Deon Barnard

1. Meaning is a construct.

Life is full of meaning for individuals who create meaning in their life. Wealth, sex, friends, family, social causes, politics etc only have meaning to those who assign meaning to them. For one person ‘saving the Pandas’ is meaningful, to another it’s completely meaningless. For one person ‘family traditions’ are meaningful, to another they’re just meaningless time wasters. One man screams for the Stormers every weekend, another has no clue and doesn’t care. We all try share the ‘meaning’ we get out of things with everyone else but there are people who simply aren’t going to care and we need to get over it. Does that mean that nothing is meaningful? Not at all! Well… maybe to the universe at large, yes, everything is pretty meaningless, but we’d all be suicidal if we didn’t attach meaning to the arbitrary things of our lives. So go ahead and get passionate about things – it’s what makes life worth living. Sex, super heroes, crispy bacon, cigars, whiskey, children, vampires, guitars, costumes and hobbits are just a few things that have tons of meaning to me even if they mean all of nothing to you.

2. Friends are temporary but essential

Friends come and go. We make friends by investing time and effort into the kinds of people that meet a particular need in our lives at a particular time. The reality is that we are always changing ourselves. What we believe or enjoy or desire changes over time and so do our needs. As a result we find new people that are more enjoyable to be around and lose friends with whom we’ve lost what once connected us. Just go to a matric reunion 20 years later and you’ll see what I mean. So I figure we need to enjoy the friends we have now and not cry too much over the one’s we’ve lost.

3. People pick a social reputation

Everyone decides at some point how they want to be seen by the community at large. Some pick the ‘nice guy’ reputation and want to be seen as easy to get along with and lovable. Others pick the ‘fuck you’ reputation and want people to fear them until their trust is earned. Still others want to be seen as ‘crazy’ or ‘quirky’ or ‘mature’ or ‘fearless’ etc. We build and nurture these reputations and get quite offended when people don’t take them at face value. We even assign moral judgments to validate our choices like, “Being cautious and mature is BETTER than being spontaneous and fun loving” or vice versa. I have identified at least three reputations that I have adopted since childhood, and I have a good mind to test drive a few more, just for fun!

4. People are scared

People fear everything. They fear small creatures and large creatures. They fear the unknown. They fear pain, and death, and discomfort. They fear change. They fear confrontation and embarrassment and loss of reputation. There is almost nothing that is not feared by someone; and very few people who are not severely hindered by fear in their lives. I think this is sad. I often just sit and watch people going about their daily lives, and this one thing is clear to me – people would be so much more than they are if they weren’t scared. The problem with fear though is that it’s primal, and so it activates involuntarily as a defense mechanism. Our tools for dealing with fear are courage and rationality, traits that are still hard to find, even in 2011.

5. Life is a journey

There is a common misconception that “people out there” (everyone except yourself) are living “normal lives”; that everyone has a college or university degree; that everyone has medical, house, life and car insurance; that everyone knows what they want to do with their lives; that everyone is married with kids; that everyone goes to gym; that everyone wants an enormous salary; that everyone except you is happy and has what they need! More importantly, there is a perception that this is how it SHOULD be – that this is the definition of life; what it means to be a human. This might be the most deceptive illusion in western society. Of course, this is not how things are at all, and in fact the percentage of people in the world for which the above list is true is almost zero. Very few people know what they want to do with their lives. Very few people are in their career of choice. Very few people stay married for long and most people live in ‘dysfunctional’ families. We’re all so busy trying to be like someone who doesn’t exist, and even if they did we’d probably be uncomfortable in their lives. Every individual has their own peculiar path to walk. Every individual is working out what works for them in their own way. There is no ‘model’ or ‘right’ way to live. I think if we all understood this principle we could get on with ourselves a lot better and just enjoy the journey for what it is.

Thor; Loki; Odin; Zeus; Chronos; Prometheus; Atlas; Diana; Ares; Hades; Hercules; Isis, Osiris: these are all cool Marvel and DC comic superheroes (or villains) with powers that defy the laws of physics. Some fly or move really fast. Some have super strength or amazing combat abilities.

Although I love these comics and the characters I don’t for one minute believe they exist, or ever existed, and nor does anyone else any more… but that wasn’t always the case.

As recently as 300 AD people seriously worshipped Greek or Roman gods in temples and with prayers in the same way millions worship Jesus or Allah today. If you lived in ancient Egypt and did not believe in Ra you would have been seen as a heretic, or crazy – certainly misguided and ignorant. The same would be true for anyone living in Greece in 400 BC and not believing in Zeus etc. And yet, all these “gods”, once revered, and sacrificed to, and worshipped, and died for, have been relegated to cute comic book characters. Anyone today who claimed to still believe in the existence and deity of Hercules would be considered as much a fool as a member of the flat earth society.

