Do You Need to be Religious to be Moral?

Do you have to believe in God to be a moral person?

No.

It suffices one believes their own individual actions are meaningful. You don’t need to appeal to anything other than that. In the context of Christianity (and every other major religion except Buddhism), there exists this assumption one has to be religious to first be moral; and there are plenty of historical examples of secular-minded leaders and thinkers who have accepted this premise: in his Farewell Address, George Washington argued it wasn’t possible for a people to possess a direction if it didn’t first possess a religious anchor. Abraham Lincoln appealed to Providence (a synonym really for God) to demonstrate slavery’s evil. I would argue, though, that there’s no real need to appeal to Providence to demonstrate slavery is wrong: all I need to do is ask the slave a simple question like “Do you want to be a slave?” And if they respond by saying “no” the rightness or wrongness is concrete–in the here and how–well established. No need to appeal to Providence (when in fact Providence was appealed to in the 19th century to justify the continuation of slavery, e.g. See the biblically based so-called “Curse of Ham“).

In reality, God for the theist acts fundamentally an an anchor or a concrete starting point (providing an internal sense of contrast of what constitutes right behavior from wrong). Human beings crave certainty and if it can be demonstrated concretely that God wants us to do either this or that action then a certain clarity is brought to existence. Yet, if all we need is an anchor, agnostics and atheists and everyone in-between all possess them; they may not all appeal to divine beings, or external measures, as that anchor but the anchors nonetheless exist in mind and motivation. Interestingly, the Lutheran pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) argued in his Letters and Papers from Prison that boiling down God, or morality, as immovable anchors or standards was simply no longer an option: in the infancy of humankind we could appeal to the wisdom of following rules; however, in the 20th century, when Bonhoeffer was writing, with all of our advances in both scientific and theological scholarship, we had to grow up and start taking more personal responsibility for living in the world (pages 478-480).

All theists, agnostics, and atheists, believe that what they do and believe is meaningful; the only true difference that exists between these three categories of moralists is the agnostic values intellectual integrity and accepts certain things are by their very nature unanswerable while atheists abandon external justifications for their actions instead choosing to take personal responsibility for them. For atheists and agnostics, in particular, meaningful action (and by extension morality) comes from a simple act of faith (so to speak) that what they do matters in the here and now (and not “necessarily” in a life that is to come).

The World According to John Steinbeck

John Steinbeck made a pretty nifty observation: he said socialism never took root in America because the poor never saw themselves as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. I suppose this is why so many of them oppose progressive tax reforms that would be in their interest to support.

American culture is so hostile to the idea of limits, i.e. Marx was surely right when he called capitalism a “machine for demolishing limits”. It does a pretty bang-up job of demolishing planets, as well.

And now for the obligatory cat picture.

10881520_10206714857896010_1544405235182764622_n

Disagreeing Constructively on the Internet

If you’ve visited the comments section of a Facebook article, YouTube video or a news site, it becomes quickly evident that there’s a lot of trolls out there. There’s something about the anonymity and distance provided by the Internet that seems to welcome anti-social behavior. The problem with trolling, at least as I see it, is three-fold: firstly, the way we speak to others online genuinely affects them so we should be careful with our words; secondly, the tenor of our online interactions shape the conversations and attitudes we have about issues when we’re offline; and lastly, too many people are too easily satisfied by attacking the people they encounter online instead of actually getting to know them.

A number of years ago I wrote a book review on Amazon for David Berlinski’s The Devil’s Delusion. The book itself is unremarkable and I’ve pretty much forgotten everything about it; nonetheless, a number of visitors to the site both read and replied to my review. Out of all the subsequent interactions I had I recall two of them specifically: the first was with a person named “Geoff” whose comments were pretty indicative of your typical Internet troll; the second was with a fellow named “Laners” who, as it turns out, eventually became one of the best friends I’ve ever made.

What follows, then, is the original review I wrote followed by comments made by Geoff, myself and Laners. The point of sharing this is so that, for anyone interested, they can see how people can disagree constructively online instead of resorting to name calling or just being generally shitty to one another.


The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (Paperback) by Rick D.
I read the Devil’s Delusion in part because I thought it might provide a thoughtful and relevant criticism of scientific materialism. But instead of the expected objective criticism I found more of an attack on science and its apparent “pretensions”.

The first indication that the author was less than objective was when I came across his first (of many) references to the Old Testament. I concede that Mr. Berlinski perhaps used his first biblical reference for certain stylistic or aesthetic purposes; however, his repeated invocation of Scripture caused me to wonder whether the author was the right man for so important a job as to help further the philosophy of science.

Another issue I had with the author was his over-use of the exclamation mark. I admit this is such a petty thing to point out; and I acknowledge a writer needs to be free to make use of whatever tools are at hand–be them rhetorical or grammatical–to do the job. Yet, from a reader’s point-of-view I found the abundance of exclamations distracting. In fact, I left many a chapter sensing that the author was simply trying to out-shout his opponents instead of out-think; any educated/literate person would agree that the validity of one’s arguments does not depend upon one’s volume so much as one’s appeal to truth through a combination of evidence, logic and reason.

Thirdly, I often found the author’s tone unprofessional. His disdain for scientific materialism (and Richard Dawkins in particular) was absolutely palpable; and I think it’s safe to say the author’s choice of title is indicative of his particular fixation with Mr. Dawkins. In short, I’d be surprised to find the Devil’s Delusion in print if in fact Dawkin’s God Delusion hadn’t existed first. There simply would be no reason to publish Berlinski’s book otherwise. If an author is intent on providing an objective account of “things” you would expect that he/she might acknowledge that the object of criticism (scientific materialism in this case) might have at least a modicum of validity. Berlinski did not concede any point to science that did not further his own particular agenda. However, despite the weaknesses I perceived in his style I was grateful for one thing: he did provide in my opinion an excellent overview of the history of the scientific world-view. Albeit his account is broken up over several chapters I found it informative, balanced, and well-written.

In conclusion, if you are looking for a book that provides reasonable, well-constructed, objective counter-arguments to those posed by Richard Dawkins this is not the book for you; and if you are looking for a book that furthers (covers new territory) the dialogue on the philosophy of science…well, this book isn’t for you either. However, if you are interested in the history of 21st Century religion-based polemics then perhaps this book is for you.

* * * * *

Geoff says:

So, you think the book is bad because it quotes the Ancient Greeks too often — whoops, the Ancient Hebrews — and uses too many exclamation marks — and shows insufficient respect for Dawkins the Noisemaker. Wow! That’s pretty deadly!!

I call him Dawkins the Noisemaker because he is so obviously a Fame Whore. Just five minutes ago, I watched a YouTube video where some girl asked him, “What if you’re wrong?” Did Dawkins answer the question? No. He simply turned the question around, and asked the girl, “What if you’re wrong (in believing in JooJoo, God of the Cannibals)?” A truly disgraceful performance.

* * * * *

Laners says:

Your complaints regarding this book seem to be a little trite. To over quote from the greatest book ever written would not seem to be too much of a sin, particularly as the Bible has been central to the point at issue between Dawkins et al and Berlinski. The overuse of a exclaimation point hardly seems to be worth pointing out. It is as though you entered the discussion looking for a reason to be distracted or annoyed and ignore the content of the book.

Your third point I can readily agree with but would note that this tone seems to be central to the discussion at hand on both sides and can be seen clearly not only in all literature that I have read from both sides, but also in almost every post regarding the discussion at hand. What I can say about Berlinski is that his slams against the opposition are at least quite witty and written with a sense of humor. I note that you do not mention that Dawkins et al are most rabid in their snarky and disdainful comments against those that they disagree with. Compared to them, Berlinski is a piker in the use of this use of uncivil and unprofessional language. I don’t disagree that it is there and that I found it refreshing to have someone on my side taking the occasional dig at the other side, however the tone is so offensive when reading Dawkins that it is only with great deference that I can try to get to the meat of what Dawkins is saying.

And I would add this. The tone of Dawkins in particular belies his real motives in taking up this fight. Were he truly seeking to convince rather than incite what is the point of publishing demeaning and offensive rhetoric as he does? If his arguments were persuasive enough he would hardly need to attempt to shame others into renouncing their beliefs. But his arguments are not and so we must be repeatedly subjected to his disdainful remarks against those of faith as though we have never analyzed the issue logically or had a cogent thought pass between our ears.

It is the simple fact of the matter that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. I believe that God intended it this way so that we would be forced to make a decision based on what our heart tells us and how we view our place in this world and eternity. Were the arguments forceful enough on either side then we could be convinced based on conclusive evidence rather than on the condition of our hearts and this is not what God had in mind. Many have described faith in God as a blind faith but this is simply not the case. The truth is that there is an abundance of evidence on both sides, though scientific evidence for the existence of God is hard to find because it is difficult for scientists with this world view to be published and this also shows that there is something deeper going on. Were we having a real debate based on available evidence then all sides would be willingly published. However, the accepted scientific community has largely made up it’s mind and is generally only publishing one side of the story. This means that books with evidence supporting ID or the existence of God are published under minor labels and are difficult to find. It is not as though their work is sub par. I have read many widely published works (with the accepted world view) that were either not peer reviewed or were reviewed very uncritically and were largely rubbish.

As the the existence of this book, it is in many respects a refutation of Dawkin’s book no doubt and would not exist were it not for Dawkins and a host of other books proporting their world view. This is generally called a “critique” and is not at all uncommon in literature. It is the very nature of the critique that it would not exist were it not for a previously published work(s), similar to this post. It is hard to understand why this would be considered a point against Berlinski’s book.

