I am a proud Englishman. Or, at least, I used to be. Today, I’m just a proud human being. In my late teens and early twenties I was passionately patriotic, with a huge St George’s Cross flag hanging menacingly from my bedroom wall, and England cups, towels and key rings never far away. I followed the England football team fanatically, and took an active interest in any other sport where England competed. My younger brother is Welsh, and we used to mock each other mercilessly, albeit in a friendly manner.

Over the last year or so, my patriotism has waned to the point where there is almost none left. I’ve questioned it more and more and come to see it as rather pointless and empty. I’m proud to be English; why? It wasn’t a choice. And, even if it had been, so what? What does the fact that I was born in England actually mean? Does it make me better than people who weren’t born in England? Of course not. The planet is made up of land and water. Human beings have drawn lines to divide that land up. Those lines are certainly not random, but they are arbitrary when it comes to where they lie in the moments that you draw your first breaths.

So, what about England as a country and as a culture? Well, I’m certainly proud of some of the values we hold in England, such as freedom of expression. On the other hand, I’m ashamed that we are officially a Christian nation, and still function under the archaic monarchy system. I’m proud of some of the achievements by English men and women, and by England as a nation. In the past we have lead the way in industry and contributed richly to music, art, literature and sport. On the other hand, in our colonial adventures we have been the tyrant, spilling much blood and taking many lives.

Another thing, was that I always thought of myself as English rather than British, but the absurdity of this identification has dawned on me too. I’ve lived in Wales for the last 20 years, been raised here, educated here and worked here. I can’t really claim to be English rather than Welsh or British, looking at it rationally.

I consider myself British insofar as I live in Britain, and so what is in the British interest is inevitably in my interest. If I were to move abroad, I would see it exactly the same with whatever country I moved to. I find it much easier now to think of myself as a global citizen. There are aspects of England to be ashamed of and aspects to be proud of, and the same can be said of any other nation. The same can also be said of human beings. I think I may as well just consider myself human. As a human I am ashamed of the religious ignorance in Saudi Arabia, but I am supremely proud of the United States Constitution. I see very little to be gained from patriotism and much danger. The segregation and emphasis on arbitrary differences often simply fosters resentment and disdain, and it is a mindset that can be easily manipulated and exploited by charismatic speakers, who dress up racism as fair and rational.

Is it worth it? To me, the answer is an ever more resounding no.

Tomorrow I will post an article which will be my submission for Sunday’s Humanist Symposium, which on this occasion is being hosted by my good friend Evanescent. I apologize for my silence in recent weeks, but I can make no promise that this will mark a return to regular posting. My passion and desire for blogging is all but gone at the moment, and while I continue to feel strongly about the harm that religion and superstition causes, I am not feeling the same drive to speak out.

As I’ve always said, I would rather not write than force the issue, and as long as I feel no strong urge to write, I will stay effectively retired. I read what I can when I can, and I will continue to comment as much as possible on others’ blogs. I may post a few thoughts from time to time or share videos, and other odds and sods that amuse me.

The only thing I feel certain of at the moment, is that my blogging days are not over. I do foresee a return to the level of quality and quantity that I have provided in the past at some point, but it will not be for a while. If anyone wants to remove me from their blogroll, I will completely understand. If anyone wants to email me, I’m never far away.

If you are unaware of the current situation at the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, Ebonmuse can fill you in. Until the wrongs are put right, I am removing Internet Infidels and IIDB from my links.

On another note, I apologise for my continued negligence of my blogging duties. I do at least have some ideas now, but very little time or energy to actually write articles. I would rather reduce the frequency of posting than dilute the quality of my writing by rushing my work.

Regular readers may remember me expressing an intention to write a review of god is not Great by Christopher Hitchens. With my apologies, I must now tell you that I have decided not to write that review for two distinct, but connected, reasons.

Firstly, I have allowed too much time to pass since finishing the book, to the point where scanning it would be insufficient to refresh my memory – I would need to reread it.