How is it then that in the year 2011 billions of people still worship mythical man-made super heroes like Jesus, Krishna or Mohammed? How is it that we believe these beings are real, and all powerful, and control our lives? Is it not evident that they too will become, and are becoming, cute stories that need to be seen for what they really are? Are we supposed to believe that the best evidence the creator of all things could supply for his deity was to walk on water or turn it into wine? Really? That’s it? That makes someone God? Clearly that puts David Copperfield in as a serious contender for creator of the universe!

Already the convoluted Christian story is moving into the realm of comic fiction where it belongs. I’ve just downloaded a comic called Jesus vs. the Vampires, and although I haven’t read it yet I’m sure it’ll be great fun and that Jesus H. Christ will kick a few vampire asses, while walking on water and sipping a good vintage wine, like some sort of robed and bearded demon hunting Van Helsing character. The nativity scene with the wise men and sheep we see all over the place during Christmas is simply the Christian addition to the jumble of kitschy traditions we’ve borrowed from a bunch of ancient cultures we now call heathen.

We need to stand back from our little cultures and families and church communities and see the big picture – Isis, Zeus, Odin and Jesus are simply stories we used to give our lives meaning when we understood nothing about how the universe really worked. Look around you – I mean really look to see: people’s limbs are not growing back; people are not walking on water; gods are not interacting with the general populace. Pretending that it’s true doesn’t make it true. It never has. There never was an Odin. There never was a Hercules. There never was a Jehovah. If there is a God we know nothing at all about it, and it has no interest in our affairs at all, unless that interest is completely academic.

The world will evolve when we understand the difference between fiction and reality and we stop acting on directives issued in works of fiction. We don’t obey the words of Sauron or Gandalf, neither do we plead to Dr. Spock or Wonder Woman to affect our job interview or heal our child of a fever. Instead we prepare for our interview and give our child panado or antibiotics because these things are real and we understand why they work.

Ah, I see my download’s complete. Go Jesus! Do a Chuck Norris on that Vampire ass!! And since when do Vampires sparkle? Your holy shine will put an end to that rubbish! Woohoo, the two finger gesture of God and he turns into ash – yowzers! I hope there’s a Jesus vs. Green Lantern coming soon…

This might be the biggest copout line ever used, right up there with, “It’s not my fault”, and, “It’s not my job”.

It is used by well meaning Christians and Muslims everywhere (yes, everywhere).

When someone says, “Reindeers have horns”, it is not a generalization; it is a fact. Sure, there are exceptions, but if someone were looking for reindeer horns for, I don’t know… reindeer horn soup, they would not be silly or naïve to go looking in a herd of reindeer. And to say that reindeer are generally brown in colour would not be spiciest or derogatory – again, it would simply be a statement of fact. The white reindeers without horns would not define the group; instead they would give cause to consider whether these exceptions are reindeer at all.

When I speak out against the Catholic Church and their many atrocities against mankind I usually get an onslaught of angry individuals who boldly state that I have no right to paint all Catholics, or all Christians with the same brush. Instead of considering the claims against the church, they separate themselves from those claims and pretend that they are entirely innocent of anything they were not directly involved in. Ironically, these same people have no problem feeling proud or taking glory for some distant feeding or philanthropical programme the church is running that they also have no direct involvement with. They claim that their tithes and offerings support the feeding programme, but deny that those same coins support all the evil propagated by the church. These people say things like, “Not all Catholics are bad”, or, “Not all Catholics abuse children”. What do these statements have to do with the moral state of the church? Nothing. Do these statements absolve individual Catholics of their part in the whole thing? Not at all.

Let me break down the fallacy of this type of logic (I have no misconceptions about the uneasy relationship faith has with logic) with a parallel.

Most people agree that the Nazi party was a corrupt, even “evil” institution that did great wrong in the world. Most people also agree that not all Nazi’s were evil. Most Nazi’s were probably just following orders out of fear or some misguided ideology. Did those who were innocent justify the existence of the whole organization? Absolutely not. Most people agree that the Nazi party was too evil to continue existing and had to be shut down. It makes no difference how many “good” Nazi’s there were, the whole thing had to come to end for the good and safety of all mankind. The “good” Nazi’s were the support base of the whole evil organization. Their “good” money was used for evil purposes. Their “good” support politically and numerically gave power to an evil structure. Every one of those “good” Nazi’s is responsible for their own actions and how those actions contributed to one of the darkest times of human history. Many “good” Nazi’s went to church and prayed and claimed to love God, but none of that is a “get-out-of-jail-free card”.

This is true of every sinister group and organisation you can think of from the Mafia, to suicide cults, to… yes, many religious groups! Just because individuals claim to be unknowing, or naïve, or “good” does not take away from what their organisations are doing in the world.