It is interesting that it is your opinion that there are no counter arguments to Dawkin’s arguments in this book. The whole point of the book was to state that writings such as Dawkin’s are simply overstepping their bounds in the application of science. I am not sure any specific counter arguments need to be made as Dawkin’s arguements are generally fallacious and outside the realms of scientific method. We are instructed to have our imaginations inspired by Darwin….this is science? Don’t give me a dream sequence, show me evidence. Anyone can imagine how something happened, that doesn’t make it science. I am amused in one of his chapters how he (Dawkin’s) makes the point that it is invalid to state that since most of the scientists in the age if enlightenment were Christians we should all be Christians because they were so brilliant and that is what they thought. Then he proceeds to state (at great length) that today most of the “brilliant” scientists are athiests; the implication being that the rest of us dummies should be too. If the argument was invalid 400 years ago it is invalid today as well. I would think making points such as these are as much a waste of Berlinski’s time as they are mine and that most reasonable people can see thru them without reading another book.

Berlinski’s point is deeper. Science is science, philosophy is philosophy, religion is religion. Science should have evidence to back up claims. It should be rigid in it’s methods and should be regarded with the view that as humans we tend to interpret evidence in light of our worldview. This means the measure of “proof” should be very high indeed else our preconceived notions cloud the picture to obscurity and the truth of the matter becomes difficult, if not impossible to find. The discussion about string theory points this out very well. Is there anyone that really believes that there are an infinite number of alternative universes out there that are undetectable outside a set of theoretical physics formulae? All mathematical models are based on a set of assumptions. How closely have these been examined in this case? I am not a physicist so I don’t know but it does seem to me that sometimes people have to be way more educated than I to believe something so preposterous, else (for the lesser educated) it is a belief that is taken by faith. Faith in a group of scientists that I certainly do not trust to have my eternal welfare in mind at all. The clear point of Berlinski’s book is that it is quite likely that string theory would never have come to be. It is a deep desire to explain away the existence of God that it is here at all and continues to be pursued despite the conceptual and theoretical difficulties that it poses. And this is the problem that he is bringing out. Scientific pursuits have been mixed with religion and philosopy to drive research that is biased, unhelpful, and in all likelihood untrue. So what if string theory is correct? We can never prove or disprove it as these alternate universes are undetectable. How has it advanced anything other than to allow athiests to be a bit more smug? I am not saying the questions shouldn’t be asked, however scientific inquiry into fields that are more productive would seem to be a good idea. If we could get to the advancement of society that would seem to be more productive and a better use of grant monies to my mind.

* * * * *

Rick says:

@Geoff

Thanks for replying to my review, Geoff. I love the Internet for the simple fact it makes the exchange of ideas so easy. I feel the need to provide some clarification for you as to what my main issue was with respect to Berlinski’s book (a book I presume you’ve read).

My main problem was not with his use of Scripture or exclamation marks (though I found these distracting and frankly, odd, for an “academic” work). I apologize if what I wrote came across as being so super-ficial and juvenile. In reality, I had a problem with Berlinski invoking Scripture to support his anti-scientific establishment ideas, i.e. Using Genesis as proof of the falsity of evolution. I don’t think too many theologians (at least on this side of the Enlightenment) would think this particular collection of books (produced by Bronze Age Israel) would be used–relevantly at least–to establish the short-comings of the scientific method or scientific materialism. If Scriptural fiat were as powerful as perhaps you seem to imply, then we’d still think the Sun revolved around the earth because of some obscure reference in the Book of Job.

So for the sake of clarity I’ll draw your attention to my main problem with Berlinski’s book. Here’s a direct quote from my review (in hindsight I was not as clear as I should’ve been):

“I left many a chapter sensing that the author was simply trying to out-shout his opponents; whereas any educated/literate person would agree that the validity of one’s arguments does not depend upon the volume spoken so much as an appeal to truth through a combination of evidence, logic and reason.”

I was disappointed with the book primarily because of the author’s tendency towards over-statement of the evidence against scientific materialism (regarding evolution for example…I recommend your read something written by Kenneth Miller like Only a Theory on this topic and not Berlinski) and the author’s use of over-simplification (arguing against the mathematical probability of rational “well-designed” creatures like ourselves evolving through the use of an appeal to personal credulity). In short, I felt like I was being berated by a Jesuit priest while reading Berlinski and not listening to a well-reasoned, balanced, or heaven forbid objective account of “things”.

Where you say Berlinski doesn’t show enough respect for Dawkin’s the Noise Maker you really need to take a step backward. Berlinski doesn’t have to respect Dawkin’s the man. Who cares about Dawkins?! He’s just a cog in the wheel of the scientific community. What I want is Berlinski to take on Dawkin’s ideas and thinking. Berlinski doesn’t do this. Instead he obfuscates the issue by attacking the man (Dawkins) instead of the ideas (scientific materialism).

Lastly, when you use terms like “fame whore” you come off as crass and ignorant. Also, I’d suggest perhaps actually reading some books by Dawkin’s (you might find the God Delusion, Blind Watchmaker, Greatest Show on Earth or the Devil’s Chaplain useful) and not going to YouTube to form your opinion.

Regards.

@Laners

Thanks for your response, Laners. You sure wrote a lot. I think I understood most of what you wrote. You obviously are passionate about the culture war raging between science and religion. Passion is a good thing; however, it doesn’t always lend itself to effective communication.

You suggested the bible was somehow central to the exchange between Dawkin’s and Berlinksi. I absolutely agree, e.g. Dawkin’s views the Torah in a way similar to Einstein, i.e. A set of fairy tales taught to children. However, to Berlinski scripture is holy, inerrant even. Consequently, I’m not surprised that there’s conflict between the two men. I do not think there’s a dialogue though. Neither man would likely concede (at least publicly) that the other has something useful to say. And, as you intimated, since Dawkin’s doesn’t play nice why should Berlinski…

As I mentioned in my review, I thought Berlinski’s book to be written mainly as a response to the God Delusion. I purchased the book not knowing that Berlinski was writing under the umbrella of the Discovery Institute. I had zero pre-knowledge of him. Consequently, I had only one pre-conceived notion going into reading the book: based on the book’s subtitle I thought I’d be reading a much needed and informed criticism of scientific materialism. To that end I found Berlinski lucid and informative at times. However, his effectiveness was much diminished in my mind because he continually yells at the reader (exclamation mark after exclamation mark). If you’ve actually read the book (which I suspect you have), you might concede that my observation here is well-founded and not simply “trite” (or not…I suppose that’s your prerogative). Moreover, Berlinski’s usage of scripture is, in my opinion, lazy. If this were the 16th Century, I’m thinking Berlinski’s constant allusions to scripture to back up his claims would add authority to his arguments. However, last time I checked I lived in a secular society and I didn’t have to worry about being burnt at the stake for disagreeing with believers. The fact remains scriptural fiat is much diminished in the 21st Century. I assure you Berlinski has not in fact knocked Darwin off his perch. And if Darwin does get knocked off it won’t be at the hands of a theologian or a fellow from the Discovery Institute; it will be done at the hands of another scientist using logic, experimentation, objectivity and intellectual rigor.

I’d like to take issue with your claim that the Bible is the greatest book ever written. It certainly has been influential, i.e. The book has been mis-used (some would say used exactly as it was originally intended) to justify white supremacy and slavery; it’s been used to justify persecution of homosexuals and the oppression of women; burning of witches; holy wars, etc. The central tenets of the Christian testaments also led to the Reformation which in turn had some influence on how questions related to truth were asked and how truth was pursued during both the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. The teachings of the NT also helped inspire the social justice and social gospel movements of the late 19th and early 20th century leading to many improvements for the working poor. Hmmm. Greatest book ever, though? I think I could find about 1 billion Hindus who might disagree. Perhaps a few hundred million Muslims might likewise take issue? Is it the greatest book because you personally believe it to be so…? This is one of the problems with Berlinski: for most of his arguments to have any plausibility you must first be in some form or fashion already in agreement with him. In this respect, his writing reminds me of Thomas Aquinas’ circular reasoning (in Summa Theologiae).

I completely appreciate why you as a believer aren’t impressed by Dawkins. Dawkins is absolutely irreverent to Christians. I’ve read about four or five of his books mainly to get an appreciation for the so-called new atheism. You were made upset by Dawkin’s tenor? I can understand that. Just out of curiosity: if you could get past Dawkin’s the man would you see any of his arguments as having any validity? You found Berlinski funny? I definitely sensed his irreverence for the idols of science. I didn’t laugh out loud though at any point (I was too busy placing cotton swabs in my ears because he kept yelling at me).

You said: “It is interesting that it is your opinion that there are no counter arguments to Dawkin’s arguments in this book.” I’m sorry I couldn’t find any counter-arguments to Dawkins to be honest (at least not effective ones); it’s been a couple years since I read Berlinski’s book. If I ever re-read it, I will try to do so with a mind to look for these effective counter-arguments. I do remember thinking Berlinski somewhat petty for ridiculing Dawkins for shedding a tear at a symposium in which a senior scientist, after his scientific model has been disproven by a junior scientist, accepts the fact that his life’s work has been…wrong. This is what science does: it refines itself; changes with evidence; and precepts of science are not (unlike science’s critics maintain) accepted out of deference to authority. To echo Dawkins: can religionists say the same? But as you yourself said, Berlinski’s book was primarily polemical in its ends and not scientific. You appear to have some affinity for Intelligent Design. I confess I do not share your affinity; however, I might suggest the following book (Only a Theory by Miller) on the topic. Miller does something Berlinski does not; that is, he actually suggests how ID might be demonstrated by providing examples of actual experiments a scientist could undertake.

I’m sorry but the rest of your comments were riddled with fallacy after fallacy. I find that I can only identify your fallacies (and they were many) and then explain why I have a problem with your observation. See below a few.

Argument from Ignorance
Laner’s Wrote:
“It is the simple fact of the matter that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved.”

