anymore because they heard rumours that you believe/did something strange – without consulting you about it before jumping to conclusions.
6. Someone who is happy to take continually without a thought to giving.
7. Someone who loves to have you along at their life events, but never attends yours because, “it’s not their thing”.
8. Someone who can change their allegiances in the blink of an eye.
9. Someone who takes pleasure in pointing out your ‘faults’, but heavens forbid you point out theirs!

How do you rate as a friend? You can’t be a friend to everyone, but when you claim to be someone’s friend do you really qualify? Just a thought.

Can Atheists be moral?

This has been a topic of great debate in my online interactions with Theists. Religion, and particularly Christianity has always presented itself as the guardian of morality in the world – more and more as they find themselves having to relinquish (to science) their claim of ‘guardian of the mysteries of how the universe works’. Morality is one of the only things they have left to feel authorative about. But was morality ever their domain to begin with, and do they really have any authority in this area at all? As I’m sure you’ve already guessed my answers are no, and no.

Morality is the understanding that something is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, often replaced with ‘good’ or ‘evil’.

Let’s start with Christian claims to moral authority in the world. I will concede that if there really was a God who made everything, and he/it (could God really have gender) happens to be the God of the Jews and Christians, and that Jesus really is his son, and that the bible really is the inspired word of God, perfect in all its apparent contradictions… then sure, Christians would have authority in the area of morality.

Basically, the very definition of what is moral or not would be dictated by whatever set of rules the Christians (directed by God) wrote down, or preached, or declared to be true. If God says, “Kill your son”, then killing him is not immoral, as demonstrated by Abraham and others in the Bible. If God is real, as many believe he is, then morality (what is good or evil) is by necessity wrapped up in obedience to him/it. The fact that most Christians believe that the 10 commandments of Moses and the two commandments of Jesus (Love the Lord your God, and love thy neighbor) are the ultimate moral compass, demonstrates this point. Consider the first five commandments:

1. Do not have other Gods before me
2. Don’t worship idols
3. Don’t misuse the name of God
4. Keep the Sabbath day Holy (by not working)
5. Honour your father and mother.

Are these really moral issues? I guess I could make a case for honouring your father and mother, but the rest are clearly the commands of a jealous God. Billions of Hindus, Muslims and Bhuddists are immoral based on the first four commandments. That’s convenient if you’re a Christian. Nevertheless, my point is that if God is real then this IS morality and most of us are screwed.

The same could be said of any of the Deities people subscribe to. If the Muslims are right and Allah exists, then Christians are immoral by the same principle; and in this world view Atheists are going to be immoral no matter what… which is pretty much how almost all Theists see us. Of course, that argument alone could convince me of the improbability of any of our gods being real, but that’s another topic and I won’t even start on HOW people decide what it is that God wants…

I don’t believe for one minute that any of these gods are real, and so I have to relook at the definition of morality from a human perspective. Do people that don’t ascribe morality to God have any moral code at all? What is morality if it’s not doing what God tells you to do? People have pondered this question since the dawn of thinking man. There are many theories around morality. Some think it’s about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Others link it to the pursuit of personal happiness. Others reject morality entirely and do whatever the hell comes to mind. Others see it as a social or societal construct, not dissimilar to law. The reality is that all of these views on morality – theistic, humanistic, fatalistic, anarchist etc. are all at play in the same world at the same time. So how do we sift through the jumble to determine what the best way forward is?

My personal approach is to consider the groups/societies where the greatest personal freedom, happiness and contentment for the greatest number of people, and where the lowest human suffering, enslavement and deception is being demonstrated. I find that the more pedantic and specific the moral code is the more it suits a smaller number of people at the expense of a larger number of “outsiders”. At the same time, to have no moral obligations at all results in anarchy, leaving almost nobody satisfied.

So somewhere there is a “sweet spot” on the scale that people will buy into for the maximum benefit to themselves and the greatest number of others. My casual observations (i.e. I haven’t done the polls and analysis) tells me that there are non theistic communities like Sweden and France where a great number of people within those borders enjoy great personal freedoms and minimal human suffering, and not because they think they’re “obeying God”, but because the general population has bought into some generally agreed moral principles.