You may be thinking that it is my own logic that is faulty – that if we applied this principle to Atheists, then Atheism is responsible for the atrocities of Stalin or Mao, but this too is flawed. If Atheists all over the world supported these individuals [in the name of Atheism] then I would agree and would certainly NOT continue to consider myself an Atheist; neither would I support Atheism financially or otherwise. But these men did what they did in their own names, or in the name of some broken ideology (forms of communism). Maybe they didn’t believe in God, but that was not their motive or their goal. To say that Mao and Stalin were Atheists is to say they were males, or chess players; all of which may be true but none of which has anything to do with the evil of their organisations. No “good” person could support these organisations with a clear conscience in full knowledge of what was being done by them; and all should agree that they needed to be resisted and ultimately closed down for the good and safety of all humans.

If I was an employee of a large company, and held a good position there, and I discovered that this company financially supported the blood diamond industry in Liberia, or that they were supplying weapons to pirates in Somalia, could I in good conscience continue working for that company? Would I not resign rather than have blood on my hands? Or would I claim ignorance and plead innocence based on the fact that I’m a hard working employee that pays his taxes and goes to church – and furthermore, take offence at the accusations and fight to keep the company open. Maybe, at the very least I would attempt to expose the corruption to see the company continue without those that made the evil decisions. Would it matter that the company also gave a percentage of its earnings to charity? Whichever way you look at it, you could not merrily go to work every day and sleep well at night.

So why is it that the Catholic Church, or Islam, or Protestant churches that do sinister things in the name of Jesus and Christianity, continue to thrive and find support despite all the evil they do? These organisations have the full and knowing support of millions of “good” people. Millions of people turn their eyes from the sins of their churches and selectively dissociate themselves with the dark deeds of their organisations. “Innocent” Catholics, humble family folk, support with weekly attendance, submission and finances the great evils of their church, and take great offence when these dark matters are brought to light. The Pope (their Pope) supports these crimes either directly, or by willingly covering up the actions of his clergy. The WHOLE WORLD knows what the Catholic Church has been up to and STILL people don’t cry out to have the whole thing shut down??

Today in Africa millions of people have contracted AIDS, a death sentence, because the Catholic Church insists that contraception is evil, and “good” Catholics everywhere believe them. This is not the act of one insane Mao, or Stalin, this is the decree of a church that has the support of millions of deceived sheep; all in the name of Jehovah God, the Pope and the Bible.
Thousands of paedophile priests who ought to be in European prisons doing useful community service have simply been relocated to Africa where they have even easier access to all the small boys and girls they could dream of; swept under the rug in the name of the church.
Muslim females today in many Middle East countries are subjected to brutality and inequality comparable to the worst medieval conditions you can imagine; all in the name of Allah, Mohammed and the Kuran.
Lower middle class Protestants in English colonies all over the world are manipulated to give 10% and more of their hard earned cash to Pastors and Reverends and Bishops who drive BMWs and have every need taken care of, while the givers would do better to take care of their personal debt; all in the name of Jesus, scripture and promises of personal financial return.

So, telling me that, “not all Christians are bad”, is completely irrelevant. I have no desire to bring down good Christians or good Muslims, nor do I care how many soup kitchens and feeding programmes you are personally involved in. Feel free to keep feeding the world – we surely need it. What I want to see is the dismantling of religious organisations involved in corrupt, sinister, harmful and evil actions in the world. If that means your particular corrupt organisation needs to be dissolved, it’s really not the end of the world, join something friendlier and less harmful, like the local gaming club

Of course you could always become a Humanist and put your energies and finances to better use without all the holy middlemen.

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.

My response to the article:

Do faith in God and science contradict?

From: http://www.gotquestions.org/science-God.html

Here’s the article:

Question: “Do faith in God and science contradict?”

Answer: Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Science is a method that mankind can use to gain a greater understanding of the natural universe. It is a search for knowledge through observation. Advances in science demonstrate the reach of human logic and imagination. However, a Christian’s belief in science should never be like our belief in God. A Christian can have faith in God and respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect and which is not.

Our belief in God is a belief of faith. We have faith in His Son for salvation, faith in His Word for instruction, and faith in His Holy Spirit for guidance. Our faith in God should be absolute, since when we put our faith in God, we depend on a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient Creator. Our belief in science should be intellectual and nothing more. We can count on science to do many great things, but we can also count on science to make mistakes. If we put faith in science, we depend on imperfect, sinful, limited, mortal men. Science throughout history has been wrong about many things, such as the shape of the earth, powered flight, vaccines, blood transfusions, and even reproduction. God is never wrong.

Truth is nothing to fear, so there is no reason for a Christian to fear good science. Learning more about the way God constructed our universe helps all of mankind appreciate the wonder of creation. Expanding our knowledge helps us to combat disease, ignorance, and misunderstanding. However, there is danger when scientists hold their faith in human logic above faith in our Creator. These persons are no different from anyone devoted to a religion; they have chosen faith in man and will find facts to defend that faith.