Oddly, at one time you accept that there’s no evidence for the existence of god. Then at the same time you actually use our inability to disprove the existence of god as proof for his existence. “You can’t prove he doesn’t exist!” (Sorry for being like Berlinski but I thought the exclamation a useful rhetorical device here.) Strange. I wonder if it might be more logical to concede that our (yours and mine) ignorance, well, means ignorance; that is, you/we don’t know. Period. It’s not a puzzle that the Deity gave to us to solve so he could separate the “saved” from the “damned”. Our ignorance of such things is just a brute fact. And perhaps, and I don’t mean to offend, that there’s no evidence (at least acquired through anything other than personal revelation) for god because there is no god? Just putting that idea out there. I’m not saying I am an atheist. I am simply thinking aloud, playing with ideas.

Argument from Mystery
“I believe that God intended it this way so that we would be forced to make a decision based on what our heart tells us and how we view our place in this world and eternity.”

You believe god created this cosmic riddle for us to solve? You base this belief on what evidence exactly? I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. My belief in the existence of this pasta-monster is not evidence for its existence; it’s evidence for my accepting something as true without properly vetting or being critical of it. Belief in belief is a hollow compass, indeed.

Argument from Emotion
“Were the arguments forceful enough on either side then we could be convinced based on conclusive evidence rather than on the condition of our hearts and this is not what God had in mind.”

Is reality optional? Is something true because in my heart I feel it is so? If my heart of hearts tells me the earth is at rest or the sun revolves around the earth, does that make it so? If I look at the sunrise and say to myself “a god must exist to have created that”, is the feeling inspired by the sunset evidence for the Deity? I’m thinking not. I didn’t make the rules but I follow them when it comes to thinking: you cannot alter physical reality, history, etc. one iota through a simple act of volition or emotion. God’s existence is not dependent upon your belief for his existence; and conversely God’s inexistence does not depend upon the atheist’s denial.

He is. Or he is not.

I admit to being moved by the beauty of nature; but I don’t mistake my emotional reaction to something as evidence for anything other than, well, how I personally feel about that thing at that given point and time.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond.

* * * * *

Laners says:

Richard,

Thanks for the reply. It is refreshing to have an even toned communication about these issues. It is really very difficult to find people that will debate them without things rapidly devolving into an emotion charged argument. Mostly, it seems the evolution minded group tend to treat anyone of faith with disdain or scorn as though we have no brains or have no ability to think things through and this is why, to me, the discussion really has very little to do with science. I am reminded of Indiana Jones saying to his archeology class that archeology is not about discovering the truth; that if you wanted truth to head down to the theology department. Archeology, he said, is about the discovery of fact. Largely, I think, science should be about the same thing, though fact can often lead to truth…the two are not completely disparate. But there are certain truths that cannot be discovered by science and the existence of God is one of them. In your post you claimed that I said that there was no evidence for the existence of God, but that is not true, I did say “that there is an abundance of evidence on both sides” of the argument and this is where the rub lies. When data is open to interpretation we tend to rely on our pre-conceived notions to get us to the point of belief and I use this word belief here loosely. There are many positions I hold to generally at about 60/40 in the absence of further information. For example I am a mid-trib rapture believer because it seems to me to fit the evidence in the book most closely…but it is not a hard and firm belief. If I turned out to be wrong it wouldn’t cause me to lose any sleep.

I view most science this way. Every scientist comes to the table with a certain worldview. They cannot be objective. Certainly many recognize this and take steps to shield themselves from their own bias (these would be the good scientists). This is why a randomized, double blind, placebo, control drug clinical trial is currently the gold standard of the way to prove a compound works. Because the structure shields us all from known biases that we all have. Unfortunately most modern science does not tend to work under these constrictions and as for Dawkins, I can’t say that I have read about any real scientific work that he is engaged in at all. His life seems to be mostly made up of lectures, book writing, and travel (not that I disapprove of these things, it sounds like a wonderful life it just isn’t science). I do recall the experiment involving the monkey and the typewriter but I would hardly call that science.

The point is that in the end there is something else that we all base our beliefs on. None of us can know all the science out there or can understand it all. We have weighted beliefs based on the things that we read and the conclusions drawn from other peoples work. Whether we believe what they are selling or not does rest somewhat on their arguments, but we have not done the work ourselves. In the end it is faith in what they are saying (and maybe in the person or scientist themself) that settles the matters in our minds. The days of flipping a switch to see what happens are largely over and we are dealing with issues that are not simple nor are the result easy to interpret (quite often) and even more now we are dealing at the argument level only. Simple theological arguments about why evolution works or it doesn’t. The days of science being about finding fact seem to be over, particularly in certain fields, and the hay is being made on the interpretation of the few facts that we do have. I really wouldn’t have much of an issue with this except for the fact that it impacts all our lives and it seems that few have recognized where we now are in what is typically called “science” anymore.

As to the emotion component, I suppose talking about the heart isn’t the best way to present this as it is often interpreted as an appeal to the emotional side of us (most specifically related to love), however to the Christian this is not really the way things work. God speaks to the heart, He appeals to us in ways that are beyond science and the question is whether we are willing to listen to Him or not. It is not an emotion based decision (though I don’t deny that once a decision is made, and a connection is established, that emotion is present, but it is a result of the decision not the impetus for the decision). As I said, there is a great deal of evidence for the existence of God, it is a question of how we want to interpret it. I won’t bore you with a list of highly intelligent men that approached this issue with an open mind and found the evidence overwhelming and I would hope you wouldn’t bore me with a list of the highly intelligent men that approached the issue with an open mind and found the evidence not so compelling. The point is that the very fact that highly intelligent people come down on both sides of the issue should argue that there is compelling evidence in both directions and that there is something else that causes people to decide. I believe that this is the heart, not emotion but listening to God speak to the heart. It is not a cosmic riddle, it is something available to all, some chose to listen and others do not.

So for me in the end the entire thing is a search for truth and, as you say, reality. God is in the center of that reality and science, to my way of thinking, is a tool that helps to find truth if it is real science. I am not afraid to look into what is going on with science because I know that if it is objective and based in fact it will point to God because He is truth and the ultimate reality. There are many examples of people that mis interpret passages in the Bible (like the one in Job) and hold to a system that would be shattered were it found to be incorrect, but this is because they are not so concerned with finding truth as they are with the idea that they have to protect their system. In my view, it is God’s system and He is perfectly capable of protecting it. He doesn’t need me to do it for Him so there is no threat here. I merely enjoy the debate.

I do believe that the Bible is the greatest book ever written. This is obviously a personal belief although it can be argued objectively. We do owe much of western culture directly to the church and in this day an age it seems some think that is a bad thing, but western culture at its height was really something to behold. Now that we are in a post modern society it seems to me to be spiraling out of control but we will see. Interesting times ahead. I have read some of the Rig Veda and though I don’t wish to offend it is very difficult to make any sense of. In many ways the Koran seems to me to be a continuation of the Hebrew texts and the book of Mormon is not believeable largely because there is no evidence to back it up (Mormons largely appeal to the emotions to get converts…but I do tend to like to have some evidence for what I believe). There simply is no evidence at all of a large Iron age based society on the eastern seaboard of the US no matter how you slice it…but there I go digressing again. The bottom line is that for me it is more than a book. If God is who He says He is then He would give us some direction as to how He wants us to live. If He is all powerful and loving He would certainly give us an indication and protect it thru time. I belive that the presevervation of these texts in a way that has been well documented and researched is a clear indication, or evidence if you will, of this very truth. There have been minor changes to the text over time but nothing that changes the intent of the book. For this reason and for the impact that it has on people’s lives (mine included) it is the greatest book ever written regardless of it’s impact on western society.

I have read Dawkins and tried to get to the meat of what he was saying. I did read the blind watchmaker and I recall being somewhat trepidatious about it as I had heard so much about him and there was some concern that I would encounter things there that might challenge my faith…however I found his arguments unconvincing and, again, the arrogance and smugness of the man made it very easy to see that his motive was twisted in some way. These are tactics used by people who cannot put a cogent argument together and he was no exception. His abuse and misunderstanding of probability theory is…appaling for a learned man. My thoughts in the end were “this is all you have?”. The God Delusion was more of the same and at the end of the book he simply begins listing all the bad people that call themselves Christians. Truly a waste of paper. I honestly can’t believe that this is what passes for enlightened thought in this day and age. The part about the incident in Canada where the police went on strike and the crimals all started coming out and robbing banks and the like….and his response is that he had hoped we would have evolved to the point where we could have controlled ourselves better (or something to that effect) just left me in disbelief that anyone could be so naive. He (and many other “intellectuals”) have some weird thought that humans are essentially good….when the Bible makes it clear that we are essentially bad. How can anyone look at history and not see this? Talk about ignoring the evidence in front of your face. I have read others as well and found them to be more level headed. Sagan and Asimov are two of my favorites. In fact, Asimov is one of my all time favorite authors. He is looking somewhat like a prophet these days.

All this to some degree is beside the point however. I want to see how all these enlightened athiests have improved upon life. I have a house full of seven children and a wonderful wife. We live largely in happiness and joy. We homeschool and teach our children the classics and rhetoric and (of course) the Bible and live in peace with those around us. I wonder, can these athiests say similar things? If we are indeed searching for ultimate truth should it not get us beyond believing in some scientific theory or not? If it is not practical in bettering my life and the way I live in God’s world then it is hardly needed and though I am interested in truth in all it’s forms with all these kids, I hardly have any time!

I would inform you btw, that Berlinski fashions himself an agnosic though he does have some religious background and he is a scientist of the truest form, he is a mathematician…the only pure science; and he has done research in molecular biology. I did not notice him using scripture to make points, but rather to place pieces (mostly at the beginning of chapters as I recall) to kind of set the tone. It has been about 8 months since I have read it as well so it is getting fuzzy.