Secondly, the reason I have put it off for this long is that I don’t think I actually have anything particularly clever or significant to say about it. I would prefer not to write it at all than force the issue and do a poor job of it.

Please don’t misunderstand me; my sentiments are entirely positive. I am happy to say that it is an excellent read, and that I highly recommend it. After the works of scientists like Dawkins and Harris, and philosophers like Dennett and Onfray, it is very interesting to read a journalist’s take on religion in the modern world. And no ordinary journalist, mind you – Hitchens’ intellect is staggering.

god is not Great has been reviewed many times both within and beyond the atheosphere, by many bloggers whom, I’m quite sure, will have done a far better job than I would have done. There are only a quick Google search away. Better still, if you’re interested, I recommend reading it for one’s self.

On my recent article Tugging at Loose Threads, Evanescent and Storbakken resumed a debate they had suspended on another blog. It was completely off topic, so I’m starting an open thread for them, and anyone else, to continue it.

Evanescent’s last comment was:

Storbakken said:

It is not my intent to go round and round again. But I will briefly respond to your comment. The point is not that Hitler was an an atheist or a theist, rather that his ideology was based on the notoriously atheistic philosopher Fred Nietzche much more than it was based on the teachings of Christ. Hitler clearly infused religious rhetoric to win the masses and most definitely believed his own rhetoric.

You’re right, the point is not that Hitler was an atheist or a theist. I don’t hold up Hitler as an example of theistic horror, even though he was an affirmed Catholic and his many speeches and sayings reflected one who believed in the Christian god. I don’t care if he did or not believe in god as it was irrelevant to his actions, which is exactly my point.

I never said that Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, et al committed their evil actions IN THE NAME of atheism. I did say that atheism produced these characters.

So their entire personality and character was a result of them being atheists? No, I don’t think so.

As evil as their characters were, it was not atheism that PRODUCED this evil. It is vital and yet obvious to point this out.

It is interesting that the anti-theistic communist government of Russia actually sent Christian communists to the gulag. It is also interesting that Enver Hoxha did brutally persecute the adherents to the religions of Albania for two decades and proclaimed his nation to be completely atheistic in 1967 when he passed the Decree on the Atheist State. You can argue whether or not these fascist atheistic dictators persecuted believers IN THE NAME of atheism or not, but the facts of history speak for them self.

Yes they do, and even if I grant that atheism was the motive for these actions, (which I do not grant), the scales are irreversibly tilted with blood in religion’s direction. Even if was 50/50, that would still be damning against religion, after all that would just show that believers and non believers tend to act with equal altruism and equal wickedness, a fact that throws religion into severe doubt anyway. But when we consider that religion has ALWAYS been a constant source of repression and cruelty, and far outweighs the crimes of non-believers, you are left with an absurd inexcusable mystery. The problem is yours, not mine.

The militant atheism movement today in America is almost frightening in its fervent zeal to eradicate theistic religions. This anti-theistic movement desires to wipe out every person’s faith in the grand name of reason. Why?

First of all, I could say that if your religion was grounded on REASON to begin with, you have nothing to fear. But since you are afraid of reason, I wonder what that implies?

All the same, the charge of ‘militant’ is unjustified. Atheists do not wish to wipe out peoples’ faith. You are happy to believe whatever you want! All we ask is that you don’t interfere with anyone else’s life. NOW, if religion did that, I AM CONVINCED that atheists everywhere would shut up about religion.

Unfortunately, religion has never kept itself to itself. It causes too much misery, repression, suffering, and interference in the world. It has become a menace to civilisation, and if religion is eradicated as a matter of slow evolving history, so much the better. However, I will say again, we all have a right to free speech and belief, so as long as no one is hurt, I would not force anyone to do anything, and I think I speak for most atheists when I say that.

Storbakken’s reply was:

Evanescent said: “All the same, the charge of ‘militant’ is unjustified. Atheists do not wish to wipe out peoples’ faith… All we ask is that you don’t interfere with anyone else’s life.”