Still, the most rational scientists, even those who refuse to believe in God, admit to a lack of completeness in our understanding of the universe. They will admit that neither God nor the Bible can be proved or disproved by science, just as many of their favorite theories ultimately cannot be proved or disproved. Science is meant to be a truly neutral discipline, seeking only the truth, not furtherance of an agenda.

Much of science supports the existence and work of God. Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” As modern science discovers more about the universe, we find more evidence of creation. The amazing complexity and replication of DNA, the intricate and interlocking laws of physics, and the absolute harmony of conditions and chemistry here on earth all serve to support the message of the Bible. A Christian should embrace science that seeks the truth, but reject the “priests of science” who put human knowledge above God.

My response in red:

Answer: Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Science is a method that mankind can use to gain a greater understanding of the natural universe. (the best method we have by far).

It is a search for knowledge through observation (controlled testing, experimentation and sound reason). Advances in science demonstrate the reach of human logic and imagination. However, a Christian’s belief in science should never be like our belief in God. A Christian can have faith in God and respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect and which is not. (Huh? What does that even mean? How do you just pronounce something perfect?)

Our belief in God is a belief of faith. (Therein lies the problem!) We have faith in His Son for salvation (from what?), faith in His Word for instruction (have you read this “word” recently? Full of contradictions and immoral teachings), and faith in His Holy Spirit for guidance (How does something that can’t be seen, heard or observed in any way, guide people?). Our faith in God should be absolute (why?), since when we put our faith in God, we depend on a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient Creator (huh? Says who? Where do these ‘facts’ come from, and why aren’t they plain to science and reason, let alone all contrary religions?). Our belief in science (we don’t ‘believe’ in science. It’s a method of inquiry) should be intellectual and nothing more (that’s exactly right). We can count on science to do many great things (yip), but we can also count on science to make mistakes (yip. And?). If we put faith in science (we don’t!), we depend on imperfect, sinful, limited, mortal men (uh, yes, that’s why we don’t put ‘faith’ in science…). Science (you mean scientists) throughout history has been wrong about many things, such as the shape of the earth, powered flight, vaccines, blood transfusions, and even reproduction (who said they weren’t?). God is never wrong. (Jeez! SAYS WHO? Have you read the Bible lately?)

Truth is nothing to fear (could have fooled me), so there is no reason for a Christian to fear good science (Christians have good reasons to fear good science). Learning more about the way God constructed our universe (Science demonstrates clearly that there is probably no creator God) helps all of mankind appreciate the wonder of creation (uh… nope). Expanding our knowledge helps us to combat disease, ignorance, and misunderstanding (Yes! Yes! Yes!!!). However, there is danger when scientists hold their faith in human logic above faith in our Creator (Oh enough already! Scientists don’t do faith, and there is no creator!). These persons are no different from anyone devoted to a religion; they have chosen faith in man and will find facts to defend that faith (sigh… this is hopeless).

Still, the most rational scientists, even those who refuse to believe in God, admit to a lack of completeness in our understanding of the universe (damn right, but a knowledge that surpasses the church’s by a million fold, and growing). They will admit that neither God nor the Bible can be proved or disproved by science (Nor can the tooth fairy, Easter bunny or flying spaghetti monster… because its bull shit!), just as many of their favourite theories ultimately cannot be proved or disproved (They’re called theories for a reason). Science is meant to be a truly neutral discipline, seeking only the truth, not furtherance of an agenda (yes. And?)

Much of science supports the existence and work of God (What?! How? Where? Since when?). Psalm 19:1 says (and this matters because?), “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” As modern science discovers more about the universe, we find more evidence of creation (exactly the opposite is true). The amazing complexity and replication of DNA, the intricate and interlocking laws of physics, and the absolute harmony of conditions and chemistry here on earth all serve to support the message of the Bible (Message of the Bible? Which particular message is that? How do we even begin to draw that conclusion?). A Christian should embrace science that seeks the truth (correct), but reject the “priests of science” (hahaha. Really?) who put human knowledge above God (Which God is that?)

There is a branch of fence sitters, ‘Agnostics’ if you will, that insist that there is no argument or antagonism between Science and Religion, or that there need not be, because somehow they’re both doing the same thing in different ways. These people insist that scientists ought not to overlook or belittle the efforts of the religious in their journey to discover the mysteries of God; while the religious need to recognise the achievements and potential of science.

As always, this sort of “let’s all get along” speak, sounds good at first glance – after all, wouldn’t the world be a better place if we all just accepted our differences and strove toward peace? I believe it is disingenuous, and at the very least naive for an intelligent person to think this way. Science is a method of discovery that goes against the very fabric of religious thought – in fact religion sees scientific enquiry as a dangerous threat and would surely disintegrate if all its adherents started to think scientifically and rationally. Religion requires an unquestioning attitude regarding certain key doctrines or it becomes meaningless. Religion can be nothing but fearful and resistant to science if it is to remain what it is. Similarly science is a method of discovery that, to be called science, must adhere to a strict process of self criticism, testing and experimentation, none of which religion does or could subject itself to. Science seeks to build on previous knowledge through actively looking at all empirical evidence and doing its best to disprove its own theories.