I hope the timliness and length of this reply does not alarm you. I enjoy this type of thing greatly and rarely find people that are willing to discuss matters of import in a reasonable way.

All the best.

* * * * *

Rick says:

Laners:

Thank you for taking my comments in a spirit of understanding; it is indeed rare to meet someone online who doesn’t hide behind their anonymity and refuse to take the opinions of others seriously. In my experience, people are less inclined to thinking and more inclined to heap scorn and ridicule. So thank you for that.

I wasn’t aware Berlinski was an agnostic. I know within the Discovery Institute there are issues of contention between members, i.e. Old vs. Young Earthers. However, they do share a common purpose, that is, they’re collectively attempting to address the perceived implications of scientific materialism on American society at large. I see them as sort of self-appointed protectors of an antiquated world-view, damage controllers if you will. You mentioned Berlinski is a mathematician. In some ways, this gives Berlinski greater credibility; however, ideas stand or fall on the basis of prevailing evidence. Although I am more inclined to listen to a scientist on scientific matters, I don’t find arguments from authority convincing. Evidence, pure and simple–irrespective of who is speaking–speaks for itself. Further to that I am more inclined to believe in the credibility of a biologist speaking on evolution, astrophysicists speaking on the Big Bang, and lastly, mathematicians when it comes to String Theory.

With that said, I’m aware the Discovery Institute has in its employ biologists, physicists, etc. However, I’m less inclined to believe them compared to those working at other institutions. The reason I think this is because of the institute’s official “wedge strategy”. I presume you’re familiar with the so-called “wedge document”. In this document, the enemies of scientific materialism actually state that their intention is to undermine the public’s confidence in science. They’re interested in producing science that is agreement with a theistic view of the world. In short, they’re going to impose an ideology (Kant might call this a filter) on the scientific process. I think the institute well-meaning but ultimately destructive to the public’s understanding of science. They are, and I apologize if this borders on hyperbole, a ministry of propaganda for the religious-right. They are not a “scientific” think-tank.

I scoured Berlinski’s book in search of his use of scripture. Here are some of the examples: 1). Page 37 an use of the Ten Commandments; 2). Page 60 he invokes the idea as faith as its own reward as a concluding remark; 3). Page 83 “I am that I am”-Exodus; 4). “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One!”-Deuteronomy; 5). Page 96 use of a non-Christian source referring to Abu al-Hassan al Hashari’s; 6). Page 186 there’s an allusion to Book of Job; 7). Page 130 quoting from 1 Kings about Elijah. The problem I had ultimately with Berlinski using scripture was this: he attempted to reprove science for its apparent pretensions by replacing them with religious ones. I don’t like it when people invoke scripture because there are as many interpretations of it as there are people. Consequently, a polemicist can make God’s word say virtually anything. However, I’ve got to say one thing: you’ve motivated me to return and re-read the Devil’s Delusion.

With that said I’d like to respond to a few of your most recent statements. I think they’d be somewhat helpful in pushing the discussion forward.

You wrote: “God is in the center of that reality and science, to my way of thinking, is a tool that helps to find truth if it is REAL [my emphasis] science.”

Is science only “real” if its findings confirm or edify a person’s faith? Science is a process, not an ideology. I don’t share your lack of confidence in science’s ability to produce reliable information. Science is a systematic and rigorous process, i.e. Come up with a hypothesis, test said hypothesis, and if hypothesis turns out to be either true or false draw appropriate conclusions. You don’t come up with conclusions and then test; and a scientist, if objective, accepts the results of tests even if results place into question personal beliefs. Again, reality is not optional and people have a tendency to believe in belief. I have to agree with Dawkins that just because the belief is consoling that does not prove the validity of theism; it shows theism has utility but the object of that faith (God) remains unproven…scientifically, that is.

You voiced some doubts as to the “objectivity” of scientists, e.g. No one lacks bias so conclusions always lack true objectivity. In as much as I agree with you in principle I do so with the following caveat: I think that this tendency is more perceived than actual by the public at large and is fundamentally over-stated by the critics of science. I think the popular perception that scientists have a hidden “leftist” and/or “liberal” agenda is ultimately a product of the American public’s dislike for the apparent implications of scientific theories; it would also be a product of the Discovery Institute’s “wedge strategy” in placing into question well-established scientific theories while simultaneously pushing forward a conservative agenda.

In the case of the Big Bang theory, people don’t like the idea (as Hawking intimated in his most recent work) that we can explain creation without invoking the need for a creator. Or in the case of the theory of evolution, people who’ve been taught they’re somehow special and significant (“…you are worth more than many sparrows…”) don’t like being described as simply one life form, equally evolved, of many. Therein lies the problems people have with science, that being, they don’t dismiss the theories for lack of evidence so much as for threatening their preconceived notions; and then when faith is challenged people go into defense-mode and unilaterally dismiss evidence supporting the opposing view. I have confidence in the scientific process when it comes to explaining what’s happening in the physical world; it is the only process that does not rely solely upon revelation or some form of belief, etc. to generate knowledge and understanding. The process deals entirely with what is demonstrable; and the conclusions reached through science are ones backed up by verified fact.

This is where I’m somewhat critical of Dawkins, in that, in as much as I can appreciate his dislike for the shortcomings of religion he does have a tendency to over-state his case for the inexistence of God. For instance, the theory of evolution is a biological theory describing how life forms have changed over time. (According to Charles Darwin, science describes the “how” and does not answer the question “why”.) Dawkins goes beyond description (how) to the apparent implications (why) of the theory, e.g. Evolution contradicts (does it really?) the story told of humankind’s origins as found in Genesis; therefore, Dawkin’s concludes, God doesn’t exist. I’ve over-simplified Dawkin’s position and I’m sure he’d cringe at my logic here; but I’m just trying to move the discussion along without getting too caught up in semantics. I think Berlinski is ultimately critical of scientists going beyond the science and mistaking their personal views (though informed by science) as equally authoritative as science itself. In this I would join Berlinski cautioning scientists to avoid mistaking personal opinions for scientific facts.

In Dawkin’s defense, despite his obvious anti-religion agenda I don’t think he is being entirely arbitrary or capricious. The conclusions Dawkin’s reaches appeal fundamentally to the plausibility of this or that existing or happening, e.g. If he considers the Big Bang theory as an accurate statement of the Cosmos’ origin (i.e. We can actually see the background radiation from this event that took place some 13.7 billion years ago); if he likewise considers the validity of spectrography (i.e. We can see and measure the age of the light emitted by our sun determining its age to be approximately 4.6 billion years old); and on top of that if he further considers the fossil record (trilobites, dinosaurs, archaic humans) to not just be God testing us but an accurate representation of life existing on earth through time, etc. Dawkins starts to make a case for questioning the traditional view of life’s origins as inherited by us from our well-meaning but unscientific ancestors.

You said: “I am not afraid to look into what is going on with science because I know that if it is objective and based in fact it will point to God because He is truth and the ultimate reality.”

I don’t think science is supposed to work this way, Laners. Science is an objective process. In popular usage, the word “objective” tends to be mis-used. People tend to use the word as a synonym for “impartiality”. In the world of science, to be “objective” is not to be “impartial” but to go where the facts take you. This is not an easy thing for a person of faith to do because such a person by definition already has the answers, e.g. Why did X happen? God did it. Moreover, if you are truly objective you’ll allow the evidence to take you in this or that direction despite your faith. If you go into asking a question with first thinking you have all the answers, you’re not practicing science, theology maybe, but science definitely not. This brings me back to the opening question I raised: is real science only those processes which confirm a person’s faith?

I have many friends who believe the earth is 6,000 years old. These friends of mine do not have confidence in the various radiation dating techniques (uranium-lead or carbon dating for instance). I say fair enough. Doubt can be good. I also ask: do you doubt the integrity of the tests because of inherent problems with the process of dating itself? Or does a person doubt the findings of said techniques because as individuals they don’t like the fact these techniques produce information that challenges the “belief” that the earth is 6,000 years old? I accept their belief. But, politely, I ask further questions: then what we know of spectrography and the age of light (light traveling from the Andromeda Galaxy taking “x” number of years to reach my eye) is that false, as well? How about what know about plate tectonics and geology, i.e. Pangea turning into the current configuration of continents? It appears that continents have been moving very slowly for a very long time… This is also untrustworthy? You mentioned you don’t like people of faith being characterized as stupid or unthinking. Well, here’s the problem: it does appear at times that Christians throw out well established scientific theories and models for no other reason than it contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible. What if the earth is really, really, really old? If a person honestly appraises this question, I think you appreciate what I’m trying to say here.

Feel free to add me to your Facebook list of friends. Do a search for my name. I think I’m the only one with my moniker on there. I’d be happy to carry on our conversation.

Regards.

* * * * *

Laners and I continued an extensive online conversation over the next few months. We became friends on Facebook and eventually introduced our families to one another (taking a shared vacation to Yellowstone National Park). Since I was willing to listen to and have an intelligent conversation with another human being I gained a friend. What a better world this would be if people attacked ideas and not the people espousing them.

 

The Problem With Refugees

We are a nation of immigrants; it’s a fact: go back far enough every single one of us—European, African, Asian, even First Nations and Inuit—can trace their origins to somewhere other than Canada. Humanity explores, it puts down roots and calls wherever it happens to end up home. People attach a lot of importance to their home; this is where they raise their families, form their worldview, worship, work, play and build a life for themselves. Thus, it isn’t terribly surprising when we encounter strangers living among us one of our first instincts is to become defensive as opposed to open.

Canadians might be awfully polite but they certainly aren’t immune to xenophobia or fear. There were three major waves of Irish immigration to British North America: the first came around the time of the American Revolution in the 1780s; the second took place during the 1840s when a potato famine drove approximately 1.5 million Irish Catholics to Canada. My ancestors on my father’s side arrived in the United States during the third wave in the 1890s; they established a farm somewhere in the American Midwest eventually moving north to Canada to take advantage of free land on offer in the Canadian West. In all three cases, the Irish were not generally well-received: in the context of both Canada and the United States, English Protestants felt threatened by the sudden influx of non-English Catholics to their countries.

