So my mum found my blog a few weeks ago (Hi, mum!), and being a good Christian, expressed some concern over my turn away from god and the church.  In the latest Amazon package I got from home, there were a few additions: a book entitled The Shack, and a few printed pages from the websites http://godandscience.org and http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

I’ll review The Shack later, but I did have a look at the two sites.  Sadly, the everystudent link is pretty weak in the strength of its arguments.  Being the easiest to critique, I thought I’d offer some responses here.

But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks…all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

A bit of a cheating, to begin with.  The author asks us to accept the premise right from the beginning.  It’s as if she realises that her arguments lack strength from the beginning.  In philosophy, the greatest burden of proof is on the person making the most ontologically positive statement.  Let me borrow an example from Wikipedia:

The reasoning for this argument should be fairly obvious.  It’s far easier to prove than an apple exists in the fruit bowl (all you have to do is present 1 apple), than it is to prove that there are no apples in the fruit bowl (you need to present all the fruit in the bowl and eliminate each as “not an apple”).

In the case, the ontologically positive statement is that “god exists.”  Marilyn would have us begin on the same side of the fence with “God possibly exists,” rather than the opposite position.

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Not really.  This is another version of the famous watchmaker analogy.  If you find a watch lying on the ground, you naturally assume (because of the complexity of the device) that it was created by a watchmaker, not came together of its own accord.  Thus, the argument goes that because human beings and our planet are vastly more complex than a watch, there must be a creator to have created it.

As other have pointed out, this doesn’t answer the question; it only moves it back a level.  If we know from the sheer complexity of humans that there must be a creator, then god must be more complex than we are – so who created god?

There more to that argument on their page, but I’ll save the response to that, because the godandscience.org link presents a much stronger argument for this in the first place.

2. Does God exist? The universe had a start – what caused it?

Marilyn’s main argument here is “The universe has not always existed. It had a start…what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.”  This is poorly argued.  Just because science does not have an answer (I would add “yet” here, since we are currently studying this), does not mean that god did it.

3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

Here, Marilyn goes into an argument from wishful thinking.  “How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?”  She doesn’t present an answer; we are to naturally come to the same conclusion she did.  Me, I’d rather go looking to see if I can find out why it’s so orderly and reliable.

4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell’s behavior.

Back to the watchmaker analogy.  See my response to point 1 above.

5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

Now we move into an argument from wishful thinking, and a failure of logic.  We know that god exists because he’s pursuing us?  Pursuit pre-supposes existence.  You know what?  First establish existence, then you can go into pursuit.  Her argument here that that because we focus so much on it, that’s proof that it exists.  Preposterous.

You know why we focus on it?  Because it affects us in negative ways.  Because we have people in America standing in the way of things like gay marriage, based on their understandings of religious doctrine.  Because we have paedophilic priests who use the institutions of church and religion of cover up and escape from justice.  Because we have things like women who have been raped who are then tried for the crime of being raped and are stoned to death under religious law.  Great evil is done in the name of religion.  If it were all sweetness and light, then I wouldn’t care about it.

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.

Okay, here we go.  Firstly, there is no proof that a person named Jesus ever existed.  Most of the stories about him can also be found attributed to other deific figures in other religions.  Look at Krishna, from Hinduism:

• Jesus and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
• Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
• Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
• Krishna’s adoptive human father was a carpenter.
• A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
• Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
• Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
• Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna’s parents stayed in Mathura.
• Both Jesus and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
• Both were identified as “the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head.”
• Jesus was called “the lion of the tribe of Judah.” Krishna was called “the lion of the tribe of Saki.”
• Both claimed: “I am the Resurrection.”
• Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
• Both were “without sin.”
• Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
• They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
• Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured “all manner of diseases.”
• Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
• Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
• Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
• Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
• Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
• Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

Given that Krishna was reportedly born around 3200ish BCE, and Jesus is traced to well, 1 CE, and that the early Christians were known to steal from other religions to spread their own (look up December 25 and the Roman Holiday Saturnalia), and it’s far more reasonable to say that details from Krishna’s life were attributed to Jesus rather than the other way around.

This time from Tony Abbott, leader of the Liberal Part of Australia, currently in opposition.

Link: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/bible-bashing-the-homeless-abbott-style-20100215-o2tj.html

I’ll save you the effort of following the link if you don’t really want to – the part I want to focus on is in the first two paragraphs:

I was in Canberra last week and had the opportunity to ask Opposition Leader Tony Abbott whether a government under his direction would continue with the Rudd government’s goal of halving homelessness by 2020. His answer was no.

In justifying his stance, Abbott quoted from the Gospel of Matthew: ”The poor will always be with us,” he said, and referred to the fact there is little a government can do for people who choose to be homeless.

Michael Perusco
chief executive
Sacred Heart Mission

This seems more than simple misinterpretation of the Bible.  Seriously, find me more modern-day Christians who would a) claim that people are homeless out of choice, and b) admit to wanting to do nothing for them.

But honestly, that isn’t what bothers me.  I don’t think an Abbott-led government has a hope of defeating Kevin Rudd and the ALP in the next election, especially since they keep seeming to lean more and more to the right every time we turn around.

