So Many Gods, So Little Time to Pick the Right Ones...

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Tue 07/01/2014 08:29 in response to the letter below.  Not published – we want to make it appear that the Atheists have no answers, don't we?.

Sir

Ebrahim Nathie (Letters, The Star Monday January 6 2014, “Atheism boggles my simple mind”) says that human intellect is fallible, so we should rely on divine intellect, or ”god”.  Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. say their scriptures prove that god exists, so the burden of proof should be on Atheists.  He concludes that if the religious are right, Atheists are doomed for eternity but if believers are wrong, there is no penalty.

The latter argument, “Pascal’s Wager”, has been well discredited, but there is no harm in doing it again:

Yes, many religions (excluding Buddhism, Jainism, and Scientology) say that there’s a god –or gods, in the case of Hinduism, Shinto, etc.-- but they disagree radically about what those gods want their believers to do.  Accept Jesus as your Saviour, but if Allah turns out to be in charge, you’re damned.  Worship Allah, but if the Jews are right, you’re in big trouble!

With over 3000 gods to choose from, the Theist is no closer to Heaven than the Atheist is.

In fact, the believer is worse off: She will have devoted time, money, and energy to a fantasy, and missed the wonders of reality.  The devoted Jew and Muslim will have missed bacon and prawns.  The Young-Earth Creationist will not have been amazed by geology and evolution.  The Jehovah’s Witness may have died for lack of blood transfusion.

All will have voted for people and supported policies that are not in their best interests, delaying human progress in fields like medicine and ethics.

Ebrahim (since we seem to be on first-name terms now) thinks Atheists have the burden of proof.  In other words, we should prove that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of gods?

On this same basis, does he believe in Jehovah, Allah, Krishna, Odin, Zeus, fairies, invisible pink unicorns, and that he won $50 Million in an internet lottery he didn’t enter?

No: The burden of proof is always on the person claiming that something exists, not on the person asking for proof.

The universe is proof of the existence of the universe, not that it was created by Jehovah, Allah, Krishna, Odin, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Religious scriptures look suspiciously like they were written by misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, and (by today’s standards) barbaric uneducated men, not a transcendent intellect.

What a pity that the Creator did not include a few equations in His Scripture!  If only He casually mentioned E = mc² or that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old and revolves around the sun!  Imagine where we could be now had He described Natural Selection, the law of universal gravitation, or the secret to faster-than-light travel.

Sadly, there is no evidence that a higher mind than ours had any hand in religion.

May I suggest that Ebrahim, instead of bemoaning his human intellect, rather (in the words of the scripture) “become as little children”?   All children are Atheists until they are indoctrinated into a random religion.

Atheism Produces Better Morality than Religion Does

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Sun 22/12/2013 22:36, and published Mon 30 December 2013, minus the parts in blue, as “No atheist likely to become a suicide bomber”.

Justin Steyn (“Atheism has to come up with cogent concept of morality”, The Star,Letters, December 20) either didn’t read my letter (“Atheism is the most honest approach”, The Star, December 17) or, having read it, didn't understand it, or, having understood it, didn't believe it.

As I clearly said, few atheists say categorically that no gods exist.  We say that there is insufficient evidence to believe that gods exist.  Unlike the “faithful”, we are prepared to change our minds, given reasonable scientific proof.

Mr Steyn talks about forming a common consensus.  This indeed is what happens in science.  Based on experimental evidence, the vast majority of scientists agree on such things as heliocentric theory (the earth revolves around the sun), that HIV causes AIDS, and the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Notice that this does not happen in religion: There is no sign that religions are converging to a common understanding.  This is because religion ignores evidence.  This wilful blindness is even hailed as a virtue, as proof of faith!

We are simply talking about what is real.  We apply standards of rationality and evidence to most aspects of our lives: Why not to religion?

Mr Steyn believes that religion is necessary for morality.  He must have a low opinion of himself if he thinks he would behave immorally if God were not watching him.

However, he is wrong.  Humans have in-built morality, put there by evolution.  It should be obvious that a group will do better than an individual will, and that a tribe is more likely to survive if its members cooperate.

Statistics show that nations where atheism is highest have lower crime. Studies in the USA show that states with more religion also have more crime.  The percentage of atheists in prison is well below the percentage of atheists in the general population.

Humans are not the only moral animals either.  Chimpanzees, for example, show altruism and public service to members of their group.

In fact, it is religion that hijacks our morality and turns it to evil ends.    No atheist will stone you for collecting firewood on the Sabbath, or not being a virgin.  No atheist will murder a doctor for performing an abortion.  No atheist will blow himself and you up to get into heaven.

If we look at issues like contraception, abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research, it is the atheists who adopt a “live-and-let-live” attitude, and the religious who are hell-bent on imposing their sectarian views on others.

The Star Letters Friday 20 December 2013

Agnosticism, Atheism, and Eusebius McKaiser

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Wed 04/12/2013 08:09, and published Tue 17 December 2013, minus the parts in blue.