The Irish were thankful for the opportunities afforded to them by their adoptive countries; nevertheless, inevitably their presence elicited negative reactions among Americans and Canadians alike. Newcomers always force us into uncomfortable spaces by challenging us to re-evaluate ourselves and our priorities; they compel us to ask questions around what it means to be a people and a nation. In the present day, some of us are responding as well as can be expected to Syrian refugees (and, more recently, to others groups escaping to Canada because of an uncertain future in the United States). Most of our problems when it comes to dealing constructively with one another is the result of a certain inability to empathize with one another. The people best responding to the recent influx of refugees are those capable of seeing something of themselves in these new immigrants—people displaced by famine, war, and repression in their home countries; yet, there are others of us who aren’t responding so well: ironically, some Canadians on social media are using the self-same arguments against Syrians that previous generations used against their own Irish, Norwegian, Swedish, German and Ukrainian ancestors, e.g. these people aren’t like us; they didn’t work for what we have; we owe them nothing; they’re wrecking the country; everything was so much better before they came; they’re stealing our jobs; they’re lazy, smell, speak funny, and don’t look like us real Canadians.

The idea of a real Canadian versus a fake one is a strange concept to me; it’s not like we can freeze time and say there, back in the 1820s (November to be exact) during the colonial period, that is what Canadians should strive to be, we should all be white, English Protestant United Empire Loyalists; or wait it’s 1867 and Canadians can be French Catholic now, just not too French, but it’s tolerated; or it’s 1945 and the end of World War II, England is less important to us and out of compassion we’re welcoming Hungarians and other dispossessed persons to Canada because they need our help, we didn’t like them so much in 1905 but times have changed; or it’s 1965 and we have a new flag and First Nations peoples are no longer willing to be second-class citizens and the majority of Canada’s immigrants are from Africa and Asia and, without us even realizing it, we’ve moved from biculturalism to multiculturalism. We didn’t even notice the change (and certainly didn’t plan it). But we are, and will continue to be, a multicultural society whether critics like it or not.

Friedrich Nietzsche observed humanity is in essentially a continuous state of revolution (or paradigm change); we don’t recognize these changes because what once appeared as revolutionary eventually becomes the basis of a new normal. Thus, a Canadian born in 1840 naturally answers the question “What is a Canadian?” differently than say one born in 1867, 1919, 1945, 1965, 1995, or 2017. If there’s a standard definition of what constitutes a true Canadian, it’s a floating one and it definitely isn’t as simple as saying it is someone who is white, English-speaking, and Christian. With that said, the recent wave of Syrian immigration to Canada is taking place during a time of significant stress: the recovery of the global economy from the shock it received during the Great Recession (2009) is still in doubt and we continue living with its legacy, e.g. wealth continues to become increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, Canadians and Americans are becoming more and more desperate because of a sense of financial insecurity, and where the economy goes so too goes our seeming capacity to practice tolerance and pluralism; also, we are also confronted by the specter of climate change and an inability to deal with it effectively or its secondary effects, e.g. 21.5 million people are currently displaced worldwide and considered climate change refugees (some of whom are seeking refuge in North America and Europe); this number is bound to grow as climate change’s effects become increasingly severe and ubiquitous; and right wing political movements—secular and religious—are growing in popularity as though we’re taking part in some sort of macabre replay or dress rehearsal for World War III; given all that’s going on it’s little wonder so many people have such mixed feelings about helping strange Syrian refugees when existing Canadians themselves don’t feel secure enough about their own or their children’s futures.[1]

So where does this leave us? I suppose at one of those revolutionary periods Nietzsche mentioned. The great irony is we possess all the knowledge and understanding to solve every single one of our problems; yet, it seems we’re doomed to repeat past mistakes instead of learning from them because of a fundamental lack of collective character or imagination to conceive of new ways of living with and treating one another. There’s not much historical precedent when it comes to nations or societies becoming selfless or other-centered in times of significant economic downturn, political upheaval or when confronted by an existential crisis as significant as climate change. However, I would argue we can use how we eventually decide to treat refugees and immigrants as a litmus test for our future prospects. Some political theorists argue history is on the side of democracy. I like the sentiment but I would add the following caveat: history is on the side of those who want to survive. The great irony is most people think survival means circling our wagons, siding with the tribe and pushing strangers out. The truth is the world is a much smaller place in 2017 than it was in 1917. For this reason, I believe, if we’re going to survive we’re going to have to find ways to do it together; it’ll be cooperation not competition that’ll determine humankind’s direction and whether there’ll be a Canada or a United States for future generations to immigrate to.

 

Notes
[1]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/syrian-refugees-poll-trump-1.3988716

Governing by Brand: Trump Inc.

“You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things. But nobody talks about that.”—Donald Trump

If I wanted to take power, Alexander Hamilton wrote, I would mount the “hobbyhorse of popularity, I would cry out usurpation, danger to liberty, etc. etc. I would endeavor to prostrate the national government, raise a ferment, and then ride the whirlwind to direct the storm”.[1] Demagogues and populist leaders not only direct storms, they create them; they whip the people into a frenzy and the minute they relax their hold—allowing people time to actually think instead of feel—the power monger’s influence wanes.

I have a theory about America’s new president. I don’t think he has any intention of actually governing. He governs by decree and executive order (something he and fellow Republicans vilified Obama of doing). This isn’t governing, it’s institutional cynicism. He’s going to continue doing what he did in the business world—sell a brand.[2] He doesn’t know how to do anything else (and he’s good at it). Yet, being good at selling a product doesn’t necessarily translate into being able to lead the world’s most powerful democracy for a four year term.

Trump doesn’t make anything; he slaps his name on a building or a steak and claims it as his own. Instead of actually reading briefings, Trump watches television to get his information. He listens to white supremacist radio shows and thinks he’s getting an accurate presentation of the state of the nation. If the man cracked a book in his adult life I’d be surprised. He isn’t a thinker. He’s a doer. So, instead of attending intelligence briefings or learning what constitutes or what does not constitute overstepping presidential prerogative, he’s back on the campaign trail bragging about his election how he carried Florida. He’s a salesman, not a president. Three weeks into his presidency and there hasn’t been a single day where Trump’s “finely tuned” administration hasn’t made some sort of mis-step. I hear the bell from the news app on my phone and I cringe wondering ‘what’d he do now?’ I still, honestly, cannot believe he won the election; and it wasn’t his smarts that won him the election–it was arguably the ignorance of the average American voter (who appears to be willing to trade the rule of law and pluralism for the prospect of short-term financial gain). I don’t think people understood what exactly they were buying.

A good test of a man’s character is how he reacts to constructive criticism. Trump fails this test. In order to avoid the justifiable criticism of his executive orders and cabinet picks, he directs attention back on the media calling them the greatest enemy of the United States. The greatest enemy of any country is a leader who resorts to special pleading[3] and cries foul whenever light is brought to bear upon one of his many ill-founded policies. Speaking of policies, when the Free World is led by a man so ignorant of history he cannot be expected to develop policies with a context (he just criticizes existing agreements or institutions a either “very, very bad” or “the worst deal maybe ever”); when you elect the intellectual equivalent of Jared the Subway spokesmen to power, you cannot reasonably expect him to make informed decisions around science generally or climate change (a Chinese plot!) specifically, e.g. his pick for head of the Environmental Protection Agency is a climate change denier.

So, if I have any advice for President Trump it is this: just do it, sir. Build that wall. Think different. Think so differently that it appears you’re not thinking at all. The people will continue to melt in your hands, not in your mouth; because your leadership tastes so good, cats ask for it by name.[4]
Notes
[1] Private correspondence from Alexander Hamilton to Edward Carrington (1792). See: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-11-02-0349.

[2] Trump reputedly offered Governor Kasich the vice-presidency. The president told Kasich that he could control domestic and foreign policy. When asked what responsibilities Mr. Trump would take care of it became apparent the businessman turned politician would be the face of the White House, i.e. he’d sell the policies and be the brand for a new order. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/20/politics/john-kasich-donald-trump-vice-president/

[3] The Republican Party recently passed a notion permitting President Trump from not having to release his tax returns. If Trump has nothing to fear and there’s no conflict of interest, why the secrecy? Just like his predecessors he should be required to be forthcoming with information that establishes his trustworthiness and integrity; or we can just take him at his word and trust. When has that ever gotten a people into trouble?

[4] https://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/33535/10-companies-that-totally-nailed-their-taglines.aspx#sm.0002dixf216rtfiqscz2fcdl6e35p

Canada: A 21st Century Nation

“Canadians often point out that while the American constitution promises “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the constitution of Canada–written in the 1860s in England–sets a more modest goal: “Peace, order, and good government.” This difference reaches into every corner of the two nations. My favorite example is a book of medical advice. It was written by a Canadian, Judylaine Fine, and published in Toronto under an extremely modest title, Your Guide to Coping with Back Pain. Later, American rights were acquired by New York publishers; they brought out precisely the same book under a new title, Conquering Back Pain. And there, in a grain of sand, to borrow from William Blake, we can see a world of differing attitudes. Our language reveals how we think, and what we are capable of thinking. Canadians cope. Americans conquer. Canadian readers of that book will assume that back pain will always be with them. Americans will assume that it can be destroyed, annihilated, abolished, conquered. Americans expect life, liberty, happiness, and total freedom from back pain. Canadians can only imagine peace, order, good government, and moderate back pain.”– Robert Fulford

Canada shouldn’t even exist because we’ve broken virtually every rule where it applies to nation building. Countries are normally fairly simple and straight-forward things—one language, one history, one people. By contrast Canada isn’t one people but many; it is arguably the only genuinely multicultural nation state in history. Yet, appearances are deceiving: according to a 2016 Angus Reid poll Canadians are becoming less and less tolerant of Muslims compared to Americans.[1] The United States breaks a number of rules when it comes to nation building, too; they are a nation of immigrants and just as culturally diverse as Canada. However, Canada is officially multicultural whereas America typically encourages new immigrants to assimilate. This is why the Angus Reid poll is so intriguing: Americans are comparatively more supportive of new immigrants keeping their customs, language, etc. than Canadians are.