How can religion get along with Science? That would mean having to admit that the evidence is overwhelmingly stacked up against that particular religious mythology. That would logically mean that all religious myths are just that, myths, and not reality to base our lives on. Of course, for the religious, logic has nothing to do with it. The religious play the ‘Faith’ card. “I don’t need evidence… I have Faith.” But even that argument is disingenuous. You may have faith in deity X and myth Y, but someone else has faith in deity A and myth B. So what external device do you have of working out which myths are more likely to be real, if any at all? Some seem to think that all or none are ‘real’ in scientific terms and that’s OK. Why? Why is that OK? These same people certainly don’t use this crazy logic to run any of their other affairs.

Let’s make it very clear why science and religion can never ‘get along’ intellectually:

1. Science requires evidence to determine a truth value. Religion claims complete knowledge of a particular truth despite all evidence to the contrary.

2. Science has an internal self criticism control through peer review, experimentation, publication and questioning. Religion cannot tolerate criticism and has invented words like ‘blasphemy’ to keep people submissive and humble.

3. Science rewards those who convincingly disprove established knowledge. Religion rejects and disciplines those who question its doctrines.

4. No questions are taboo in science. All questions are encouraged. Religions ask no questions, and certainly don’t encourage them. Religions simply hand out pre-packaged answers.

5. Science is always looking to improve our understanding of the truth, with the understanding that we may never know everything but we’ll certainly keep searching. Religion claims to have access to the ultimate truth despite the fact that most of what they know cannot be verified in any reliable way.

6. Science produces the goods. Science changes the world daily and every religious person depends on the products of scientific enquiry. Religion claims to offer the world only those things which humans can provide each other without the myths anyway. Community. Morality. Philanthropy. No Gods are required for these.

It is important to understand that Science doesn’t say, “There is no God”. Science says, “If there is a God then let’s all see him. If there is a God then let’s answer the following questions. If there is a God then let’s test what we think we know and asses the results.” Religion says, “There is a God and that’s that. Accept it and believe it and live as if it’s true and don’t worry if it doesn’t make sense.” Of course the danger of that type of thinking is that if the particular God demands death or sacrifice or suicide bombings then we’re all screwed, and we have been, for thousands of years!

The Agnostic folk of which I spoke at the beginning of this article tell me that Science doesn’t know everything. That there are mysteries in the universe we may never uncover. My response is YES, and…? There are thousands of gaps in the scientific understanding of the cosmos, and this might always be true. So we’ll keep searching for the answers and improving our knowledge. What purpose does it serve to fill all the gaps with God, only to remove him from the gap when we understand the reality? A mystery is simply a presently unexplained phenomenon, not a reason to believe in God. Science is quite happy with mysteries, it gives us an opportunity to ask questions and make discoveries. Religion provides me no intellectual comfort in the spaces of the unknown.

While the majority of the world’s population are steeped in religious and magical thinking; while we teach biblical creationism in schools as a valid history of our planet; while we have prayer meetings for flood victims instead of rebuilding cities; while we believe that plastic wrist bands with magnets can keep us healthy; while we believe that faith is a valid substitute for vaccinations in infants; while we believe that stem cell research is ‘of the Devil’; while we believe that Harry Potter is turning our children into suicidal witches… we will never be free as a species to see the universe for what it really is and evolve into the magnificent creatures we could become.

I’m writing this under a tree in a field somewhere between Caledon and Swellendam in the Western Cape of South Africa. It has been some time since I wrote on my blog and I’ve been promising a few articles over the holiday season. I thought I’d start the blogging frenzy off by looking back at 2010 and working out how I feel about the past year of my life.

I was unmarried for the whole of 2010, having finalised my divorce in December 2009. This fact made it a very different and interesting year for me. It has certainly been the least confrontational and most peaceful year I’ve had in over thirteen. It has been a year of consolidation and even recovery in a way. For an entire year I’ve come home to smiles and calm, and looked forward to the sanctity of my castle on the hill… which it almost is, having the best view of Johannesburg possible! I have spent many nights this year looking over the world below and contemplating the mysteries of life with a good scotch and a cigar or pipe, feeling a little like Gandalf or Bilbo Baggins.

The reason for the peace at home is a most wonderful specimen of woman called Heather, who has lived with me in my castle all year. I have never met a more understanding, unflusterable, kind-hearted human in all my life. We talk together, walk together, cook together, read together, dance together, camp together and share pretty much everything without stress or defence or score keeping or the need to control. This alone could make life almost perfect, but there’s more. We’ve actively reawakened our youth together. We’ve visited interesting venues, clubs and restaurants. We’ve read important books. We’ve mixed fantastic cocktails and shooters. We’ve investigated and invested in our sexuality. We’ve made home together. We’ve explored rustic camp sites. We’ve created new gourmet recipes. We’ve nurtured our kids together. We’ve walked away from religion and established a wonderful group of friends together.

