Baby and Bathwater...

The other day I reasoned that Ken Ham was afraid of the implications that the bible might not be totally true. I stand by that.

I also explained why the ten commandments were not the best of moral codes (or even in the top 5 for that matter), and I stand by that.

But I also believe in not throwing out the baby the bathwater.

Someone sent me a link to a video of Ken Ham saying that if the bible was wrong on astronomy, geology and biology then why should he trust what is says about morality and salvation.

A: Because they are separate claims made from separate positions.

I'm far from the first person to point out that not all the morality in the bible is good, infinite punishment for finite crimes is just one of the many things I dont agree with, but just because the book has many errors, does not mean it cannot also contain truths.

Kan Ham's desperation to defend the bible as absolute truth flows from his fundamental error in thinking:

"If it's partially wrong then it must be entirely wrong"

When all you can really say is:

"If it's partially wrong then it might be entirely wrong"

And while, as I said, the ten commandments are far from perfect, I dont think "thou shalt not kill" is wrong just because I dont agree with "thou shalt have no other gods before me".

Kens thinking seems to be stuck in all or nothing mode. It''s all right or it's all wrong.

I am worried that other creationists share his point of view, they seem to think that by accepting that one part of the bible may not be totally true they must throw the rest of it out too... Thus they lose the baby with the bathwater.

I'll be honest and say that I think treating the bible as an interesting book instead of the word of god would be the best possible outcome, but I dont think they need to go that far in one step, and I certainly dont think they need to assume that if the bible is wrong then the oposite of the bible must be right.

Even if the bible got creation wrong, killing is still not a good thing.

Even if mankind evolved from primate forebears, does not mean we should not be tolerant with each other.

Many christians are able to reconcile their faith without believing the bible as entirely literal truth, and many people who believe and understand the current state of science are able to get comfort from the bible without losing their understanding of the world. I dont think that christians fundamentalists can be helped however, as they are looking for a certainty and absolute truth they will not find it in more moderate churches.

But isolating christian fundamentalists will not help either, if any of them are to be saved from a life of fear induced radical misbelief then it will be because they can see another way, because moderates and atheists demonstrate that the world does not collapse or become a dark place when you allow yourself a little human doubt.

It's easy to shut the door on people with radical misguided beliefs, to stand back and assume that they cannot be salvaged. But as humans we need to be there and help them, we need to accept that they may find wisdom in strange places. But most of all, we need to show by example that there is another way that preserves the core ideal of "being good people".

For their part they have to realise that the world is uncomfortably complex, that while the simplest solution is the best the simplest available answer is not always a solution. And that being wrong on one issues does not mean you need to throw out all your values and start from scratch, only that you have to be willing to look at each belief honestly and judge it for what it is.

Interfaith

There is a word in common use today that many people should be ashamed to use:

Interfaith

We hear a lot about interfaith councils, about interfaith charities, and interfaith movements.

It is is possible the most intolerant word I think I have ever heard.


I have to be clear I am NOT attacking the good that interfaith groups do in the world - a great deal of very good charity and cross cultural communication gets done under their auspices, but the approach is flawed and in many ways biased.


I first realised this while talking to a methodist minister in the UK. We had spoken for an hour or so on issues of faith, I had interviewed him about his faith, where it began, how it had developed, it's values etc, and had consented to answer the same questions from him about my beliefs.

Near the end we were discussing other faiths and he mentioned that he was on the local interfaith council but that he thought it was a bit of a sham, I was surprised and asked him why...

"Because everyone on that council with the possible exception of the Buddhist monk thinks everyone else is going to hell."

I'll be honest his reply shocked me a little.

Over the past few years I've thought about what he said a great deal an while I think many members on interfaith councils are of more moderate views and probably expect the other members to get pretty good judgment because they were at least acting from good intentions, I do think that any movement, action or body labelled interfaith is a concern.

The reason is simple by identifying themselves as Interfaith they are citing the only or at least in their mind most important thing they have in common... their faith.

If I started a charity to feed starving children I would think a fundamental belief that children need to be fed would be more important than faith in a creator.

If I started a council to help different cultures integrate and get along I would think a respect for, and understanding of individual rights and heritages would be more important than faith in a creator.

But thats not what interfaith implies. Interfaith says "yes we want to work together to save the child, but only with other people who also believe in god"

Interfaith is NOT an inclusive term, it is an exclusive term. Like "Mens Tennis Club" is not considered inclusive because it means all men, it's considered exclusive because it specifically discounts those who are not men.

Anything that is interfaith by definition does not include nearly 1 in 5 Australians (18.7% as of 2006).

What I find most disconcerting is that interfaith groups hold contradictory views, they disagree on fundamental issues of human rights, laws, even separation of church and state. However, they are more willing to meet and seek common ground with someone who may have diametrically opposed political and civil ideas than they are to sit down with an atheist.