Pinpointing when modern nations first appear is difficult. Some scholars assert England was the first nation state by drawing our attention to the year 1689. In this year, England adopted the Bill of Rights which effectively limited the power of the king while centralizing authority around the English people themselves through a constitution. Some scholars suggest the French Revolution (1789) brought into existence the first truly national identity: people residing in Republican France no longer identified first and foremost with their province but with their nation as a whole. This view is not without its challenges; that is, only 50% of France’s people actually spoke French in 1789.[2] If one of the hallmarks of a nation is linguistic unity then France fails this test. No country is without contradictions like France’s: Canadians don’t have one official language, they have two…and counting. Canada’s history is not a single narrative; it’s a shared collection of stories.

Despite Canadian’s living as a patchwork of cultures, Canada has a rich history of intolerance. In shades of Plato’s “one and the many”[3] dichotomy, there are numerous examples in Canada’s history where the English majority (the “one”) attempted to push out or assimilate minorities (the “many”). In 1837 and 1838, rebellions broke out in both French and English Canada. Once the English authorities quelled the revolts, Queen Victoria sent Lord Durham to investigate the causes of the discontent in British North America. Durham, an Englishman, argued English Canadians rebelled because they were tired of being dominated by an unresponsive, selfish governor and ruling oligarchy. So Durham recommended England grant English Canadians more decision-making power and responsible government. However, when it came to the French they didn’t rebel for the same reasons as the English; rather, the French were, according to Durham, simply incapable of loyalty because of their race. Durham recommended the French be assimilated as soon as possible. The rebellions led to a lot of property damage in both English and French Canada. To help English Canadians pay for the damage a bill was passed by the United Assembly of Canada approving the appropriate funds. The French were denied similar compensation (because they were French). In 1848 the Canadian Government experienced some reform under the leadership of an Englishman named Robert Baldwin (1804-1858) and a Frenchman, Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine (1807-1864). The two men worked to end the French-English tension by passing the Rebellion Losses Bill into law. The bill granted French Canadians compensation for damage caused by England’s army during the 1838 uprising. English Canada didn’t respond well to the bill—a hoard of them responded to the bill’s passing by burning the colony’s assembly to the ground.

French Canada has at times acted a little on the tribal side, as well. The Quebec nationalist cleric and writer Lionel Groulx (1878-1967) romanticized France and emphasized the racial purity of the people of Quebec; he asserted the French were victims of English Canada. Although there was some truth to Groulx’s claim, e.g. during the Manitoba Schools crisis in the 1890s English Canadians successfully limited French language and education rights outside of Quebec, etc. the cleric was somewhat paranoid. Later French historians from the so-called “Montreal School”, and even the Parti Quebecois,[4] used Groulx’s thinking to justify Quebec’s separation from Canada. John Raulston Saul, author of Reflections of a Siamese Twin, described Groulx’s influence in the following way:

All [the Montreal School] took from Groulx was the negative. The result was a victim psychosis in the extreme. It is now somehow assumed that the Montreal School is just the past. No longer relevant. But in fact their selecting reworking of Groulx became the intellectual foundation of the current separatist/sovereigntist school…This movement—indeed, the Parti Quebecois itself—has within it two very different, often contradictory, parts. One is social democratic and reform oriented. The other comes from the Montreal School, which was conservative, in many ways reactionary, and was tied to the old clerical nationalism…[sic] anchored their catastrophic view firmly in a highly selective editing and interpretation of the past.[5]

Lionel Groulx argued the racial differences between French and English Canadians was insurmountable.[6] These differences continued to play a role through two world wars, the Quiet Revolution[7] of the 1960s, and during two referendums on separation from Canada (held in 1980 and 1995 respectively). Yet, Baldwin and Lafontaine’s example of cooperation at least suggested Groulx’s pessimism wasn’t entirely justified: when there’s a willingness to compromise and work together people—even ones belonging to different ethnic or religious groups—can live and flourish together.

Following the 1995 referendum a separatist politician named Lucien Bouchard (1938 to present) was elected premier of Quebec. He ruffled a lot of Canadian feathers when he observed “Canada wasn’t a real country”.[8]  In a sense, Bouchard was right: Canada was too complicated a creature to constitute a nation as defined.[9] He was of course appealing to 19th century standards about nationhood. Bouchard didn’t view diversity as a strength so much as a watering down of the French Canadian culture and identity. In the 2001, Prime Minister Paul Martin (1938 to present) argued the opposite observing in an interview “Canada is the world’s only truly post-modernist nation”. Ultimately, he was saying there wasn’t one right way to go about building a country:

I think it is that individuals can actually control their own destiny. That you just don’t simply have to [lie] back and be rolled over by the huge forces of globalization that you can’t control. That it is possible for nation states acting collectively to, in fact, deal with the problems they face. I also have to say something else that really didn’t come out of this meeting, but that this meeting certainly confirmed, and that is that Canada is really, I think, the world’s first 21st century country. We have a very post-modern view. Not only is our economy open, but in fact the waves of immigrants have changed the way Canadians look at the world. I think that we are by far a more modern country than almost any other, and that there is a huge opportunity for Canada to play a leadership role. We are not a dominant power such as the United States. We are not narcissistic as are so many Europeans in the process of building Europe…And we have this much more progressive view of the way in which the world ought to evolve.[10]

Canadian nationalism, with its focus on openness, was the opposite of the nationalism that pushed the great powers of Europe to destroy one another in two world wars during the 20th century.[11] Diversity, tolerance, pluralism, openness, etc. should all be considered strengths; and despite the Angus Reid poll Canada is a multicultural society. We have our challenges (as do all nations, even ones with homogeneous populations). But I’m confident, invoking Abraham Lincoln, that the better angels of our nature will eventually win out and the irrational fear some Canadians have of Muslims will abate. Yet, optimism notwithstanding, tolerance is almost always tied to how well the economy is doing. People aren’t rational but emotional by nature: so when we are personally doing well financially we project a sense of wellness on to others; however, when we aren’t doing well we are more likely to blame others for our own misfortune.

Ultimately, nations are not created simply by passing legislation limiting the power of the King (England) or by lopping off his head (France). Nations are multi-headed and complex creatures. In the Canadian context, Canada breaks the rules and is successful primarily because, to quote John Raulston Saul, “[Canadians] accept their non-conformity with some ease. They live it and so it makes sense”.[12] So, while not every Canadian is necessarily on-board with multiculturalism, at some level most Canadians appreciate why it’s so important that it succeeds: with the rise of racism and nationalist movements in the 21st century in both Europe and North America, Canada is one of the few countries capable of acting as an example of what peace can accomplish when there’s such a huge temptation to go to war with our neighbors.

 

[1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/poll-canadians-multiculturalism-immigrants-1.3784194

[2] William T. Cavanaugh, Migrations of the Holy, p.4.

[3] In philosophy, the question of the “one” and the “many” concerns whether or not reality can be accurately described as a “single, united whole” or as a something that is “multiple, divisible”. For example, the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking (1942 to present), just like Albert Einstein (1879-1955) before him, attempted to establish a single so-called “theory of everything” to describe reality; however, all attempts so far to describe physical reality through a single formula (or theory) has proven impossible. Instead, scientists are forced to describe reality through many different models.

[4] The Parti Quebecois was a French separatist political party founded by the journalist Rene Levesque (1922-1987) in 1968.

[5] John Raulston Saul, Reflections of a Siamese Twin, p. 19.

[6] The French and English do not belong to separate races as defined. Instead, they belong to different ethnic groups within the same race.

[7] The Quiet Revolution was a period of intense socio-political and socio-cultural change in Quebec characterized by the effective secularization of society, the creation of a welfare state, and realignment of politics into federalist and sovereigntist factions.

[8] Steven Jay Schneider and Tony Williams, Horror International, p.239.

[9] Nations are supposed to be simple things. Canada is far from simple. According to 19th century standards, nations consist of one ethnic group speaking the same language, worshiping the same God (in the same way), and sharing a common history. For example, Germans and Japanese nationalists insisted their respective countries were the greatest in the world in the 1930s. Around the same time Italians under Mussolini reminded the world his country was once the seat of Roman power. In some respects deserved and in others not so much, France has persisted insisting it possesses a certain je ne sais quoi which sets itself apart from other nations. Turning our attention to China, the Chinese historically have referred to their country as the “Middle Kingdom” (a place existing mystically between Heaven and earth) while Americans are notorious for thinking themselves exceptional in absolutely every way. Canadians are different (or at least they think they are); they love their country while not holding themselves up as the standard by which all other countries are measured. Canadians admit they do some things well while acknowledging other countries do, too.

[10] Interview of Paul Martin by Candida Tamar Paltiel (G8 Research Group), November 18, 2001, Ottawa. http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/g20/interviews/Martin011118.pdf

[11] Wars make nationalists and nationalists make nations. In the case of the United States, it took two major wars—the American Revolution (1776-1783) and the Civil War (1861-1865)—for it to become a modern nation state. In the case of the Dominion of Canada, it became a country in form with the passage of the British North America Act in 1867; however, Canada did not become a nation in fact until its success at the Battle of Vimy Ridge in France (1917) during World War I. The shared sacrifice of Canada’s soldiers (French, English, German, Jewish, First Nation, Chinese, Japanese, etc.) gave Canadians a shared sense of pride resulting in a shared sense of identity. Although war is not the only way to build a nation, it seems to play a huge part in the development of national identity.