This year was also the launch of my blog (the one you’re reading); Rumble in the Pub (a philosophical discussion group that meets in a pub); and Primordial Soup (a podcast of interest to Atheists and Secular Freethinkers). Many of these activities have overflowed onto Facebook or vice versa resulting in a year of passionate debates and discussions on very stimulating topics and holy cows. I’ve been branded a Satanist and a cult leader on several occasions, despite the fact that I’m sure Satan does not exist and I have no ‘followers’ and preach no mysterious ‘doctrine’. I have offended hundreds of people by asking uncomfortable questions about religion and highlighting the scientific improbability of Gods and Pink Unicorns. I have read Dawkins, Harris, Sagan and Hitchens this year and dived wholeheartedly into scientific enquiry and philosophical thought experiment.

This has also been a year for physical recovery. I started the year hardly able to walk. My sciatic nerve was pinched, and combined with poor fitness and the shortest hamstrings in the galaxy, I could only tolerate standing for five minutes at a time. In desperation I visited a Biokineticist for three months, once a week, who stretched my legs and back until at times I felt I would snap in half, until finally I had mobility again. I also started wall climbing which instantly became my favourite sport ever. The combination of stretching and building physical strength has restored me to be able to run and hike and stand and walk for hours and hours again. If there was a God I’d probably thank him… but as it is I’m just extremely pleased J.

On the down side (there’s always a down side), my ex wife moved to Natal with my children. Finances and distance has resulted in me not seeing them nearly as much as I want to. The times I’ve had with them have been special and precious, but I’ve missed out on a bunch of the good stuff, the daily gems of life. There are times when this overwhelms me with sadness and I have to stop myself crying out loud in random public places. I also know that they have a good life, both in Natal with their mom and here with me, and they’re growing into fantastic, and I deeply hope, rational human beings. I’m hoping to remedy the time issue this year, but it will be a challenge.

This has been an enormously busy year with many personal and public events taking place. I helped organise a 20 year matric reunion which was a roaring success in November. South Africa hosted the Fifa world cup football event in July (I attended the France/Mexico game in Polokwane with my boys). I hosted a rocking fancy dress birthday party in November. Heather and I moved into our home on the hill in May. We both started new Jobs early in the year. We went camping in February in Amanzimtoti, and October in Nottingham Road. We hosted a Rumble in the Midlands in December at the same Nottingham Road camp site. And the list goes on and on.

All in all I’d have to call 2010 a watershed year. A year of rebirth and success. A year of writing and reading. A year of friendships and discovery. A year of sex and wonder. A year of food and drink. A year of health and prosperity. If 2011 is even half as good as 2010 I say, “Bring it on!!”

I have been particularly bewildered by the nonsensical use of certain linguistic conventions on my Facebook wall recently. In layman’s terms, I can’t believe the illogical bullshit people speak! I’ll simply launch into a couple of classic examples of said fallacial weirdness.

Sample post: We have no reason to believe in a personal loving God. All the evidence suggests better and simpler natural causes for phenomena, like the way that evolution via natural selection explains species.

Crazy response 1: Evolution is just a theory! What a load of crap. We all come from monkeys? You’d have to be stupid to believe that.

Let’s look at this stunningly ignorant and smug response that ironically demonstrates just how close this person is to a monkey (his words)! Firstly evolution is not a theory at all in the way that this visitor is implying. Neither is Pythagoras’s theory a theory. Neither is germ theory a theory. For all intents and purposes these are practical facts. We may not know everything about these facts but they are undeniable and provable in a variety of ways and they all allow us the benefit of prediction. In scientific terms Evolution is as much a fact as electricity. When I flick the switch on my wall I understand (although only roughly) that it is electricity moving through a really thin wire that creates energy and therefore light. I don’t for one minute believe that God makes the bulb glow every time I flick the switch. God is the theory here (a really poor one) and electricity is the fact. Has this person ever read anything other than the Bible or Mills and Boon??

Secondly, highlighting his ignorance he demonstrates that he has no idea how evolution and common ancestry works. Who said we come from Monkeys? Modern monkeys and modern humans have a common ancestor somewhere in history. For that matter modern man and seaweed has a common ancestor too. But then again how can I expect people to know any better in a system of educational and ecclesiastical indoctrination such as the one most of us live in in the English colonies.

Finally, I don’t BELIEVE in Evolution at all in the way this gentlemen uses the word belief. I see the facts and come to a logical conclusion. This is not a faith position. So yes, I’d have to be stupid to ‘believe’ it – I’ll settle for simply thinking it through.