The charge of militant atheism is not unjustified when I am specifically addressing militant atheism. I agree that not all atheists wish to wipe out people’s faith, but militant atheists clearly do. Militant atheists fail to employ reason with the same disregard for truth as Fundamentalist Christians. And yet, ironically, militant atheists say they do it in the name of reason.

Militant atheists make grand statements such as: “religion has ALWAYS been a constant source of repression and cruelty.” There have been times in history when adherents to religion (e.g. Tibetan Buddhism) are crushed under totalitarian and, dare I say, atheistic regimes (Communist China). I’m not saying that atheism is the reason China oppressed, systematically killed and exiled many Tibetans, but I am saying that religion is not, as you say, “ALWAYS a constant source of repression.”

Militant atheists declare that they don’t want theists to “interfere with anyone else’s life.” Does this mean that it is better for theists not to assemble, not to visit shut-ins, not to serve meals to the poor and indigent? Or should they simply not allow their beliefs to shape their views regarding foreign/domestic policy? Just like atheists, there are theistic pacifists, war-mongers, Democrats and Socialists. It is unjust to repress another group simply because they have faith in something greater than themselves.

I’m not going to pretend to be impartial, I am completely on the side of Evanescent, but rather than dropping my two cents in here I’ll join in the discussion as and when I can. Enjoy!

Religion has nothing worthwhile to say on anything.

Evanescent

Theology is the art of knowing the unknowable. It is an immensely vast and complicated area of study requiring much careful research and dedicated learning to master. Many great minds devote their lives to the subject, gaining qualifications and passing on their wisdom to new students. It is, however, comparable to a large, antique vase: huge and striking, intricate and ornate, ancient and mysterious, but ultimately empty, and created entirely by human beings. I would like to use two modern cultural examples of proxy-theologies to demonstrate this point.

The first of these examples is the Klingon race, a fictional creation within the Star Trek science fiction stories. (I would just like to state for the record that I myself am not a Trekkie, although I do fully acknowledge the right of Trekkies to be Trekkies, as long as they are Trekkies behind closed doors and keep their Trekkieness to themselves.) A quick browse down the Wikipedia article reveals that, far from being represented by a few quickly assembled individual characters on a TV show, the Klingons come complete with biological details, culture, government, legal system, thousands of years of history and, perhaps most astonishingly of all, a complete artificially constructed language. There are many Star Trek fans who have learned to speak this language fluently, and regularly attend conventions speaking no other language for the duration. Many of these same Star Trek fans are experts on the Klingon race, and can relate their knowledge with all the scholarly grace of a learned professor.

The second example I’d like to use, is the land of Narnia, C. S. Lewis’s fictional creation. (For the purposes of this exercise, I am going to ignore the fact that Lewis was a Christian apologist, and that his Chronicles of Narnia were a Christian allegory. It has no relevance to the point I am trying to make.) Once again, we have a vast subject. Again, we have fans who truly dedicate themselves to the details of the subject, including Narnia’s geography, cosmology, history and mythological creatures and other inhabitants. Again, these enthusiasts attend conventions across the world to interact with one another. The study is taken extremely seriously and these people talk about their subject with great conviction, passion and command.

But the thing about the Klingon speaking Trekkies and the Narnia enthusiasts, is that they know it’s not real! It is just a hobby, albeit one that they take very seriously, and they are under no illusions that either the Klingon people or the World of Narnia actually exist in the real world. It is, to coin a phrase, just a bit of fun.

Sadly, the same cannot be said for theists. They are well and truly under the illusion that the characters of their study are, or at least were, real. Some of them believe it so strongly, that they are prepared to die in the name of that belief, and to take the lives of others who do not share it. Just like the Klingons, they have an intricate web of detail, names, dates, places, events and even mythological creatures, all of which they attempt to use as an elaborate distraction from the fact that they are without any actual evidence for the truth of their claims. It would be bad enough if they simply wanted us to believe that their fairytale were true, but it doesn’t stop there. On the basis of this elaborate fictional story, they want to tell us how to live our lives, what we can and can’t do, and that what we have learned about the universe through hard, scientific work is wrong. To the theologian I say: thank you but no thank you.

