Time for a Balanced Debate around Religion!

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Wed 22/09/2010 18:08, published without the parts in blue on 27 Sept 2010.

"The Star" always gives the last word on religion to Bob Holcombe, making it seem that there is no answer to his shallow arguments.  Will Sol Makgabutlane be sufficiently unbiased this time to break with tradition and publish my letter, as he has failed to do on several previous occasions?

Bob Holcombe's letter (Sept 17) "God only knows if there is life elsewhere" should not stand unchallenged.

He says that scientists are going beyond their field.  Not at all.  Anything that can be objectively investigated is the province of science.  If it can't be scientifically tested, it's speculation, superstition and nonsense.  As is Religion.

Mr Holcombe talks of a reason and a cause.  This is typical mumbo-jumbo.  Things just are, they don't need a reason and a cause.

If some god were the creator, who created the god?  If that god was always there, why not cut out the middleman and accept that the universe itself was always there?  The simpler explanation is the most likely, by Occam's Razor.

He says "God makes himself approachable" –what, through a hundred different religions that contradict each other and a Bible that contradicts itself?

And "God ... provided a logical account of how it all started".  Really?  We know from previous letters that Mr Holcombe believes the Bible.  Pity he appears not to have read it.  If he had, he would know that the Biblical account of Creation is both illogical and contradicted by observable facts.  The universe clearly did NOT arise in six days of 24 hours.  A schoolchild can tell you that day and night could not have existed before the sun.

"Bible-based" Religion is Founded on Lies

Sent to "The Star", Johannesburg, on Mon 21/06/2010 21:54; never published.

Bob Holcombe (The Star Letters, June 17 2010) concludes that "Each responsible individual must avoid false religion and heed the consequences of not living a Bible-orientated life".

This is a contradiction in terms.  The Bible itself includes serious falsehoods.

 
Allow me to prove it:

If an authority makes two conflicting statements then, logically, at least one of them must be false.

Let me take two glaring examples from the Bible.

Firstly, the tales of Creation.

Genesis 1 says the "beasts of the earth" were created, then male and female humans. Genesis 2 contradicts this, saying that a man was created, then (in a quest for a "help meet for him") all the beasts of the earth arose (which Adam named all in one day!), and finally, woman.

Genesis 1 says the world was created in six days. "Day" and "night" were created on day one, and the sun, moon and stars on day 4.  Everyone knows that "day", "night", "evening" and "morning" are nonsense without the Sun.

Secondly, the genealogy of Jesus.

Matthew 1 claims Jesus as "the son of David, the son of Abraham".  He traces the male line from Abraham through David to "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus".  He gives 27 generations inclusive from David to Joseph.

Luke 3:23-38 gives the male line going back from Joseph to David to Abraham to Adam.  Alas!  He fits in 42 generations from David to Joseph!  Except for David and Joseph, only four of the names he cites are similar to Matthew's list.

How could they diverge so radically if the Bible is divinely inspired truth?

Luke's list from Adam to Abraham disagrees in places with Genesis 5 and 11. Not only was Luke NOT divinely inspired, he didn't even read his Old Testament...

It gets worse:–

Matthew and Luke list the male line to give the impression that Jesus was descended from David, in fulfilment of prophecy.  But, oops, it's also claimed that Jesus was not the son of Mary's husband, but of God himself, who cuckolded poor Joseph!  They can't both be true.

Did God fib to Moses, Matthew, or Luke, or all of them?

As anyone with a Bible and an open mind can see, the Bible contains lies.

 
The Bible is grand literature and majestic mythology, but its morality is debatable, its history is inaccurate, its science is wrong, and on the subject of gods and an afterlife, it is pure fiction.

Why Must Religion be Protected from Humour?

Sent to "The Star", Johannesburg, on Wed 09/06/2010 20:08; published Fri June 11, 2010 as “Seriously, all religions are a joke”, except for the paragraph in blue.

AR Modak wants his or her faith respected ("Even People of Other Faiths Dislike the Cartoon" in The Star, June 8, referring to a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed).

Why should religion, unlike any other human activity, be shielded from humour?

Is it because religion is so open to mockery?

Consider the outrageous claims of religion: There is an invisible being (or several), the existence of which can not be proved, that can read your mind.  The nature and names of these beings are in dispute.  What they want of us varies from religion to religion, but generally involves massaging their egos and enriching their priests.

Several religions are rooted in the Bible, a flawed compendium of doubtful accuracy.  Important parts of it disagree with science and even common sense.  It is not even internally consistent: Some passages flatly contradict others.

Most religions claim to know what happens after death: Pity they don't agree.  Several promise damnation if you don't follow their brand, threats that should be illegal in a democracy.  If I threaten to burn your house down unless you vote for me, I will end up in jail.  Yet a priest can tell you that you will burn in hell forever (a much worse fate), and no action is taken.

Property used for religious services and housing religious officials pays no municipal rates.

Why indeed is religion privileged?

Religion is a con-job, and people have been taken in.

I suspect that many have a superstitious twinge that "God" will punish them if they speak up against religion.  Does it really happen?  Would some Muslims use violence if they really believed that Allah would do it himself?

The Bible as Natural History? Pull the Other One!

Sent to "The Star", Johannesburg, on Sat 30/01/2010, published in abbreviated form.

Bob Holcombe (The Star Letters, January 29 2010) waxes lyrical as to our uniqueness.

Has he heard of the Anthropic Principle?  This says that the reason we are on a planet and in a solar system hospitable to life, is because life would not survive in a place hostile to life.