[12] John Raulston Saul, p.9.

Ideas: Part 5: Let’s Be Skeptical

Ideas come from somewhere, they have a context; yet the older the idea the harder it is to pin down its exact point of origin or to make the conscious decision to abandon or retain it. The average Christian isn’t aware that:

The ancient Hebrews were not always monotheists but began as polytheists and then became polylatrists and finally monotheists: in the 8th century BCE Israel was broken into two kingdoms, i.e. the Northern Kingdom of Israel had as its patron god El and the Southern Kingdom of Judah’s patron was Yahweh. Assyria captured Israel in the 8th century; it was commonly understood in the ancient world that when one’s kingdom was defeated so too was your patron god. This is when Yahweh became ascendant in Jewish thinking and El was regarded as defeated. The ancient Jews believed not only their gods existed but so too did the gods of other civilizations (this made them polytheists), e.g. The ancient Israelites fell into worshiping gods other than their own on multiple occasions; they themselves had a pantheon of gods, e.g. “…let us [plural pronoun] make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26); there was a council of gods of which El was supreme or the “high councilor, e.g. “You are gods, you are all sons of the Most High” (Psalm 82: 1-8). Present day Christians wonder why there’s such a dramatic difference between the God of the New (all the love) and Old Testaments (all the smiting and killing). In the Jewish pantheon, Yahweh was a warrior god destined to kill a sea serpent (“the Leviathan” Job 41:1-34 and Isaiah 27:1 in some future battle). There are other references to the warrior-like nature of Yahweh when he puts his weapon down (a rain bow) promising never to destroy humankind again as per Noah’s Flood (Genesis 9:13). The Israelites eventually became polylatrists when they finally abandoned the worship of gods other than Yahweh (over the course of centuries following the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BCE). Polylatrists believe other gods exist, only that their patron god is the one truly worthy of worship. Polylatrisn was a stepping stone towards monotheism. There are hints of this patchwork of theisms in the Torah:

Some other things for your consideration:

  • The Old Testament was not written all at once and is instead an anthology of books written for various purposes, in varying contexts, over centuries assembled into its final form by the 2nd Century AD.
  • That Genesis, far from being history, also contains explanations for the origins of giants and the sexual union of angels and humans (almost all ancient writings, even the rationalistic works of the materialistic Greeks, attempted t to explain what happens in the world and why by making reference to supernatural beings).
  • That the average Christian in the 21st Century generally does not understand the significance of Jesus not being a Greek thinker but a Jewish one; and that he almost certainly did not look like a northern European.
  • That Jesus had brothers named James, Joseph, Simon and Judas and at least one sister (his mother Mary incidentally was, at the very least, not a virgin for her entire life);[1]
  • It is dubious that the gospels were actually written by the apostles whose name they bear; it was common practice in the ancient world for a writer to append the name of someone of authority to a piece of writing to endow it with authority.
  • That the early Christian community was a Jewish one who worshiped not in churches or on the basis of doctrines like trinity or original sin; instead, prior to the destruction of the Temple in 65 CE Jews were not a people of the book or doctrines but a community constructed around Temple observance and rituals/ceremonies reflecting the people’s dependence on agriculture in a 13 month calendar. See Michael Goulder’s Five Slings and a Stone for more.
  • That the various New Testament authors purposely used allegory (not history) to draw parallels between the significance of Jesus and stories predicting the coming of the messiah in the Old Testament to demonstrate scripture had been fulfilled the crucifixion

The Jewish idea specifically of a messiah has been interpreted differently throughout the history of Judaism. How this messianic figure is understood depends entirely upon the contemporary historical circumstances of the people doing the interpreting. The messiah is first mentioned in the Book of Isaiah (a book written over a span of two-hundred plus years around the 8th and 7th centuries BCE). While Isaiah was being written Jews lived in exile in Babylonia as an underclass of laborers. At the time, the messiah was understood as something akin to a spiritual figure (one well-versed in Jewish law and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5)). The understanding that this messiah was a spiritual leader represented the desire of Jews to return to their ancestral homeland. After several centuries of exile the Jews returned home. According to Jewish (not Christian) tradition anyone was potentially a candidate to be a messiah or masiach, i.e. It has been said that in every generation, a person is born with the potential to be the mashiach. The mashiach was, in a word, a teacher or a guide. However, by the time the Book of Daniel (2nd Century BCE) was written the fortunes of the Jews had changed once again. The Macedonians (and later the Romans) took over Israel. The Jews lost control of their homeland; and in this context the Book of Daniel was written (2nd Century BCE)—and the messiah transformed from a spiritual teacher into a warrior prince who would destroy Israel’s enemies and free them. So in the first instance (Book of Isaiah) the messiah was someone who would help the Jews return and in the second instance (Book of Daniel) the messiah would free Israel. John Shelby Spong, Jesus for the Non-Religious, p. 172-174.

  • That no Jews at any time—in the 1st century CE to the 21st—accepted the doctrine of Original Sin (invented by Augustine in the 4th Century).
  • That it is unlikely a devout Jew, lawyer and pharisee like the Apostle Paul believed the various letters he wrote, to the early Christian communities scattered around the Roman world, would or should be regarded as co-equal in authority with the Torah; nonetheless, there are Christian teachers today who regard Paul as either the equivalent or, even, exceeding the authority of Jesus himself.
  • That Paul used the Greek word pistus for faith which does not mean “belief” but “trust” (which has implications for biblical literalism and atheism).
  • That the doctrines of Trinity and the Divine Maternity were not adopted by the Church until the 4th and 5th Centuries respectively (four centuries after the fact of either Jesus or Mary’s existence); and that the Comma Johanneum, or the biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity, was literally added word for word, e.g. Father, Son and Holy Spirit, etc. to the Book of John sometime after 335 AD;[2] In all three cases, doctrines were developed through so-called “revealed truth” which is just a fancy way of saying Church fathers decided everything through debate.
  • That the New Testament did not descend from Heaven intact “as is” but is an anthology of works written over two and half centuries assembled into its current form in around 390 AD.
  • That God didn’t sort out which books were eventually incorporated into the Canon but men did through a process of debate and deliberation
  • That early Christians prayed while standing with hands outstretched and the Catholic Church adopted the practice of kneeling during prayer to imitate the fealty ceremony as practiced by liege lords during the time of feudalism in the Middle Ages (a tradition practiced to this very day); that the doctrine of papal infallibility emerged in the 19th century less as a reflection of God’s will and more out of the Church’s practical political considerations to deal with the challenges posed by modern science, e.g. evolution.
  • And that saying 12 attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas clearly states James and not Peter was to be the head of the Church,[3] etc.

Time heals all wounds as they say; likewise time’s passage blinds us—robbing religion, history, even language, of its original meaning or context encouraging us to forget how things were, or too assume the way things are, is how things have always been or worse still were destined to be.

The purpose behind all these assertions is less to disprove God’s existence or place into question the wisdom of practicing religion. I present them more with the intent of challenging some long-held assumptions so that these might be re-evaluated by the individual adherent. Some theists remain completely unaffected by any such challenges—they wonder why I should have the temerity to question comforting things people choose to believe. Being something of an optimist, I assume reasonable people if given the opportunity and knowledge, would like to know more about those things they have come to believe; and in the process come to appreciate things aren’t always what they seem; belief does not a thing make; that ideas come from somewhere;[4] and that in the end it is better to live with a healthy understanding for how the world really works instead of persisting in delusion—no matter how comforting doing so might be. When we re-evaluate our beliefs we risk changing our minds. We risk leaving behind certainty (which is really just an illusion); yet, as I see it doubt is real while belief the bringer of false promises.

The ancients invented gods to explain their fears and otherwise inexplicable cosmic processes.  Eventually, gods morphed into a single god (as was the case with the Jews). I wonder: if humankind developed the scientific method prior to their penchant for religious abstraction, would gods have even been invented? We have science now yet people persist in believing god necessary. Why is this so?  Is it habit?  Conditioning?  Need?  A lack of scientific literacy in the present day? I suspect it’s all the above to some degree.

The ancient Greeks called the Cosmos the “Milky Way” believing the white background aura to be the breast milk of Zeus’ wife Hera. The name continues in use despite the fact no one believes in Hera any longer. Is the idea of god like our galaxy’s namesake?  Have we forgotten its original reason for being?  Are we unaware, blissfully passing god on from one generation to the next? Similarly, the archaic phrase “one True God” reflects a world-view now lost to us, i.e. a time when people believed in the existence of many gods (and by people I mean the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, and the Hebrews). The peoples of these civilizations understood one another’s respective gods to be equally real. In the context of the ancients, the phrase “false god” did not mean this or that god “did not exist”; it meant foreign gods could not be trusted; you did not place your trust in them; you practiced fidelity to your tribe’s specific god. The ancient Hebrews would have understood this perfectly (the modern Christian not so much because they have only ever known monotheism). The constant backsliding of the Israelites into the worship of “false” gods is proof not only of their opportunism or infidelity but also their polylatrism.[5]  You don’t learn this stuff in Sunday School that’s for sure. Instead, well-meaning teachers dutifully feed the young the self-same stories they themselves were fed; and so, from one generation to the next, the same beliefs are propagated out of context—where we mistake our current understanding for the same held by the ancients.[6]

Theology relies purely on the exercise of reason.[7]

Certainly a reliable historical basis exists for certain aspects of theology like Jesus and his mother Mary existed. However, the stories surrounding these figures—in particular Jesus—are far from certain. As a kid I was taught Jesus raised people from the dead and something called the Holy Spirit descended on to the apostles in the form of a dove. How did I know this to be true? I didn’t. I just believed it mainly because I didn’t know any better (a sort of habit of believing things people in authority told me because I myself lacked the proper faculties of discernment or expertise); also, I belonged to a family whose members took its religion somewhat serious. (We didn’t handle snakes or believe in the Rapture; nonetheless, we went to Church regularly, observed holidays and made a point of praying before meals (when my paternal grandparents visited). I remember missing Mass one Sunday due to sickness. At the time I was staying with my paternal grandparents—uber Catholics—and when I told my grandma I couldn’t go to Mass because I felt ill she thought I was faking. The fact I was pallid, feverish, my vision clouded with black spots, and my back felt like it was on fire every time I sneezed, meant little. She was convinced I was just trying to dodge my obligations. True: sitting in a Church pew for a half an hour listening to people belt out the Rosary followed by an hour of alternative standing and kneeling wasn’t exactly the way I wanted to spend my Sunday morning. Nevertheless, there are probably some bigger reasons why religious observance in the present day needs to be re-evaluated.