If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?

Richard Dawkins

I’ve always found it helpful to think of a belief system a bit like an item of clothing, like a woolly jumper. If you find a loose thread, you should pull at it. If the jumper is well made and sturdy, the thread will just break off and the clothing will survive with no scars. If the whole thing unravels in your hands, then it was poorly made and you are better off without it. Any belief system that is logically coherent and drawn from solid facts and strong evidence will stand up to scrutiny and criticism. This is why we should always challenge those beliefs we hold dear.

Christianity as a belief system offers a wide variety of loose threads to choose from, and once you start pulling it isn’t long before you’re holding a large pile of tangled, knotted wool, as without form as the universe was in Genesis 1:2.

Take for example, the numerous contradictions and inconsistencies within the Bible. How old was Ahazia when he became king? 2 Kings 8:26 says he was 22, whereas 2 Chronicles 22:2 says he was 42.

Pull the thread.

Apologists cannot account for this blatant contradiction without claiming that somewhere down the line, someone made an error when copying out the text. But once you allow for the fact that there can be errors in the Bible, how do you objectively know what is true and what has been distorted? Now, far be it from me to advise the all powerful creator of the universe on how to do his job, but if I were him I would have ensured that the holy book I was leaving for my people could not possibly be spoilt by human errors. The Uncredible Hallq has pointed out that if God wanted to prove the truth of Christianity, he could have “made all accurate copies of the Bible indestructible”.

Pull the thread.

This is an excellent point, but God could go one further. He could magically guarantee not only that every Bible would be completely without error, but that every Bible could be read by anyone in the world, regardless of their literacy or language. Just imagine it! A French Christian staying in a hotel in Spain could just pick up a Spanish copy of the Bible and read it, without any need for a translator. Now how could we skeptics argue with that?!

Pull the thread.

Thinking about it though, why have a book at all? If it’s so important that we know everything in the Bible, why not just create us with all of its contents automatically, magically known to us? It would save a lot of time and effort, and would be a great way to make sure everyone of us knew the Christian ways without instruction. There are certainly very few Christians who have read the Bible all the way through, and that wouldn’t be a problem for them.

Pull the thread.

Better still, why not just make himself known to us? Why not answer our prayers in a real voice that is actually audible, rather than with ambiguous feelings and impulses. Why not present himself to us visibly, and answer our questions in person. I would convert to Christianity without hesitation.

Pull the thread.

Now that we’ve come this far we have to ask: if the Christian god were real, would Christianity exist? Would any other religion? Would atheism? If the Christian god existed, religion as the concept we understand would not exist, it would be simply unnecessary. God would be just like a person known to us, like our parents. There would be no reason to preach his word, everyone could hear it first hand. There would be no need for theology, there would be nothing of this nature to discuss. There would be no reason to debate any metaphysical issues, as the truth would be known. We would not have to wonder why we were here or where we were going. There would certainly be no need to fight about anything remotely resembling what we call religion.

Pull the thread.

When I look around me, I do not see a world that is in keeping with what I could reasonably expect to see if Christianity were true. Christians are at constant pains to reconcile a square peg with a round hole. I am well aware that Christians will have answers to all my questions. Some I will have heard before, others perhaps not. One thing I will bet though, is that they will all start at the conclusion and work back towards the evidence.

I’ve been planning for ages to dig out this video clip and post it. It’s an excerpt from the film Young Sherlock Holmes, in which an adolescent Watson is given a quick lesson in “simple deduction”. Although they don’t use the term, it is a form of cold reading, and although this is obviously a fictional scene, it is a perfectly plausible example of what fraudulent psychics really do.

The 9th Humanist Symposium is now up at Greta Christina’s Blog.

The 77th Carnival of the Godless is available at The Skeptical Alchemist.