Crazy response 2: So where did everything come from then. Huh! Huh! You think you’re so smart. Can you create a rose???? Can you!!!?

I see men in white coats dragging this girl across a neat green lawn to a small white truck… Who the hell knows where everything came from? Science has some interesting and logically reasonable ideas based on available evidence. What does she have? An ancient myth that she accepted without half a peanut of evidence to support it. I go cold at the darkness of the human condition, if this is what it looks like.

Can I create a rose?? Uh… no. Nor can I create a watch or a car or a pencil – and your point is? Is she trying (nauseatingly) to infer that a rose is too complicated or beautiful to have come into existence by accident? She obviously doesn’t understand natural selection (or sexual selection) and its role in the evolution of species over millions of years. I’d suggest reading a book on the topic, but that might lead to her having to question her beliefs (gasp), so I won’t hold my breath.

Crazy response 3: Why do you have to hammer away at religion? What’s your problem? Why can’t we just all get along instead of forcing people to believe what you believe?

Ah, my all time favourite! The – ignore the proposition entirely and change the subject to something that will make everyone see what an evil monster bully this guy is – tactic. Is this a joke? I can say with full confidence that I have never ever gone onto a Christian’s Facebook wall and responded to a post like “Jesus is so cool, and his might and grace and everlasting love doth reign in mine heart like an oak planted beside still waters and lo! I behold his glory… (You get the point)… and then posted a response like, “you Christians are all backwards and stupid and why can’t we all just get along without God and manipulation and… (You get the point)! Why, because firstly, it’s their wall and they can post whatever they like on their own wall. Secondly, if there is no invitation for rational debate on the particular facts or logic of their post then I respect their unspoken rules. It’s very simple folk – you stick to the rules of the wall you’re visiting. On my particular wall the rules are simple:

1. Stick to the facts of the proposition or initial statement/post. Talk about the topic I’ve put up for debate, not your personal offence at being subjected to my thoughts simply because you happen to disagree.
2. If you have the temptation to change the subject completely, then feel free to take it offline or start a new thread on your own wall, or ask me if I’m interested in discussing your thread on my wall in a separate discussion.
3. By all means disagree – in fact disagree with all your heart, but then tell me why you disagree. Present the evidence, or at the very least present a string of logic that calls my own into question. This is what makes debates interesting and how we all learn something new.
4. Refrain from emotional observations like “you seem so angry”, or “why are you so scared of religion”, or “you’re clearly a very unhappy person” etc. These observations have nothing to do with the post and quite frankly I don’t give a continental what you may or may not think of my personality or my state of happiness. Worry about your own personality and your own happiness. I’m certainly not going to come to your wall and post, “You seem like such an insane individual… have you gone for a psychiatric analysis recently? J”

Crazy response 4: Dude, there is no evidence for evolution. They never found the missing link. Carbon dating doesn’t work.

Dude. Read a book! Almost anything from Richard Dawkins should set your facts straight. PS: Dawkins is an elderly gentle British biologist chap who has dedicated his life to researching and explaining the evidence, the links and the facts about evolution. A little research will also help you understand that although Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to about 5000 years, using Uranium-Lead and other dating techniques we can accurately date the earth at about 4.5 billion years old. I say it again; Evolution is as much a practical fact as the theory that stretching before playing football is a good idea.

The examples above are just a few of the many bewildering types of ‘argument’ that are regularly posted on my wall. I understand that many of us didn’t take Science even into the tenth grade, and certainly not as a college or university subject. Neither did I. I also understand that many of us go to church every week where we are preached a version of how the universe works as though it were scientific fact, by preachers who haven’t the faintest idea what the facts are except what they interpret from ancient scriptures that were written millennia before the facts were discovered. I can understand this too because I was just such a preacher. But for God’s sake people (figuratively speaking), we live in the year 2010! Are we seriously going to base our entire understanding of the universe on the facts presented by one book or one preacher or our parents?

I know that logic is not everything! I certainly have no visions of a Vulcan utopia on earth, but almost everyone uses logic and reason to live their daily lives at work and home. We use logic to use computers because we work more efficiently that way. We use logic to plan our holidays, job interviews and weekly schedules. We use logic to cook and all sorts of other things we may have convinced ourselves are all ‘creativity and imagination’. Without logic it is almost impossible to have a mutually enjoyable or beneficial conversation. I love imagination. I love creativity. I also understand the importance of logic, and when it comes to God and church and the doctrines of the church, logic tends to get set aside and replaced with dogma, defensiveness, fear and unwarranted emotional outbursts of anger.