How can a person sincerely accept or reject religion if they aren’t first given the freedom to assess the trustworthiness of its propositions? I was pressed to believe; I believed because I didn’t want to disappoint my parents; I believed because I was young, credulous and I didn’t want to go to Hell—a fate I was led to believe awaited non-believers and which I now regard as one of the more perfidious of religious notions. In terms of biblical stories I was required to accept them prima facie. I suspect I am more the rule than the exception when it comes to being raised a theist. Theists are made, not born. No reasonable person can read “Jesus walked on water” and assume they are reading history. Yet, that’s precisely what I was expected to believe; it’s definitely what the theist asks the non-theist or agnostic to accept. These are stories not history—and quite unlike what is assumed by religionists opinions can exist on things that do not.[8] The main problem affecting theology is that there are no objective tests one can conduct to prove this doctrine is true as opposed to that.  Well, that’s not entirely the true. You can conduct comparisons: you can test whether or not new thinking contradicts or agrees with old thinking. If a new idea conforms to old patterns it is likely to be received well and incorporated into official doctrine; when a new idea contradicts orthodoxy it is discouraged. Yet, despite the fact ideas are being systematically tested through comparison, we are still assuming inherited ideas, e.g. Adam eating a piece of fruit leading to humankind’s apparent fall from grace making Jesus necessary, etc. are trustworthy in the first place—not because elder ideas are empirically verified facts so much as the basis of existing custom and observance. What were the very first theological opinions tested against?  I would hazard a guess they were, as they are now, simply assumed true.[9]

 

 

[1] I recall my Grade Nine Christian ethics teacher dutifully transmitting the Catholic Church’s official teaching on “James, Jesus’ brother” (Galatians 1:19). She insisted Paul did not mean to imply James was a blood relative of Jesus. They were just really close friends. Like most kids I didn’t know Scripture well enough to challenge her; but if I could go back now (I’d tell my former self to attend public school and) I’d ask the teacher: if James was not a blood relative of Jesus then why was James specifically referred to as his brother not once but twice?  The connection between James and Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (13:55) is even more obvious, e.g. “Is this not the carpenter’s son [Jesus]? Is not his mother called Mary?  And are not his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judah?”  James wasn’t just a friend. The author of Matthew was clearly connecting Jesus with this family.  This passage absolutely contradicts the official teaching of the Catholic Church; moreover, it seems reasonable James was Jesus’ brother because James succeeded Jesus as head of the Church in the first decade following Jesus’ crucifixion. Saint Paul for his part has zero problems implying Jesus and James are blood brothers.

[2] There have been 21 councils throughout the history of the Church. In particular, the Council of Nicea in 335 AD was the first and, arguably, last such council where dissenting or competing opinions had a real chance at adoption. The Council of Nicea addressed a long standing conflict between two competing beliefs—Dualism (Father-Son) and Trinity (Father-Son-Holy Spirit). There was a genuine debate between Bishop Arius (defender of dualism) and Athanasius (advocate for the trinity). The Church, which cannot really be said at this time to be centrally organized in the strictest sense of the word, neither had an official teaching on the topic nor the authority to decide the question by appealing to fiat; thus, the council was called to decide the matter. Arguments could be made in support of either view, I.e. Both sides of the debate used scripture to support their respective position as well as Greek philosophy. Athanasius’ argument carried the day, however, and formed the basis of the Church’s official doctrine extant to this day. His work On the Incarnation is indeed a solid argument for accepting the god-three-in-one position. I remember reading it in my early 20s and found it utterly convincing at the time.  Unfortunately, no method was available to Athanasius to falsify dualism other than deduction and logic. Ultimately, the debate may very well have been decided in Athanasius’ favour simply because he was the stronger of the two debaters or had more powerful friends than Arius or the zeitgeist favoured the adoption of Trinity.  Given, then, debate decided the issue isn’t it possible the Dualist position might still be correct despite Arius’ failure to convince a majority to support it? Or, by implication, might there exist a third option, e.g. God doesn’t exist, etc.

[3] The Church of course would assert the Gnosticism present in Thomas (~150 AD) is what disqualified it from being accepted as part of the official Canon. Of course the fact saying 12 places James and not Peter (who the Church traditionally traces its authority from based on Matthew 16:18) as head of the Church had nothing to do with this controversial gospel being dumped into the Apocrypha.

[4] In North America (2011 AD), an 85 year old and a 20 year old both enjoy democratic freedoms but for different reasons. The senior of the two literally fought for freedom at Omaha Beach while the young person inherited that freedom. The older person lived through the turbulent 1960s with the Civil Rights Movement, War in Vietnam, Women’s Liberation, etc. while the young person has grown up in a world where women are equals and a person of colour is the president of the United States. The 20 year old inherited freedoms and rights he did not earn. He takes it for granted these freedoms have always existed as they are. He has no direct knowledge (perhaps even no awareness) of the existence of the guns of Normandy, the killing of anti-war protestors in Chicago by the government or that fire hoses and dogs were used by police to intimidate demonstrators in Birmingham, Alabama. Beliefs, ideas, rights, etc. evolve and change over time—to understand them we don’t look at them as they are but rather as they were; and though freedom is just as real to the young as it is to the old it can be said with great certainty the old appreciate it differently. So it is with religious doctrines, i.e. they are inherited, passed on from generation to generation, their original reasons for being lost to us with the obscuring effects of time making them appear timeless.

[5] The ancient Hebrews themselves believed in multiple gods, e.g. Yahweh was the god of Judah (a warrior god) and his competitor was the god El (the great creator), the god of the Kingdom of Israel.  Two distinctive cults existed in two Hebrew kingdoms—Elohists and Yahwists—at the same time. They were not the same god. How did we end up with only Yahweh?  Yahweh triumphed when the people of Israel were taken into captivity (and the god El presumed defeated). The following three sources touch on the topic of Hebrew polytheism and polylatrism: Robert Wright, The Evolution of God (pg.115-133); Karen Armstrong, The Bible a Biography (pg. 17-18); and of course the Old Testament.

[6] Why is it men have more authority than women in every monotheistic culture? In the West, men dominated their societies and it is hardly a coincidence they fashioned father-gods in their own image; it stands to reason therefore that the world-view of a people shapes the nature of their god.  Men are in control; therefore, their god is a male who is also in control. Gods, far from being transcendent, specifically reflect their creators’ needs, wants and world-view. In his memoir Five Stones and a Sling, philologist and scholar Michael Goulder observed biblical scholars do not practice objectivity but go into their studies with certain fundamental assumptions already in mind.  On page 28 of Five Stones Goulder remarked: “My disappointment was due in large part to my inexperience.  I had supposed that scholars were dedicated to the pursuit of truth, wherever that might lead, and that new ideas would always be welcome.  This however is only partly true.  Before new ideas come, scholars have [already] reached a consensus, and their position as authorities depends upon their agreeing with that consensus.  Their teachers, whom they normally honoured, had taught them the consensus; they had written their books assuming it, and therefore, to think that they and their fellow experts had been wrong and that a new scholar, of whom they had not heard, was in a position to put them right.  But there is another problem: most scholars of the New Testament have religious loyalties [going into any study]: they want the text to be orthodox, or historical, or preachable, or relevant.  So any new interpretation which does not fulfil these conditions is not likely to be approved.”

[7] The 18th Century Scottish rationalist David Hume observed, “When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities.”  Hume was cautioning us not to assume we know something so well, so certainly or so truly no further work or understanding was required.  Hume’s biographer, Roderick Graham, asserted that though Hume championed the cause of reason he nonetheless felt relying on it alone led to intellectual complacency and blindness. Something was needed to prevent people from using reason simply to invent reality; something was needed to dissuade people from falling back on old certainties, e.g. expressly the use of induction (also known as the scientific method).

[8] Anselm of Canterbury echoed the Apostle Paul’s assertion “faith is evidence for things unseen” when he asserted belief in a thing was evidence for that thing’s evidence.  William of Ockham disagreed saying one could believe in unicorns but the belief in and of itself was completely impotent when it came to creating things.  Another example of this can be demonstrated in the subtleties of language, e.g. Angels have wings like birds whereas birds have wings. Invisible things are always like something with which we are familiar because we have no other frame of reference. By the way, Anselm was made a saint and Ockham was charged with heresy.

[9] The theologian Origen (184-253 AD) read scripture through a filter of love. Scripture to him treated un-allegorically meant nothing. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) likewise understood Scripture was not intended to be taken literally (he paid particular attention to Genesis). Andrew of St. Victor (1110-1175) tried a fully literal interpretation of Scripture.  None of these theologians, though differing in their emphasis, ever factored in the non-existence of God in to any of their conjectures.  Instead, they thought along the lines of the following contradictory dichotomy, e.g. God was a mystery but he was also a fact.