Enjoy your Sunday reading!

Google News Alerts brought to my attention this article by Kyle Lee in the Chicago Maroon, entitled Dawkins’s militant atheism delusional, in which he discusses some of his grievances with Dawkins and, in particular, his book The God Delusion. Unfortunately, Lee forgot to do one teeny, tiny thing that could have helped him out a bit. It’s really just a minor detail and I’m probably being pedantic, but actually reading a book before you criticise it is, in my opinion, helpful to one’s cause.

Not only did Lee not read the book, he told a big fat pork pie and said he had – hardly a very Christian thing to do! Well, here’s the smoking gun:

I have read his book The God Delusion

There is no ambiguity here, Lee is explicit in his claim. But, he later slips up, saying,

If he wants some rational arguments for faith, I would encourage Dawkins to read some St. Thomas Aquinas before vomiting up his next accusation against religion.

The accusation is quite clear here: Lee believes that Dawkins has not read any St. Thomas Aquinas, but anyone who has read The God Delusion knows that Dawkins devoted an entire section of his chapter Arguments for God’s Existence to Aquinas’ five proofs. By all means, say that he misunderstood Aquinas, or say that he did a poor job refuting him, but why would anyone who had read The God Delusion advise Dawkins to read Thomas Aquinas, knowing full well that he had?!

Unfortunately, Lee is not a one off. He is yet another in a long line of Christians writing about The God Delusion who have not read it, but other people’s reviews of it. Unfortunately, the writers of the reviews they have read probably haven’t read it either. Have any of them read it? My theory is that they’ve all just read The Dawkins Delusion? by Alister McGrath. Lee goes on to regurgitate all the classics:

For instance, instead of using evolution and natural selection as examples of a harsh, Godless reality, he should realize that the complexity, intricacy, and beauty of a living organism further reinforce the reality of the supernatural. It also leads someone with an open heart and mind to the unmistakable conclusion that the cell or molecule under observation had to have been designed before it ever evolved to its current state.

This is not even an argument, just assertion that is refuted in The God Delusion over and over again.

The tradition of atheism is certainly long-standing and stretches back at least as far as Western classical antiquity, but the modern trend of liberal, militantly atheist academics and of “scholars” who declare war on religion—or, more simply, a person’s belief in God—is vicious, disrespectful, and an abuse of the scholarly platform.

Liberal militancy?! I’m sorry Mr Lee, but calling your beliefs into question is not vicious or disrespectful, it is exactly what the scholarly platform is there for. It is on open discussion and freedom to criticise that both academia and a healthy society thrive, and knowledge grows.

Sarcastic attacks abound in both The God Delusion and Dawkins’s professional life. To be sure, he cherry-picks his facts, which leads him to fallacious conclusions and angry diatribe, but I pray that he finds some fulfillment in his life besides renouncing the ideas of the faithful and declaring religious beliefs a heresy against science and reason. I encourage the theists of this campus to stand up against this type of insidious “academic” persuasion and firmly assert the existence of God.

Angry Dawkins – that old chestnut! Even just reading the preface to the paperback edition could have saved him the time it took him to write his article. We also see religious terms thrown in, as is traditional when criticising atheists, like “heresy”. Christians never turn down an opportunity to make religion look scientific or science look religious, whenever they are not defending religion and criticising science, of course. Notice Lee’s closing words, “assert the existence of God”. Not “prove”, or “provide evidence for”, but “assert”. After presuming to criticise a book he hasn’t read on rational grounds, he all but concedes that there is not a rational case to be made.

My advice to Mr Lee is to read The God Delusion, and then, if he feels so inclined, to criticise the arguments that Dawkins actually made, rather than the usual straw men. I am sick to death of these online articles – and there must be literally hundreds of them – criticising atheist books without even having read them. I am always happy to scrutinise my beliefs, and I truly long for the day when an intelligent Christian will read The God Delusion and actually put a strong case forward against it. I’m not holding my breath though.