What really bothers me is that we have a politician here who thinks its okay to base policy decisions on his own personal religion.  Okay, so there’s not an official separation of Church and State here in Australia (we have a prohibition of the establishment of a State Religion but that’s not the same thing at all), so there’s technically nothing wrong with it at all.

But using the bible out of context to criticise the homeless?  That’s pretty low.

I’ve just recently discovered the redheaded skeptic’s blog, and I’m really really happy to have done so.  I think here is a blog I can semi-relate to, because I grew up in the birthplace of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Consequently, a lot of her story is bringing back so many memories…

E and I don’t talk much about religion, but when we do, I’m often struck by the differences between her Eastern Orthodox upbringing and my conservative Baptist one – and where we are now.  So far, we’ve co-existed nicely.  She believes and I don’t, and there’s where it’s kind of stopped.

But soon -– very soon – it’s going to become something we have to discuss in earnest, because D is going to be starting kindergarten next year, and with that comes the possibility of scripture classes.  And that is something I dread.

So I think I mentioned last week that I’d started running here at work.  I’m surprised to report that I’m still going.  Twice a week, in fact.  And so far, I have not hit that plateau, so I’m still improving each time I run.  Nine days ago I ran the distance in 36m 54s; today I covered it in 33m 24s.

But the best part?  I’ve dropped 5Kg in that time.  I’m really stoked about that part of it, and trying desperately hard NOT to be my normal pessimistic self about when that plateau does finally come.

Maybe when the zombies come, I will have a chance of surviving, if I keep this up.

No, not the movie.  Me.  The fat boy.  I’m running.  Not now, obviously.  No, I’ve joined a running group here at work.  Twice a week, we all start off at the same time and place, and then for the next half-hour they run away from me.  It’d be a pretty short run the other way around.

Still, I’ve done it thrice now, so I figured it was time to start benchmarking and striving for improvement.  Today we did 4.55 km in 36m 23.14s.  Well, they did it a lot faster, but hey, for the first time, I wasn’t the last one back.

I beat the guy who stopped to buy some lunch and shampoo on the way.

D asked me this the other day.  After about a 3 second “where the hell did that come from?” pause, I mentally shrugged and told him.  Blood, and electricity – the closest I could come to the firing of synapses and neurons, etc.  We then spent the next five minutes googling pictures of the human brain.

I found this most excellent article on Greta Christina’s blog: http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2010/01/immorality-of-heaven.html

In a nutshell, it asks the question: how can heaven be heaven if we know our loved ones are in hell?  There’s a lot of supposition and guesswork in there – hell, it’s ALL guesswork when it comes to the supposed afterlife, but it’s a piece designed to make you think, and it did that for me.

First, let’s start with the link.  You may or may not have seen it in the news.  I hadn’t until my wife pointed it out to me.

Link: http://www.smh.com.au/world/childtrafficking-accused-claim-innocence-as-trial-awaits-20100202-n97o.html

Where have we seen this before?  Have we learned nothing from history?  Isn’t this pretty much the same thing that happened with the missionaries of the Age of Discovery?  What about the Stolen Generation?

There’s an inherent sense of superiority I see in here that irks me.  I don’t know why.  Could it be a case of simple lack of forethought?  Even if the parents of these children had died in the quake (which is disputed quite strongly, if you read the article), surely they had extended family.  They’d certainly be better off with grandparents, uncles, even cousins than with a random family full of people they don’t know.

So is this sinister, or very very badly misguided?  I don’t know.  Make up your own mind.  Just think very carefully and do your homework before giving money to relief funds.  Doing research on the funds is harder than just giving and hoping for the best, but honestly, if they deserve your money, don’t you think they deserve as much attention as well?

Don’t even look at the video of the swinging baby. You could be prosecuted.

Today’s entry in the “stupid application of the law” books come from Queensland, where a man has been charged with accessing and uploading child abuse material.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/10/1236447185321.html

Now, the best this could turn out to be is a case of good intentions gone horribly wrong. Chris Illingworth took something that was already widely available across the internet, and added it to another site. He didn’t create the video, had absolutely nothing to do with its content, and yet he’s being singled out.

My mind’s rife with speculation about Susan Cadzow, the specialist pediatrician at Royal Brisbane Children’s Hospital whose witness statement is central to the Queensland Police’s brief of evidence. I’d love to know her motivations for this…

Either way, a man’s life is ruined by this, and it seems like its done for no good reason.

Thanks to joe, one of my longtime friends, this blog now has a name: The Man Cave. The name is partly self-deprecating, since I don’t make any claims to be one of the world’s great thinkers — I merely recycle a lot of good ideas and keep them in circulation, but it’s also a reference to the way that a lot of men handle issues.

John Gray first popularised the man cave in his book Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. But where Gray envisioned the man cave as a place to which men retreat until they are ready to deal with the problems, I envision my cave as a place I where I can focus on the problem until I work out my position with regard to it.

So this is it. Welcome to The Man Cave. Enjoy your stay. It’s not messy, it’s supposed to look this way.