A secular movement by definition is one "separate to" any issues of faith. Anyone including people of faith can support a secular charity or join a secular debate on morals, laws, and rights. Because secular just means leave the dogma at the door it does not mean you must abandon your principles.

To use the example of a tennis club from above, a secular movement is the equivalent of a "Mixed Tennis Club" where gender is not checked, or filtered when you go onto the court. No-one thinks that you stop being boys and girls, you just dont assume that it is either a requirement or disqualification from playing tennis...

At this point some of you feel I am being unkind, you will be pointing out that interfaith councils are most often set up to help people of different faiths understand each other.

You're right thats the reason most interfaith councils are established.

And that the problem - Christians and Muslims are happy to meet and find out what other group believes and discover that they many many of the same values, but their understanding and tolerance often stops at other faiths.

Cultural inclusion as long as your culture meets our criteria.

Atheism itself is not a belief system, in the same way "off" is not a tv channel, but it does not mean that atheists or people of "no-faith" do not hold to one or more of the many non-faith philosophical systems; humanism, objectivism, altruism, confucianism, etc, etc. Definitely not faiths but philosophies excluded by words like "interfaith".

I have lost count of the times I have heard someone of faith claim that Atheists have no morals, or that we dont believe any anything at all. Claims actually perpetuated through their religion.

I think if christians want to learn and find out that Buddhists dont worship Buddha, and that Muslims done worship Mohammad (both claims I have heard made) they should also learn that scientists dont worship Darwin or Hawking and that Atheists dont worship satan (another claim I heave heard too often to be funny).

I believe in lots of things like family, love, shared human values, charity, human dignity and even religious freedom. I personally believe that I am responsible in this life for anything I do wrong and have only this life to make up for it.

But you wont here Atheist morality being discussed at an interfaith council.

Like holding a mens forum to discuss human rights... something/someone would be missing and the debates on abortion and body rights might not be as balanced as they could be.

Again I probably come across as a bit strident, but I have read the Qur'an (three translations of it anyway), I have read the bible (King James and new international), I have read a separate translation of the Torah, I have also read books on Buddhism and several Hindi faiths. I make a conscious effort to understand the way other people think and what is important to them.

But while "no-religion" is a larger slice of the demographic pie in this country than, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism combined (or any of the individual sects of christianity outside the catholics and Anglicans)... I dont see a proportional attempt to understand the values that make "no-religion" work.

Again I need to stress that I am NOT attacking any specific interfaith organisation, indeed most of the ones I know deal with cross cultural issues and strive to understand that not everyone is a person of faith, but they are - their world view is inherently biased towards values of faith and despite the best intentions in the world they cannot claim to be truly cross cultural as long as they do not represent a sizeable portion of the cultures in question.

The sad thing is that many people reading this article will think it just a semantic question and they would be right, so why are they not called "inter-cultural", "inter-society", "cross-philosophy", or "shared-value" councils instead?

Because they are formed by religious organisations within a religious perspective and operate from within a religious context, valuing religion and faith more than any other tenant of society. They can try to be understanding, they can try to think outside the book as it were, but until they actively try to include those people with really differing views they will be truly representative or any culture including their own.

Of Ends and Means

The battle over "faith values" has never been very amicable but every once in a while I see some things that makes shows just how nasty it can get.

Recently news broke of a "pro-family" group being sued for using the engagement photo of a gay couple without their permission in a campaign flier.

Think about that, imagine a photo from your life taken out of context edited and then used in material made public actively attacking your lifestyle.

Worse still, the group in question considers homosexuality and atheism as immoral behaviours and beliefs - However you cut it "immorality" is a personal attack, there is nothing general about it.

Think about a blonde couple getting married and then having their engagement photos used to promote the idea that blondes are stupid.

Could you take a part of someones private life who you do not know (the photo in question was taking off the internet) and use that to publicly represent a view that you know would be totally contrary to the values of that person?

Could you?

I dont think I could bring myself to invade and violate the privacy of others in such a blatant way.

To be honest however I dont think this is representative of the values of the faith in question, but more of the individuals who put together the pamphlet. It's just ironic that someone working for a cause that claims the moral high ground should stoop to theft (they took a professionally taken photo without attempting to pay rights or royalties), deception (the photo was edited to change it's setting), and lies (the pamphlet implied that homosexual relationships were preferred by the candidate it was attacking) in order to prove their point.

For the record I would be just as upset if anyone ran an anti-faith campaign using the same tactics.

As I said, the actions fo these people are not representative of faith but they are representative of politics where artificially stimulated emotional reactions are more important than verifiable facts and rational arguments.

The fact that anyone would be swayed by such a document just goes to show that some people are only looking for an excuse to believe a certain way, not a reason to do so. These ends cannot justify the means for a christian group or any other group that grasps the morality of the golden rule.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

It's not perfect and it's not easy, but it's a good place to start.