So, next time you read a post somewhere that immediately triggers all your defensiveness and anger because at first glance it seems to be contradicting what you have been told to believe by church and holy books, stop and ask a few simple questions before responding:

1. What is the post actually saying?
2. Do I really understand the post and all the terms and ideas being put forward?
3. What do I think/believe about the facts being presented?
4. What do I agree with and what do I disagree with in this post?
5. Do I need to clarify something before I can intelligently respond to this post?
6. Do I understand the reasons why I disagree with certain facts in this post?
7. Do I just want to voice my anger, or do I have something meaningful to contribute?
8. Would I want someone to respond like I’m about to on my own wall?
9. Do I have facts / evidence / information that will benefit the conversation?

I look forward to better, calmer, more interesting and thoughtful conversations going forward.

One of the ironic problems with a religious mindset is that you know everything, and everything you know is fact – and nobody else knows anything (of value).

“Why are we here?” “How did everything come to be?” “What does it mean to be alive?” “What happens when we die?” “What is right and wrong?” “How should we behave?” “What is wisdom?” “What is truth?” “How should we raise our kids?” “Does God exist?” “What is God’s will?”

These are all questions religion claims to know the precise answers to. The answers to these questions are not presented as possibilities or theories but as fundamental facts requiring no scientific evidence and tolerating no opposition.

Life was a lot simpler when I thought this way. When I woke up every morning I understood exactly how the world worked and felt comforted by my immortality, not to mention my ability to move mountains. God was on the throne and I was unstoppable. Anything anyone thought they knew about the universe was fundamentally flawed if that knowledge did not involve Jesus, and I was happy to reveal that wonderful truth to them. “Are you sick? Just trust in Jesus and you’ll be fine.” “Do you need money? Stop sinning (smoking, drinking and missing church services); pay your tithes (that’s 10%, but preferably more), and my God who owns all the cattle on a thousand hills will pour his abundance on you so that you cannot contain it.” Cattle? “Don’t worry about pesky academics and their so called knowledge – their knowledge is foolishness in the face of my faith!” “Why are babies born brain damaged? God has his reasons and we should be happy with that, (or maybe their parents sinned, or maybe it was Satan).” “Millions of people homeless in Haiti? Maybe God is just testing their faith, or the faith of all those he’s calling to help by going there to spread the gospel, (or maybe they all deserved it because of sin, or maybe it was Satan).

At any rate, everything was simple. Prayer, Faith, Sin, God or Satan could account for every phenomena in the universe from mega atrocities to the opulence of head pastors and successful businessmen. There was no need to question anything, and if you did, your questions were directed at the Bible from where you picked a sufficient number of scriptures to back whatever seemed an acceptable viewpoint in the context of your church and its leadership. The theories of science, despite all their practical applications (which I was more than happy to use to do God’s work) sounded arrogant and humanistic (other words for anti-Christian and ‘of the devil’). The only book worth reading was the Bible which I read about ten times (not nearly enough according to many preachers I respected). Anything based on logic or scientific reason was seen as ‘Greek’ rather than ‘Hebrew’ thinking and soon became a derogatory term for people who were more interested in the wisdom of man than God (a type of blasphemy). We had the facts. Other Christians had some of the facts. Non-Christians had none of the facts and needed to be saved!

During my period of de-conversion it became very clear to me that I would have to honestly ask all the questions again, from the beginning, and start reconstructing a view of the truth using a model that was more robust than simply recounting ancient myths or going with gut feel opinions. Only the scientific model is equally interested in disproving facts as it is in proving them, thereby keeping itself honest through rigid experimentation, peer review and welcoming contrary views that claim better empirical evidence. It is the fact that science is always questioning that makes it the most likely candidate for finding real answers.

Life is very different for me now. When I look at a thing I wonder about its nature. I read about everything and want to know exactly why people think one way or another. I realise every day how little I know and life has become the most amazing adventure of discovery. I’m not moved by emphatic statements like “God did it!” or “God said so!” – I want to know how you know what God did or said. I want to consider the other alternatives and find out what we as a species know already about each of those alternatives. The same applies in reverse – I’m not moved by statements from Skeptics about how inaccurate the Bible is or how dumb homeopathic remedies are – I want to know why and how they came to that conclusion.

Instead of saying this or that is truth, I now say this or that is what we currently think we know and I can’t wait for more to be uncovered. The universe, which I used to think was a pretty picture hung in the sky by God for our pleasure, never seemed too important to me considering it would soon be cleared away and replaced when Jesus returned, now seems teaming with possibilities and discoveries waiting to be stumbled upon. The universe is bigger and more spectacular than anything I ever imagined in my Christian world view and I just want to know more and more while I have the chemistry in my brain to know anything at all.

The one thing I wish for every religious person is that they might remove themselves from the influence and safety of their communities and churches for a time and ask, actually ask all the questions again for all the answers they have ‘known’ from childhood. Then in looking for the answers they would read and research the works of people who have come to different conclusions, and honestly evaluate those conclusions with an open mind. If after that you still think that God created the universe, and that you understand his will, and that heaven and hell exists, and that Adam sinned for all mankind in a garden with a talking snake, and that God answers prayers, and that we did not evolve… then God bless you!