Sir

I refer to Eusebius McKaiser’s column on Monday, December 2.

I agree with Eusebius on many things, such as the value of Sunday’s Conference “Thinking Things Through”, and that faith is an intellectual failure.  However, he, in contrarian fashion, also takes a swipe at atheists and maintains that agnosticism is the most honest approach.  I disagree.

Eusebius makes a distinction, between atheism, which he characterises as saying that there is no god, and agnosticism, which, he says, is not committing one way or the other.

Eusebius says that atheists baldly claim that god does not exist.  This is a “straw man” argument, beloved of Thabo Mbeki, where you misrepresent your opponent’s position to make it easier to knock down.

The word “atheist” comes from the prefix “a-” (not) and the word “theist” (a believer in a god or gods).  An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in any gods.  The word “agnostic” derives from the same prefix “a-” and the word “gnostic”, meaning “having direct knowledge” (usually of god).  Few of us can claim to directly experience god, so the majority, theists included, are agnostic.

You will seldom find an atheist who says he is 100% sure that there is no god. Most follow the scientific method, which allows for error and correction. One can say with reasonable certainty that Odin, Jupiter, Allah and Jesus Christ do not exist, at least as described in their religious writings.  However, one cannot yet disprove the claim that a god set off the Big Bang and now lives in retirement on Betelgeuse IV, taking no interest in our affairs.

How, does Eusebius, as a professed agnostic, live in practice?

An agnostic has a dilemma. Should he give equal credence to all gods, and worship at church, mosque, synagogue and temple, just in case?

Even that may not be enough: Many Christian sects believe that the others are going to Hell.  Better to worship at all of them! The poor agnostic will have no time left for anything else!

Worse is to come. Different religions believe contradictory things. You cannot truthfully accept Jesus and still worship Allah.

There is only one option open to the reasonable agnostic and that is to disregard the lot.  This is what Eusebius does.  His behaviour is identical to that of the atheist. The only difference is in what he says.  "I am not sure if there is a god or not (but I am living my life as if there isn't)" vs. "I am pretty sure there is no god so I am living my life as if there isn't".

Which is more honest?

Thanks and RICKgards

Rick Raubenheimer
126 Kelvin Drive, Morningside, Sandton, Johannesburg, 2191.
Tel: 011 802-2685. Cell: 082 389-3482. E-mail: rick@softwareafrica.co.za

Islam Pioneered Colonialism

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg (starletters@inl.co.za) Tue 04/06/2013 08:42 and published Fri 7 June 2013 minus the parts in blue. 

A R Modak, in his or her Letter in The Star, Tuesday May 28 (“Look to colonialism for reasons”), while lamenting violence, blames colonialism for Muslim terrorism.

Allow me to remind Mr/Ms Modak that, centuries before the UK or the USA were founded, Islam was itself spread by the sword, colonising the Middle East, North Africa, parts of Europe, and much of Asia.

This violence extends to the present day in majority Islamic nations, where we have only to look at the fate of apostates who leave Islam.

Even those who choose the wrong branch, suffer:  In Syria, Iraq, and Pakistan we see terrible violence between Sunni and Shia.

Deception, threats, and war in support of Islam are authorised in the Quran and the Hadith: Many verses can be found in support of these evils, and only a few in support of peace.

Good Christians, like the Rev Peter Storey (The Star May 29) speak out against the bad parts of their scripture, reinterpreting it in the light of modern morality.

Until good Muslims likewise disown the antisocial parts of their scripture, radicals will have the support they need for violence.

Colonialism is just an excuse.

A R Modak's letter:

Shouldn't Religious Tolerance be a Two-Way Street?

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg (starletters@inl.co.za) Mon 21/01/2013 08:20.  Published in full in the Saturday Star, 27/01/2013 08:20 as “Two-Way Street”.  This is my first letter critical of Muslims to be published in The Star (if the Saturday Star counts)!

The Saturday Star, January 19, had an article “Religious groups battle food sign ban” about a Christian group opposing everyone bearing the costs of food certification for religious groups.

This has had one beneficial effect: Unusually, Muslims and Jews are standing together in opposing the action.

Rafiek Mohamed of the Muslim United Ulama Council of South Africa is quoted as calling for religious tolerance.

Isn’t it interesting that, when Muslims are in the minority, they call for religious tolerance?

By contrast, can anyone think of a country where Muslims are instead in a majority, where a Muslim leader has called for religious tolerance?

We had a headline a few days ago on the internet “Egyptian Court Sentences Christian Family to 15 Years for Converting From Islam”.  In Egypt, ID cards carry a person’s religion (why?) and it is easy to convert a Christian ID to a Muslim one, but impossible to do the reverse.

Shouldn't religious tolerance be a two-way street?

Time Changes the View of the Bible

After I sent yesterday's reply to the Bishop, The Star has published another response to my letter.  Would anyone else care to reply? starletters@inl.co.za