Early memories of an atheist

When I was a child my school had friday morning "scripture" and this, more than anything, is where I realised that I did not accept the claim of god.

I felt sorry then, and still do, for the woman who came in to teach all those young children about her  beliefs. A large hall full of children, sitting cross legged, listening and trying to get their collective heads around the concept of orignal sin.

My first uncomfortable question was "Why, if god knew everything, he did not know that Eve and Adam were going to eat the apple?"

And even as a child, the question of free will seemed intractable. I felt I could not have free will if god made me and knew exactly everything I was ever going to do... If the path of my life was laid out before I was born could any decision I ever made be truly mine?

The poor scripture lady was stuck, I was asking questions about god and faith far outside the "how much does god love me?" queries she was used to answering from children. The fumbled answers she gave all came back to the bible, it was the source of all knowledge of god.

Q: But how do we know the bible is true?
A: Everyone knows god in their heart.

Q: Do people find the knowledge of god without the bible telling them about it?
A: ...

At that point the scripture lady told me to pray for the answers.

My concerns are more sophisticated now, as are the responses, but I still find the answers inadequate.

When I was young, god, the bible, and the church simply did not make any sense, and no-one was able to address my concerns. The whole idea of god just left me asking why? What was his purpose? What did god want to get out of it that he could not get another way that would hurt (us) less?

The lack of a decent response led to my second problem with faith - None of the adults who tried to talk to me about faith were able to adress my concerns. Had these people committed to a belief without applying any critical analysis to it?

I rapidly lost respect for the beliefs of those adults with strong faith and no reason.

Both my mother and father had been brought up in nominally religious households, but religion was not part of my home life and we did not attend church.

My parents wanted me to find my own way and to that end they made me attend the scripture lessons at school for several years so I could make my choice with some perspective. When I asked my parents to write a letter to the school exempting me from scripture studies, the teachers complied but did not take my choice seriously.

It is strange, a child of any age able to articulate a choice of faith has the right to choose, however a child of any age that is able to articulate a rejection of the available faiths on offer is always subject to challenge.

Even in Australia where religion is not a strong influence in society, a child who says they dont accept god gets a wide range of negative reactions. From the occasional smack on the head from the elderly for being "stupid" to bullying and shunning from other children I met few people in my youth who even accepted that it was my choice to make.

Personal beliefs always get respected no matter how bizarre, but a lack of belief, no matter how rationally arrived at is not subject to the same courtesy.

While some adults were obviously unhappy with me when I said I did not believe in god, others with less mainstream beliefs, assumed that the gates were open to explain their own faith to me. I may as well have had a sign around me neck that "Proselytise me!".

I was told about the nature spirits that guided some people, the astral plain others travelled on, even the enlightenment some claimed from meditating with monks in asia. Everyone seemed to think that if I could just see how cool their faith was, that I'd jump in and get me some.

Added to my parents open lack of intellectual restriction led to a pretty broad education on religion, and now in my later years I find I know things about religions that many practicing theists do (however I do NOT claim any theological standing). The diversity and incompatibility of the different faiths I was exposed to, however, made me realize that some of them had to be wrong. There was just too many conflicting claims, and if some of them could be wrong, maybe they could all be wrong.

Most of the claims shared many common elements, but people often included the more extraordinary claims in an attempt to pique my interest. This approach universally backfired because often only a cursory investigation was required to find the evidence insufficient or totally lacking.

The best example of that was someone telling me that men had one less rib because god took a rib from Adam to make Eve.... No, not true. Humans have 24 ribs each. Male or Female, makes no difference. Some individuals have 1 pair of ribs less, but it's not a male or female specific variation. You can find this in almost any book on human anatomy even the really simple ones written for kids - yet you'd be surprised how many adults today accept that claim without even checking it once.

Disrespect and wild claims were nothing, however, compared to the condescension that atheists are often subjected to.

That look you see when someone of faith fixes you with a faint smile, a misty look in their eyes, and a sad slow nod. Then they tell you that you "dont understand", that you are "denying yourself", or worst of all, ignoring the "god shaped hole in your heart".

Atheists dont get the moral high ground on this issue, both sides look down on the other wishing they could "just let themselves understand" but it's a little soul crushing for a child to have their perspective dismissed out of hand. If a child disagrees with your beliefs, you need to be ready to discuss them openly and honestly - and that includes accepting that you may be wrong on some if not all of your positions.

In my adult life I have been very lucky in making friends who not only accept my lack of faith, but also have a sense of humility about their own.

Today atheism has become part fo the mainstream debate, I started this blog because I wanted to add another voice to the groundswell of rationalists. At leasts when an adult expresses their faith to a child today I would hope they could do so rationally and consistently, something that was sadly lacking when I was a child.