If the Tau Ceti system (for example) were more hospitable to life, we could have been on Tau Ceti IV waving our tentacles in the methane in praise of our tantacled god who placed us in such a life-giving environment instead of on barren Earth.

Mr Holcombe goes on to credit his god with the design of the solar system and suggest that we look at the account given of our origins in the Bible.

Has he read the tale of Creation in Genesis?  Every fact about the origin and structure of the universe contradicts it.

Genesis 1 says the world was created in six days.  Not symbolic "days" of millions of years: literal, 24-hour days, as made clear by repeating "And the evening and the morning were the n-th day" (in those days, and still in Jewish tradition, the day was taken to start at sunset).

Based on hard evidence, science says that the universe is about 13.73 billion (USA billion = 10⁹) years old, the sun only about 4.57, and the earth a bit younger at around 4.54 billion years (source: Wikipedia).

The Bible says that the sun, moon and stars were created on day 4, some days after the earth, and well after the creation of "day" and "night".

Today everybody knows that day and night are due to the rotation of the earth, which exposes sequential parts of the globe to the rays of the sun.  "Day", "night", "evening" and "morning" are meaningless without the Sun.

I'm sorry to offend, but the Biblical account of our origins is not merely inaccurate, it is nonsense.  It is not possible that it is the work of a (truthful) divine creator.

Along with the very nasty god it portrays, the Bible is fiction steeped in the mythology of its time.  It is no more reliable a handbook than Grimm's Fairy Tales.

"Miraculous, Divine Intervention" or Sloppy Thinking?

Sent to "The Star", Johannesburg, on Sun 24/01/2010, published (to The Star’s credit).

The Editorial in The Star of Friday 22 January credits the survival of some of the survivors of the Haitian earthquake to "miraculous, divine intervention".

We are used to The Star, as Johannesburg's Newspaper of Record, giving us well-researched, factual reports and truthful editorial comment.  So:

Could the Editor please tell us what research was done to back up the claim of "miraculous, divine intervention"?  Were scientists –medical experts– consulted and did they agree that given the conditions, science could not explain the survival of these people?  Did The Star then consult religious experts (assuming there are such things) and did they agree that it was indeed "miraculous, divine intervention"?

More importantly, did they say which god or gods were responsible?  Were they also able to explain why said god or gods were able to save a few isolated survivors, but not prevent the earthquake itself?  Was the saving perhaps the work of an apprentice god who hadn't mastered whole earthquakes yet?

These questions are posed tongue-in-cheek (and without intending any disrespect towards the earthquake victims) because I strongly suspect that ***THE EDITOR*** (as James Clarke refers to you), put no thought into the phrase whatsoever, simply assuming that because he automatically credits unusual events to his particular gods, everyone else does too.

Sir, may I point out that this is an unwarranted assumption: If we have no explanation for some phenomenon at present, it is not justified to invoke the superstition of bygone ages and credit that to some god (if so, which ones and why?).  The correct scientific attitude is to say "we have no explanation for this at present" and then, perhaps "let us see what evidence there is and where it leads us".

I suggest that there is no evidence for "miraculous, divine intervention" whatsoever.  If you disagree, Mr Editor, please present your proof.

Terrorists are a Natural Product of Religion, not an Aberration

Sent to "The Star", Johannesburg, on Wed 30/12/2009, never published.

Tuesday 29 December's Star Leader Page carries two analyses of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who tried to bomb Northwest Airlines flight 253 on Friday, and his ilk.

There is an important point about "Islamist terrorists" that the analyses miss.  It is this:  These people are faithfully and conscientiously putting into practice exactly what their religion teaches.

The problem is not extremists, it is religion.

The Qur'an condones violence against non-Muslims:

[8.39] fight with them until ...religion should be only for Allah

[9.12] ..fight the leaders of unbelief..

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah

[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you...

A Muslim who dutifully follows the warlike commands in his scriptures will be seen by decent people, including moderate Muslims, as a murderous criminal. Nor are Christians or Jews any better off:

A Jew who obediently followed Leviticus 26:32-36 would stone to death anyone that gathered sticks on the Sabbath.  Is the genocide in the book of Joshua acceptable because a god commanded it?

Matthew [28:19] has Jesus saying "make disciples of all the nations" –and force was not ruled out, witness the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland.

Only if a Jew, Christian or Muslim IGNORES the bad laws in his holy books, is he able to be part of civilized society.  Fortunately there are millions of good religious people who don't obey the evil commands.

Religion makes a virtue of blind obedience.  By this measure, the most fanatical are the holiest.

The world will have fundamentalist violence until we handle the cause: Organised religion.  We will be closer to peace when good people stop deferring to religion as if it were something holy.  These superstitions should be treated like the Greek myths or Santa Claus:  Interesting stories, not a reason to kill people.

Which god was opposing abortion on Tuesday?

Sent to "The Star", Johannesburg, on Thu 16/04/2009, never published.

John Zenstra (Star letters, Tuesday 14 April) says that God Almighty is vehemently opposed to abortion.

He forgot to mention which god of the many on offer –Zeus, Jupiter, Krishna, Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, to name but a few– this is, or to cite where the god makes this statement.  Could he please bring his god to a public press conference so that the matter can be clarified once and for all?

If he can't, why not admit that the above gods (and all the rest) are convenient fictions, because it sounds more impressive to blame his morality on a god, instead of taking responsibility for working it out himself?