In societies like this morality is not determined by sexual preference, smoking habits, how much alchahol someone drinks or what words people use to curse with. These are personal preferences that have no bearing on morality. Instead morality in these societies is based on principles like honesty, ethical business dealings, rejection of corruption, kindness, obeying the law (because the laws don’t produce misery) etc. Contrary to the opinion of many Christians, this is not a system where people just “do what they want”, but rather people consider their part in the larger scheme of things and make small adjustments and sacrifices as required for the greater good, without completely compromising their own happiness. Ultimately everyone understands that their personal happiness is linked to the happiness of others so an ‘economy’ develops that morphs and adjusts as required for the greatest happiness and the least suffering.

In this light “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal” are logical moral imperatives that protect the greater happiness, and certainly don’t need to be issued by God. Evolution is doing just fine on its own. As a result slavery has been pushed out by the moral economy in most communities, as well as apartheid and misogyny, no thanks to the Holy Scriptures of most religions which at best permit these social evils and at worst promote them.

My conclusion is that Religion has very little to offer in the realm of morality and has often been an amoral force in the world. Morality is not about belief or disbelief – it’s about humans working out how to live together in a way that reduces suffering in the world. Can Atheists be moral? I think they have less superstitious complications to deal with than the average Theist and should therefore be in a position to live a good and moral life, the kind of morality that actually matters in a real world.

ARE Atheists moral? Well that’s a completely different question!

Recently I’ve had a few conversations with Theists who were merrily engaging in reasonably logical conversation until they hit the road block of, “Well that’s not a very nice world to live in – how could you possibly believe that?!”

Uh… come again? The basic argument here is that if scientific evidence gives them the sense that the world might not be a fun and safe place to live then there must be something wrong with the science. Another example of the theistic tendency to create a fantastical image of reality and then modify the “evidence” to fit the picture.

Classic examples of where this argument crops up are:

1. The discussion around what happens when we die. I.e. that there is no evidence to suggest that anything happens when we die, except that our bodies break down into basic mineral components and our consciousness, residing in our brains, ceases to exist.

2. The discussion around free will. I.e. that there is a lot in evolution, chemistry, physics and even the softer science of psychology to suggest that everything that happens is caused by something else… or maybe everything else when it comes down to it. This of course sheds a whole new light on whether there can be anything like free will at all. I admit that much discussion around this topic is theoretical at best, but it’s interesting nevertheless.

3. The humorous idea that if heaven and hell actually did exist, and it actually was the Christian Heaven and Hell, and we actually did go to one of them when we died based on… well, who the hell knows… but if it was all true, then most atheists might chose Hell over Heaven based on things like: who else was there and; what music they played there.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not some unemotional, unattached geek-robo-psychopath who would not like to live forever or have free will; and I certainly wouldn’t enjoy the idea of a real Hell either.

But that’s not the point is it?

It’s like being diagnosed with a disease that could be controlled and managed but instead, denying the diagnosis altogether, because it’s not great news, and carrying on with life as normal. Rejecting the medication and living in denial. I suppose it’s a way to live. Just pretend everything is as you want it to be and Hey Presto! You’re a happy chappy! This is very much the modus operandi for evangelicals, “Name it and claim it!” “All things are possible…” “Let go, let God”. When good things happen, praise God – when bad things happen, God’s ways are mysterious. Whatever happens, it’s never what you think it is, and it’s never logical. If I save a woman from an oncoming train she might praise God, as though I had nothing to do with it. Logical? If thousands die in Haiti, we should praise God for the little girl who “miraculously” survives in a fridge or something… so where’s the miracle for the thousands of dead people?

For me, grappling with reality is a far happier and more fulfilling way to live. For one, there is so much to learn and discover, and as long as you’re not shutting your eyes and ears to everything you don’t like, the pieces start to fall together, and the universe becomes even more awesome than you ever imagined. When I consider that it’s all over when it’s over, I realize just how precious this life is and I live it with more vigor and curiosity than ever before. I think it would be cool if we really had free will, and I hope we do, but I’m working with the evidence I have access to. I do have a few theories about the evolution of free will from present natural laws, but that’s a work in progress.

The bottom line is that I would have never start asking the questions if I had simply accepted the going Christian doctrine – but then again, maybe ignorance is bliss.